Jump to content

Sequential/Random Reading for games?

WraithSpectres
 Share
Posted

So I don't really know how to ask these, but I have a few questions. I am wanting the best reads for game loading times. I am debating on a 1TB 3.5" Firecuda or a 500GB Velociraptor.

 

Yes I know Velociraptors are 6 years old (2012), but that means nothing to me (neither does the 500GB difference). Checking benchmarks, the Velociraptor has faster speeds of reading Sequentially and Randomly than the Firecuda. My worry is the HDD portion of the Firecuda, 8GB of the SSHD cache isn't going to hold an entire game these days. This primary benchmark >>here<< shows the the Velociraptor being faster, but I am unsure which is worth it for game loading times. I already own a Firecuda, but I am wondering if a Velociraptor would yield faster loading. I notice that not all my games on the Firecuda are utilizing the SSD cache ever after multiple boots of the game, there's simply too much to fit into 8GB of cache.

 

So my questions/TL;DR:

  1. Talking about the Firecuda HDD portion, is it slower than a Velociraptor, and would this be the reason Velociraptor wins (apparently)?
  2. Does the Velociraptor having faster reads mean it will load a game faster?
  3. Which would you buy? The SSHD (with 8GB being the fast part) or the Velociraptor (with the entire drive being the fast part ((at least in reads)))?
Link to comment
https://linustechtips.com/topic/917018-sequentialrandom-reading-for-games/
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
15 minutes ago, WraithSpectres said:

So I don't really know how to ask these, but I have a few questions. I am wanting the best reads for game loading times. I am debating on a 1TB 3.5" Firecuda or a 500GB Velociraptor.

 

Yes I know Velociraptors are 6 years old (2012), but that means nothing to me (neither does the 500GB difference). Checking benchmarks, the Velociraptor has faster speeds of reading Sequentially and Randomly than the Firecuda. My worry is the HDD portion of the Firecuda, 8GB of the SSHD cache isn't going to hold an entire game these days. This primary benchmark >>here<< shows the the Velociraptor being faster, but I am unsure which is worth it for game loading times. I already own a Firecuda, but I am wondering if a Velociraptor would yield faster loading. I notice that not all my games on the Firecuda are utilizing the SSD cache ever after multiple boots of the game, there's simply too much to fit into 8GB of cache.

 

So my questions/TL;DR:

  1. Talking about the Firecuda HDD portion, is it slower than a Velociraptor, and would this be the reason Velociraptor wins (apparently)?
  2. Does the Velociraptor having faster reads mean it will load a game faster?
  3. Which would you buy? The SSHD (with 8GB being the fast part) or the Velociraptor (with the entire drive being the fast part ((at least in reads)))?

Are you buying the SSD new?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
11 minutes ago, Supportsneedlove said:

Are you buying the SSD new?

Those are HDDs

 

---

 

To OP, if you want the fastest times, just get an SSD.  SATA though, not NVMe... well, you could go NVMe but it won't really give any measurable benefit over the SATA one in games.

 

That is unless there's a budget restriction that would prevent this...

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author
2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Those are HDDs

 

---

 

To OP, if you want the fastest times, just get an SSD.  SATA though, not NVMe... well, you could go NVMe but it won't really give any measurable benefit over the SATA one in games.

 

That is unless there's a budget restriction that would prevent this...

I already have an SSD (480GB) as my main drive. I am going to have a secondary HDD/SSHD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
Just now, WraithSpectres said:

I already have an SSD (480GB) as my main drive. I am going to have a secondary HDD/SSHD.

My concern with buying a HDD/SSHD of that size (500 GB - 1 TB) is it's not really the sweet spot for space per dollar.  Most 1 TB drives are around $60 - $80 here, but I currently see a 4 TB for $110, so that's a pretty good improvement.

 

If you want the space, I'd consider going larger.  Not significantly larger than you currently need since the space always gets cheaper over time and thus "investing" in a big one doesn't make sense, but at least big enough that it's "optimum".

 

Or, if you really want speed, just use your current SSD and/or add another one when budget allows.  That will be noticeably faster than any HDD in games, and the prices are better now than they have been as far as I can remember.

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author
2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

My concern with buying a HDD/SSHD of that size (500 GB - 1 TB) is it's not really the sweet spot for space per dollar.  Most 1 TB drives are around $60 - $80 here, but I currently see a 4 TB for $110, so that's a pretty good improvement.

 

If you want the space, I'd consider going larger.  Not significantly larger than you currently need since the space always gets cheaper over time and thus "investing" in a big one doesn't make sense, but at least big enough that it's "optimum".

 

Or, if you really want speed, just use your current SSD and/or add another one when budget allows.  That will be noticeably faster than any HDD in games, and the prices are better now than they have been as far as I can remember.

The space doesn't matter to me, it is the reading of the HDD's. I am wondering which is better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
Just now, WraithSpectres said:

The space doesn't matter to me, it is the reading of the HDD's. I am wondering which is better.

Well the SSHD is going to be much better when you're reading from the cache, but as you pointed out, it's only 8 GB which really doesn't hold much.  If you have a big game, or you switch which game you're playing frequently, I wouldn't place much value on having that tiny SSD cache portion.  Just go for the faster drive overall.

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author
2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well the SSHD is going to be much better when you're reading from the cache, but as you pointed out, it's only 8 GB which really doesn't hold much.  If you have a big game, or you switch which game you're playing frequently, I wouldn't place much value on having that tiny SSD cache portion.  Just go for the faster drive overall.

Thats the second question, is the Velociraptor actually faster than the SSHD?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
2 minutes ago, WraithSpectres said:

Thats the second question, is the Velociraptor actually faster than the SSHD?

Checking here they seem to trade blows, but the Velocipartor is consistently better in reads, while the Firecuda is consistently better in writes, so I suppose for your usecase (loading games), the Velociraptor makes more sense.  http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/WD-VelociRaptor-500GB-vs-Seagate-FireCuda-SSHD-1TB-2016/m1434vs3902

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
2 minutes ago, Supportsneedlove said:

Have you ever heard of a comsumer grade SSD slower than a harddrive?

Yes actually, in sequential speeds at least

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author
3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Checking here they seem to trade blows, but the Velocipartor is consistently better in reads, while the Firecuda is consistently better in writes, so I suppose for your usecase (loading games), the Velociraptor makes more sense.  http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/WD-VelociRaptor-500GB-vs-Seagate-FireCuda-SSHD-1TB-2016/m1434vs3902

Do you have any other site I could benchmark these two drives for further research?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
Just now, WraithSpectres said:

Do you have any other site I could benchmark these two drives for further research?

Not really actually... usually there are a few places you can go to for these kinds of tests but I'm not getting anything on both of these.

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author
1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Not really actually... usually there are a few places you can go to for these kinds of tests but I'm not getting anything on both of these.

Thank you for your help. I'll probably go with the Velociraptor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing Storage Devices

×