NVME (m.2) / RAM Drive / RAID / SATA III SSD Game Load Time Comparisons

Discussion in 'SSDs & Data Storage' started by arestavo, Sep 28, 2016.

  1. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Glad that you found the data useful!
     
  2. enzolt

    enzolt [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,100
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Thank you OP. Saved me a ton of money!


    Question, is voltage drift for <20nm TLC NAND already addressed with these TLC SSD's?

    My information might be outdated. I still opt for the MLC for endurance.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2016
  3. drescherjm

    drescherjm [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,634
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    The Samsung 850 is not <20nm. It is 3D NAND on a ~40nm process.
     
  4. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Glad you found the info helpful!

    Sorry, but I don't have any info about voltage drift.
     
  5. Zamboni

    Zamboni [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,156
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Excellent work. I've built a few high-end systems recently and have felt something was off somewhere. They benchmarked beautifully, but we just weren't feeling that speed in the apps and these flat load times look to be part of that.
     
    N4CR and Speedeu4ia like this.
  6. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Thank you!

    Yes I noticed it as well which is why I did some digging and then wrote this up. It's marketing for the most part, at least until the games (and file system?) can support these rediculously fast drives.

    Yet that's the price for being early adopters on the bleeding edge, isn't it?
     
    Speedeu4ia likes this.
  7. Palladium@SG

    Palladium@SG Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    284
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2015
    Which is why I was never interested in buying NVMe, because current gen SATA SSDs are already fast enough that responsiveness in most apps is limited purely by the UI and the underlying programming. I tested a pure RAMdisk on early 00s era games and that can't even load those instantly or faster than from a standard SSD.
     
    N4CR and Speedeu4ia like this.
  8. prava

    prava [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,316
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    Wait, so you didn't even install the games in the different drives you were using? You simply moved stuff along? This makes absolutely 0 sense. None whatsoever if you want to see what is going on.
     
  9. ChoGGi

    ChoGGi Gawd

    Messages:
    979
    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    He installed them in the sense that he copied the files to the drive being tested, then he used junction points, so steam (and the game) thought it was still in the original folder.
     
  10. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    And I also moved steam and Fallout 4 completely and tested, as per my earlier post near the end of page 1.

    It made zero difference.

    Edit: just for you -

    Fallout 4 1080P (no mods) (Steam + FO4 moved)
    Used a save game from one hour thirty minutes into the game. (1920X1080 and all game settings manually set to max)
    Timer started when press Enter to Confirm (load) was pressed and stopped when the game loaded in.

    Tested with steam install + FO4 moved (no other common folder steam games). Verified that other games could not be opened by trying to open one.

    Order of testing: NVME, SSD, RAM, RAID. RAM drive only enabled for RAM drive test.

    8 Hard Disk RAID 6 Array (WD Black 5TB 128MB Cache 7200RPM drives) (18.1TB of 27.2TB free)
    30.25
    23.34
    21.74

    512GB 950 Pro NVME in PCIE 3.0 X4 slot (with passive heatsink) (boot drive, ~135GB free)
    7.54
    7.26
    6.9

    512GB 850 Evo (empty except for Steam + FO4)
    7.33
    6.80
    6.95

    48GB RAM drive (3200MHz DDR4 16-18-18-32)
    7.06
    6.76
    6.89



    Here's my original test for comparison:

    Fallout 4 1080P (no mods)
    Used a save game from one hour thirty minutes into the game. (1920X1080 and all game settings manually set to max)
    Timer started when press Enter to Confirm (load) was pressed and stopped when the game loaded in.

