Same here. I realized this as I was watching, then I thought someone had the same thought as me, so I scrolled through the comments and here you are! Lol
Putting this for anyone that doesn't know, if you get anything besides M.2 such as PCI E 16, make sure your CPU has enough lanes available, you can do this by just looking up "how many PCI e lanes does [blank] CPU have?". If it has for example 8 lanes still available and you are using PCI E 16, only 8 of those lanes will distribute bandwidth to it.
@@ODSTxGundam Not really. Those marketed speeds are sequential but loading times are always random. Plus windows or games don't really use that much bandwidth. So in these cases NVMe just has more headroom. This is why NVMe has small rel life improvement over SATA. Most people will be happy on SATA. Only the people who transfer big files from one partition to another more often, will need NVMe.
Yes but when you think of an M.2 in this context, you would assume an M.2 NVMe ssd because would other component would you put in an ssd that is capable of storage and booting up an operating system.
Makes me think somethings holding load times back on the m2. Game engines, windows, motherboards, no idea, but going from 500 speed ssd to a 7000 speed m2 and you only gain 1-4%? Seems off.
@@4gbmeans4gb61 that's because the games on PC rn can't take full advantage of a fast nvme ssd you have to wait until games start to implement direct storage, there is only 1 game that actually uses direct storage on PC, but I'm unaware if they have released it yet, the game in question is forespoken, there is a upcoming TW3 update which will also have support for direct storage.
@@4gbmeans4gb61 the real advantage of nvme is how small they are. it's next level stuff and i am interested in how smaller computer components may get in the future
2:02 - honestly I wouldn't have believed it if there wasn't that player, it's impossible in rust, being afk without shelter and no one trying to kill you
Hi there. Ideally what you should have done here, was run each loading time test on each device multiple times & taken the average. Reason being is that the SSHD utilises solid state caching, giving it much higher speed than the standard HDD. This caching only really comes into effect however, if data is being loaded to it, so it can then be re-read from the solid state cache, instead of from the spinning disc. Once the data is loaded onto the solid state cache & reloaded, it won't be far behind the SSD. Additionally, SSHDs tend to feature a learning tech that predicts what data to keep stored in the cache & what to flush. The more something is loaded into & read from the cache, the more likely the drive will learn to keep it in there for longer, making it load faster. I see HDD technology not being able to keep up for much longer, as price/capacity is its ONLY major selling point right now & even that is being eaten into by SSHDs having similar capacities for not much more cost & SSDs are gradually coming down in price, becoming more & more affordable too. Cheers.
in the near future, yes. Current price, 40GB/$ for a 4TB HDD, 2GB/$ for a 1TB SSD. But when studying the price history of SSD and HDD, you'll notice that one day the price per GB will be around the same in about 10 years time, not considering any production breakthrough on NAND production.
It is true that 99% of the software simply isn't optimized to benefit from the massive throughput of the M.2 drives (>6x read/write compared to a SATA SSD). So much so that in rare cases I've observed my "970 Evo Plus" M.2 to even be fractionally slower at load times than my 860 Evo SATA SSD. Windows Boot up and shutdown times though feel faster on an M.2.
It isn't just that, but also sometimes hardware constraints, especially such as a CPU. Your computer also has to be able to open and process all those packages fast enough. If you don't have a great CPU, it'll slow it all down.
You can't optimize further if no stuff is read from disk. A faster HD only affects loading stuff from disk. If reading from disk takes 1 sec, and rendering afterwards by cpu takes 30 seconds then you wont get faster than 30 seconds by putting a faster disk. The RAM is much faster than the hard drive. So once everything is loaded to RAM you can only get more performance by buying faster cpu / ram or optimize your cpu bound code.
The firecuda becomes faster when you load the same game a couple of times. I have both the 970 evo and the evo pro nvme, also firecuda and barracuda. The pro model reads almost twice as fast as the evo model, even if the spec says they should be close. 1800 read and 1700 write on the evo, 3500 and 2700 on the pro.
One thing I would have added, was a defragmentation (and disk file optimization) for SSHD and HDD, because it can speed up a lot; for example in GTA V loads on a core i5 4690, 16gb ddr3, rx480 on a seagate barracuda 2tb, in around 45s, considering that I have bottlenecks on hardware, not storage.
