What games require an NVMe SSD?

[Kepalajamuran]

Now that NVMe SSD has reached read-write speed of 12GBps, I wonder if games are able to utilize the speed.

I have tested installing some games on a gen4 SSD, and with HWInfo to monitor the read speed, I get the following results:

• Shadow of Tomb Raider: peak read speed of 117MBps.
• Far Cry 5: 377MBps
• Dark Souls 2, RIDE 4, etc 200~MBps.

I'm sorry because I only have old games. But with that data, I conclude that at least for now a SATA SSD is more than enough for games.

The problem is, newer games have shown to require SSD as install drive, like Alan Wake 2, Lords of The Fallen, and Phantom Legacy. Now I want to know what is the peak read speed with those games. Do they really need an ultra fast SSD?

[will0hlep]

Your games arn't really new enough to make any real conclusions about the current state of affairs.

 

However, as gaming is mostly random (meaning non sequential) reads, and new NVMe drives arn't actually that fast at random reads cause the limiting factor is the nand flash chips and not the PCIe interface, any SSD will be almost as good (for gaming) as any other right now.

[RevGAM]

8 minutes ago, Kepalajamuran said:

Now that NVMe SSD has reached read-write speed of 12GBps, I wonder if games are able to utilize the speed.

I have tested installing some games on a gen4 SSD, and with HWInfo to monitor the read speed, I get the following results:

• Shadow of Tomb Raider: peak read speed of 117MBps.
• Far Cry 5: 377MBps
• Dark Souls 2, RIDE 4, etc 200~MBps.

I'm sorry because I only have old games. But with that data, I conclude that at least for now a SATA SSD is more than enough for games.

The problem is, newer games have shown to require SSD as install drive, like Alan Wake 2, Lords of The Fallen, and Phantom Legacy. Now I want to know what is the peak read speed with those games. Do they really need an ultra fast SSD?

My understanding is that for most games you don't need the fastest SSD. NVMe speeds things up but current SSDs are so fast that the benefit is only observed by our slow senses when doing an extended task,  such as reading and writing huge files, such as for audio and visual work.  If you regularly work with large files, then you want to not just have really fast speeds but also have a large enough DRAM cache or it'll bottleneck, which is the difference between the Western Digital SN700 and the SN850X. 

[RONOTHAN##]

Most games I'm aware of that require SSDs are random performance limited. This might change if DirectStorage takes over, though that will take a few years. These Gen 4 and Gen 5 SSDs therefore only really make sense for productivity when they can be utilized, since games will run just fine on standard drives. 

[RevGAM]

2 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Most games I'm aware of that require SSDs are random performance limited. This might change if DirectStorage takes over, though that will take a few years. These Gen 4 and Gen 5 SSDs therefore only really make sense for productivity when they can be utilized, since games will run just fine on standard drives. 

Which is why the best gen 3 and SATA SSDs are also fine for many gamers, right?

[RevGAM]

4 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Most games I'm aware of that require SSDs are random performance limited. This might change if DirectStorage takes over, though that will take a few years. These Gen 4 and Gen 5 SSDs therefore only really make sense for productivity when they can be utilized, since games will run just fine on standard drives. 

I also suppose that an OS doesn't need the fastest, either. 

 

In what scenarios are non-NVMe SSDs better?

[Poinkachu]

7 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

Which is why the best gen 3 and SATA SSDs are also fine for many gamers, right?

6 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

I also suppose that an OS doesn't need the fastest, either. 

 

In what scenarios are non-NVMe SSDs better?

 

Well, as I have experienced both running games & OS on SATA SSD & then upgrading to NVME Gen 3 then to Gen 4

 

They did save me some miliseconds to 1 second in loading and boot time. The SATA to Gen 3 i mean, Gen 3 to Gen 4... not so much.

Not too sure of the exact number, I don't fancy holding a stopwatch each time my game loads or my pc boots xD

[will0hlep]

5 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

I also suppose that an OS doesn't need the fastest, either.

OSs and many programs are built to start up with sequentual reads and therefore can take advantage of NVMe drives on boot. But the difference isn't as large as you'd think.

 

5 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

In what scenarios are non-NVMe SSDs better?

7 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

Which is why the best gen 3 and SATA SSDs are also fine for many gamers, right?

SATA SSDs are only better if they are cheaper, no point paying more for less performance.

[RONOTHAN##]

Just now, RevGAM said:

I also suppose that an OS doesn't need the fastest, either. 

 

In what scenarios are non-NVMe SSDs better?

I wouldn't necessarily say non-NVMe SSDs are ever better, it's more just they're adequate, and for most anything the standard user does (aside from an OS) spinning rust is still fine. They're only just starting to become obsolete. As for SATA drives, for most instances a half decent SATA SSD is plenty, and personally I find them more convenient, though with how they've been priced recently they haven't really made sense to buy for a few years now. 

 

5 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

Which is why the best gen 3 and SATA SSDs are also fine for many gamers, right?

Yeah, they're still fine. Only reason my system is on Gen 4 drives is because at the time of purchase they were cheaper than the comparable Gen 3 or SATA offerings. I have still yet to tell a difference between a 980 Pro and a 850 Evo without pulling out CrystalDiskMark or a stop watch, so it's just not something I'd actively care about getting faster. 