    8 Hard Disk RAID 6 Array (WD Black 5TB 128MB Cache 7200RPM drives) (18.1TB of 27.2TB free)
    29.11
    22.61
    22.91

    512GB 950 Pro NVME in PCIE 3.0 X4 slot (with passive heatsink) (boot drive, ~75GB free)
    7.65
    7.01
    6.68

    512GB 850 Evo (empty except for FO4)
    7.49
    6.81
    6.67

    42GB RAM drive (3200MHz DDR4 16-18-18-32)
    6.9
    6.54
    6.63
     
    PliotronX likes this.
  11. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,814
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Strange to see DA:I tied HDD and SSD load times. Even if it was raid. When I first played the game loading times was at least 10 times longer from a WD Black series HDD than from a 840EVO.
     
  12. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Just the save game load time? Because that's what I tested, and never how long the game takes to load from opening the game up to getting in game. Too many arbitrary splash screens, and an increased error in times.
     
  13. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,814
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Yes the game load time from the main menu. Getting trough the splash screens was not significantly different.
     
  14. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Well, my RAID 6 is very fast (_some_ throughput tests show that it is faster than my NVME drive) for load times except in Fallout 4 - which is probaby because there are so many files to load and seek times play a significant role.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2016
  15. xSneak

    xSneak Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    311
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Thanks for the report. What is the difference in time when verifying files? such as when you verify the integrity of game cache on steam, verify files on a large torrent, or run sfc /scannow on windows

    I had to scan a 360GB torrent before I could upload it, and it took forever to do it with my ssd.
     
  16. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Thanks!

    I can tell you that scanning a larger (not as bad as 300GB) torrent takes awhile even on my RAID 6. Never had the d/l path on an NVME though.

    That might be something that I'll check on later - for now, I'm just going to enjoy actually playing some games :jimlad:

    Edit: I did a quick sfc /scannow on my OS drive (the NVME) and it took 5 minutes and 44 seconds. I'm not sure if it scans just the Windows files or the entire drive. 286GB used and 189GB free. Perhaps you can measure your time with your SSD?
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016
  17. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,326
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    I think SSDs put a lot of the loading for games bottleneck back on the CPU. I've been told most games load on a single thread.
     
  18. xSneak

    xSneak Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    311
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    With sfc /scannow on a 2TB samsung evo : (Windows 10 Pro x64)
    5m 30s
    5m 35s

    Verify Integrity of Game Cache (Steam)
    1m 10s company of heroes 2
    1m 25s coh2

    1m 3s Dying light (No dlc)
    1m 2s Dying light
    59s Dying light
     
  19. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
  20. DouglasteR

    DouglasteR Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    442
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
  21. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    I'm not much for bumping, but this should be available up top for everyone looking to maximize gaming performance on a buget.
     
    PliotronX likes this.
  22. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Bump for those Black Friday shoppers looking to score some deals!
     
    PliotronX likes this.
  23. ManofGod

    ManofGod [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,415
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    What about load times for games with a single 1TB hard drive when compared to a 1 TB Sandisk SSD? Mind you, I am sure it is faster but, by how much?
     
  24. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Not exactly what you asked for, but it should give you an idea:



    Fallout 4 with its plethora of small files shows how much a regular HDD suffers when compared to a SSD. I'd wager that a fairly modded Skyrim also suffers from long load times with a standard HDD as well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2016
  25. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Getting this back to the first couple of pages for a bit longer.
     
  26. ManofGod

    ManofGod [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,415
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    I have 2 x 1TB SSD's and 2 x 1TB Harddrives. I place all my extra stuff like downloads on one hard drive and lots of my never or rarely played Steam games on my other hard drive. I have Windows Store games, some steam games, all my Origin and Uplay games on both of my SSD's and they make a significant difference in load times. (Two extreme examples is Dragon Age: Inquisition and Batman: Arkham Knight.)
     
  27. Cobra

    Cobra 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,627
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2000
    I was originally thinking of doing a 1TB Samsung 960 EVO with a 4TB spinner for storage (using steam mover to move current games to the SSD for playing and back to the spinner for storage) but based on this I think maybe instead I'll buy two Crucial MX300 2TB drives and stripe them.