Brother you are right we have to defragment HDD and SSHD after some time(Week/month) defragment helps to arrange files in sequence in media but there is issue because after 4 or 5 years hard drive have some bad sectors and also HDD generate overheat if we transfer a large file or playing heavy game such GTA 5, shadow of tomb raider Edit : sorry for my poor language
@@gaganstechnicalpoint yes, but not all HDDs go bad after a few years and most HDDs (decent ones) do not overheat, this is something that SSDs suffer a lot (bad sectors and overheating). Still I would expect a ~10-15% difference in load time, just if it would be defragmented.
@@rwky if you would open the defrag option window now by pressing windows key and searching for "Defragment and Optimize drives", you will find a name called scheduled optimization below in that window (weekly, monthly yada yada, depends on how you set it). You can see that that your HDD has 0% fragmentation, that means it's working. So my answer that it only works when the computer is idle, is wrong.. you won't notice at all because defragmentation is a background process (since it only quickly fragments it) that doesn't use all the resources but only when you decide to do full defragmentation. That applies when you have a multi-core processor.
i'm actually surprised by the time in the video,before getting a ssd i would wait for up to 20 mins,my friend once waited on the loading screen for 1 hour then it crashed
I know this is already a year old but , my mate and i once got offlined logged in mid rain and he had to defend all by himself because it took me 10 minutes to load in
2:07 when you try to peacefully show people loading time comparisons but some random guy runs up to you and tries to kill you with a wooden hammer that does no damage LMAO.
I was surprised at how small the difference was between the NVME drive and the SSD. I honestly thought it would be more than a couple of seconds faster in larger load times like Rust.
Look at his computer specs in the description. He's running a pretty medicore rig. So likely bottlenecks are random and not truly testing SSD in isolation
TL:DW 1. NVME isnt much faster than SATA SSD's for game loading (save it for your OS) 2. SSHD had very similar load times to the HDD, which means it wasnt given a chance to cache data and actually USE the SSD part of it, making its test data useless.
If you are loading 50-100 gb games you probably wouldn't even get to use the cache. Just get a 7200 black WD drive, it loads plenty fast and use an NVME or an SSD for a boot.
Seeing that the M.2 and SSD was about the same speed, makes me think that the Samsung drivers for the M.2 was probably not installed. Installing the driver does improve performance.
honestly it does not really improve loading screen times. What it does for gaming is reducing lags caused by slower reading speeds when loading new areas on big maps for example. I just got myself a 970 Evo and it's so extremely smooth now. With my SSD I had small lags when moving fast, although it is pretty decent.
Efficient code > efficient hardware (Efficient code + inefficient hardware) > (inefficient code + efficient hardware) Before most of the current gaming community left their father's testicles we had efficient code. Now we have inefficient so heavily dependent on efficient hardware to compensate the industry has been overwhelmingly saturated with garbage games it's becoming an increasingly toxic experience to browse through new games recent, new, and upcoming.
ArmA 3 will benefit a lot from an SSD since it does load assets and stuff from the SSD... On HDD when you zoom in and out and also why like a jet or just move fast you will stutter like hell on an hdd... But on SSD is like a new game same goes for DayZ Standalone xD
Видос круть!👍( Хорошо что заказал себе комп на SSD M.2 ) спасибо друг 💯% раскрыл разницу, теперь проще будет объяснить людям... просто дам ссылочку на твой видос
I wonder if computers in 30 years will be able to load GTA5 in less than 20 seconds... I know what you are thinking, it's almost impossible, but i believe we can manage to
i was playing on hdds my entire life and i always thought that my pc was crapy because of its specs , hdds dies and decided to replace it with an ssd , and MAN. it was like i bought a new pc , can't imagine what diffrence an M.2 will make.
HDD: Low Cost, Low Speed, Ultra Capacity SSHD: Low Cost, Medium Speed, High Capacity SSD: High Cost, High Speed, High Capacity (4TB) M.2: High Cost, Ultra Speed, Medium Capacity (2TB)
Nice work there! Is the HDD partitioned %20 for optimal speeds? Is the NVMe controlled by AHCI and its firmware up to date? Finally, what's the capacity of the V300? Appreciate the help.
An SSHD is definitely the perfect choice for a secondary / game drive I'd say. The loading times are already way ahead of the standard HDD, and with time they should improve since they basically function like an HDD with Intel Optane permanently strapped to it, and they'll gradually self-optimize as you play your games.
i have seagate barracuda sshd 2TB, and yes it really nice storage investment for gaming, especially for high modded game like fallout and skyrim if you didn't have many budget option for ssd ...