[Jon-Slow]

Require? pretty much none. There are some that slightly benefit from having an NVMe like Alan Wake 2 that pushes the read speeds a little more than other games when you enter the "mind place". Other games could have some load time advantages by like 1 or 2 seconds with some ifs and buts. This is going to supposedly change when direct storage is properly implemented in games but no need to make purchasing decisions based on that.

 

Even on PS5 games aren't properly using the SSD, I wish they did becuase the ones that do really make a difference in removing loading screens like in Demon Souls, Spider Man 2, GOWR, Ratchet and Clank.

[BobVonBob]

To my knowledge, there is not yet a game that requires an NVMe SSD for a good experience, but that day is coming, and I don't think it's far off. Alan Wake 2 is probably the closest so far. It can have some pop-in even on SATA SSDs, and if given the leeway it can pull up to 2.7 GB/s. [https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/pc-gaming/alan-wake-2-punishes-your-ssd-at-27-gbs]

 

On the bright side, NVMe SSDs have basically caught up to SATA SSDs in cost. In my opinion lack of PCIe bandwidth or m.2 slots are the only compelling reasons to use SATA drives now.

[Jon-Slow]

8 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

On the bright side, NVMe SSDs have basically caught up to SATA SSDs in cost. In my opinion lack of PCIe bandwidth or m.2 slots are the only compelling reasons to use SATA drives now.

Yeah, pretty much this. right now the only reason to buy a SATA SSD is if you want to save up your PCIe slots and the theoratical bandwidth. Or if you really need to save 20 bucks

[Doobeedoo]

Some I can think of Forza Motorsport '23, Alan Wake 2, Starfield, Starcitizen. There are some more but yeah makes sense and good new games require it. Just need DirectStorage to be default across the board.

[RevGAM]

38 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

I wouldn't necessarily say non-NVMe SSDs are ever better, it's more just they're adequate, and for most anything the standard user does (aside from an OS) spinning rust is still fine. They're only just starting to become obsolete. As for SATA drives, for most instances a half decent SATA SSD is plenty, and personally I find them more convenient, though with how they've been priced recently they haven't really made sense to buy for a few years now. 

 

Yeah, they're still fine. Only reason my system is on Gen 4 drives is because at the time of purchase they were cheaper than the comparable Gen 3 or SATA offerings. I have still yet to tell a difference between a 980 Pro and a 850 Evo without pulling out CrystalDiskMark or a stop watch, so it's just not something I'd actively care about getting faster. 

Yeah, I ran into the same problem - suddenly SATA SSDs are about the same price as M.2s. Now, I've just bought my 4th M.2, so my mobo is full and I'll have to start buying SATA. Oh well! Are they any more stable for long-term data storage than M.2s when they're disconnected?

[RevGAM]

1 hour ago, Kepalajamuran said:

Now that NVMe SSD has reached read-write speed of 12GBps, I wonder if games are able to utilize the speed.

I have tested installing some games on a gen4 SSD, and with HWInfo to monitor the read speed, I get the following results:

• Shadow of Tomb Raider: peak read speed of 117MBps.
• Far Cry 5: 377MBps
• Dark Souls 2, RIDE 4, etc 200~MBps.

I'm sorry because I only have old games. But with that data, I conclude that at least for now a SATA SSD is more than enough for games.

The problem is, newer games have shown to require SSD as install drive, like Alan Wake 2, Lords of The Fallen, and Phantom Legacy. Now I want to know what is the peak read speed with those games. Do they really need an ultra fast SSD?

Did we answer your questions, Fungus Head?

 

(That's what Kepala jamuran basically means.)

[Alex Atkin UK]

49 minutes ago, Jon-Slow said:

Even on PS5 games aren't properly using the SSD, I wish they did becuase the ones that do really make a difference in removing loading screens like in Demon Souls, Spider Man 2, GOWR, Ratchet and Clank.

It stands to reason though, any game which might have a PC port is not going to make as good use out of it as it then makes the PC version more of a PITA.

 

Basically once they really want to optimise for the consoles, we'll see PC ports requiring DirectStorage and sucking on SATA.

Ratchet & Clank portals really highlight this on the PC version if you have it installed on a SATA drive.  It still works, but it kinda ruins the experience.  If/when they port Spiderman 2 I think that's going to require DirectStorage and NVME. 

 

Although to be fair on consoles, the reason its a big deal is they have so much less RAM than PC and it allows them to create games which otherwise would not work with so little memory.

[RevGAM]

20 hours ago, Kepalajamuran said:

Now that NVMe SSD has reached read-write speed of 12GBps, I wonder if games are able to utilize the speed.

I have tested installing some games on a gen4 SSD, and with HWInfo to monitor the read speed, I get the following results:

• Shadow of Tomb Raider: peak read speed of 117MBps.
• Far Cry 5: 377MBps
• Dark Souls 2, RIDE 4, etc 200~MBps.

I'm sorry because I only have old games. But with that data, I conclude that at least for now a SATA SSD is more than enough for games.

The problem is, newer games have shown to require SSD as install drive, like Alan Wake 2, Lords of The Fallen, and Phantom Legacy. Now I want to know what is the peak read speed with those games. Do they really need an ultra fast SSD?

Bagaimana, teman? Apakah sudah dapat jawabannya?

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

Starfield is the most obvious example that is supposed to be virtually unplayable on an HDD.

 

This is, in part, due to the sheer amount of loading screens and fast travelling which are egregious enough on a fast SSD.