    Additional benefit: My current setup is a 512GB 840 Pro and a 4TB spinner running Win 10 with my documents, downloads, pics and music libraries on the spinner and even though they supposedly issued a patch to fix it every 4th boot or so it still has the split drive issue where none of my apps will load for a really long time. With the raid setup I won't have to split my data so it should get rid of this issue permanently.
     
  28. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Back up to the top for a little while.
     
  29. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Bump to the top for those who feel that their SATA III SSDs aren't fast enough, or for those that think that their NVME drives are too slow.
     
    Speedeu4ia, N4CR and euskalzabe like this.
  30. daglesj

    daglesj [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,576
    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    I think as mentioned already, the issue lays with NTFS probably. We need a more efficient file system that takes into account the tech improvements and requirements 25 years later.

    I find it infuriating that I have invested in some of the best tech money can buy and push huge chunks of data with stunning speeds yet transferring 10GB of small files can still take forever.

    As an aside I moved over to a NVMe drive last week. A PM961. I can't tell the difference over the Sandisk Extreme Pro SATA SSD it replaced.
     
  31. arestavo

    arestavo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,344
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    I actually formatted an Intel 730 480GB drive with REFS, NTFS's successor (but not bootable yet), and I didn't see any decrease in load times. This leads me to believe that it isn't necessarily a file system bottleneck - or to put it another way, it isn't the current bottleneck for game load times.
     
    Speedeu4ia likes this.
  32. daglesj

    daglesj [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,576
    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Yeah I've seen some reports and benchmarks for REFS and in most cases its a bit slower than NTFS but it's doing a different job to NTFS in a way. We need a disk filesystem that can better handle small file transfers as well as the big ones.

    I bet 25 years ago they didn't imagine software would be full of thousands of tiny kb files amounting to GB's in volume.
     
    Speedeu4ia likes this.
  33. Gulvan

    Gulvan [H]Lite

    Messages:
    124
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Thanks for this post. I hav seen a few vids on the subject but nice seeing exactly the difference. It'll be good evidence for a friend who is still on hdd
     
  34. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,663
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    This shows that games are not bottlenecked by fast storage, i.e. anything above magnetic drive.

    I just bought a 960 Pro 512GB but now I am tempted to return it as it is still in the box and get a bigger sata iii drive instead. I just am having a hard time finding out who really benefits from nvme in the consumer sector. I do tons of video encoding etc... but even then I am not sure there is a discernable difference. For a long time I ran an Intel 750 that blew up and I got the RMA back and sold it to a member on the forums since it was a brand new RMA drive. Went back to my Crucial M4 256 for OS and Kingston DataCenter 1 TB ssd for games storage.
     
  35. phantommaggot

    phantommaggot [H]Lite

    Messages:
    92
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2014
    Man, I got teased.
    I was really hoping to see raid sata III SSDs.
    Raid 850 evos must be pretty quick too.
    Still, Thanks and Nice work.
     
  36. Nebulous

    Nebulous [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,216
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Using a PNY CS2030 NVMe M2 as my main OS/proggies drive and got a pair of WD Red Nas 3TB drives in Raid-0 for my games.Load times on both OS and games show very little difference. Only difference I notice is when BF1/BF4 in Origin is loading it's slow-ass browser. Aside of that I don't see any difference between the two. My platters do me fine in games.

    Now if i had the extra disposable income, i would snag up a pair of the largest SSD's I can and raid them for my games.

    Thanks arestavo for all your hard work !
     
    arestavo likes this.
  37. silk186

    silk186 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,374
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Useful post
     
    arestavo likes this.
  38. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    562
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    This was a very useful read just before Black Friday 2017!
     
    arestavo likes this.
  39. silk186

    silk186 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,374
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Looking at prices, it would seem that an Intel 600p 1TB M.2 NVMe PCIe would be a good compromise.
    M.2 drives are nice because they don't take any space or need any cables.
     
  40. Dermen

    Dermen Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    I've been thinking about getting an m.2 nvme drive, but I guess I'll wait since I still have space on my Sata3 SSD.