@@rizkyburnaby993 SSHD will always be trash. No point in spending the extra money, considering all the bottlenecks in real world performance. Better off buying a high performing HDD.
@@zqzj lol, i have sshd and hdd myself the price difference is very small but performance gap is very noticeable, so you'r statement is wrong both are nice selection by consider ur budget.... there is no need saying 'trash'
This Video shows that there isn't much difference between SSD and M.2 speed wise, the only difference is in the size as M.2 is compact. As for SSHD and HDD there's a slight improvement on HDD but still not as compared to SSD.
Well I can def say that these tests are what should be expected in general. But, Yeah upon reading the comments with all the variations of these storage types. There are a lot to really consider outside these test results. For example my HDD drive 7200 rpm load games decently. So, I'd say I'll stick to this one for the mean time until I have another budget to buy an SSD. (which is common combo still for 2019) and play around with that w/ just the OS and some games I have. Ill be going merry until prices go down and I can get a better deal.
Thanks for the video! Im getting a used firecuda sshd for a batocera build. Since the sshd learns what processes are frequently used I hope most of the lightweight OS can be optimized on the 8gb of solid state storage. I paid $71 for a i3 10100 based slim office pc, and about $60 for two 2tb 3.5" drives. One drive is the firecuda, and the other I hope to fence to recover $20-$30. After that I hope to find (probably a rx 6400) a single slot gpu for upscaling.
I don't really care for M.2 so far. From a gamer perspective it doesn't save that much time. while it does cost more and also brings you a bit of a disadvantage depending on your motherboard. My MSI Z170a PC MATE for example has a M.2 slot BUT if I use it, then I would loose 2 of the 6 SATA ports. That and also the bigger price tag aren't worth it for me. Surely M.2s will be worth it for some people but I'm not one of them.
Идеальный варант: M.2 NVMe 1.3 SSD для Windows 10x64, у меня это AMD NVMe 1,3 SSD 240Гб. Под игры SATAIII SSD. У меня это Patriot P200 512Гб, брал за 3550руб в ДНС в августе 2019г. За год его цена сначало скакнула в ДНС до 7300руб !!! Час она 5650 руб. Хотел 2й Patriot P200 512Гб купить. Но по 5650 руб нет желания брать............. Всё остальное у меня на старом добром WD blue 1000Гб HDD, - (2 шт у меня их) - он всегда стоил 3000руб, он и сейчас стоит 3000руб в ДНС. Это приятно !!!! Получается маркетинг это всё: Обещали постоянное снижение цены на SSD, а на деле она растёт. Народ планомерно подсаживают на покупку дорогостоящих HDD, выжимают с людей деньги последние !!!! Да еще и кучка мразей специально агитирует покупать именно SSD Самсунг, типа он лучше всех, хотя они такие же как все, тока за брэнд Глупцы готовы переплачивать еще в 2-3 раза!!!! Это уже какой то идиотизм, граничащий с шизофренией и массовым помешательством. А теперь еще масла в огонь подливают SONY и Майкрософт- типа наши консоли выебут все ваши компы по скорости загрузки игр, выкиньте ваши компы - они говно, у нас на консолях будет стоять супер-пупер SSD 5.5 Гб\сек, и игры грузится за 0.7 сек !!!! (Это бред, такого не будет никогда)............ Мир на грани Безумства!!!! Да еще эта пондемия с COVID 19 и масочный режим, что пожрать не купить в магазине без маски, в автобус не сажают без маски. Идиотизм Мирового масштаба какой то !!!! Жесть.......... Вывод : Это маркетинг. Это не чудо!!!! ЧУДА не произошло. А денежки народ заплатил. Подсадили народ на "новый быстрый" вид накопителей по цене в 4 раза дороже. Хуйли толку что Винда стала быстрей грузится в 6-10 раз. Игры то быстрее не стали работать. Ускорение работы компа не слишком заметное. При этом платить за размещение информации теперь всем нам предлагают в 4 раза дороже, нас по сути умалчивают про буферы, про TRIM, про "балансировку нагрузки". Про срок службы SSD и его ячеек. Доверия пока нет к SSD полного. К HDD - доверие есть. Они доказали свою живучесть и надёжность за 50 лет использования и верно Служат Людям планеты Земля !!!!!! Печалька. Но это факт. Я прав на 100%. Докажите если я не прав. Я - ПРАВ !!!!
This doesn't look legit. Was the NVMe drive used with PCI-E x4 NVMe compatible m.2 slot? That motherboard has 2x m.2 slots of which, one is running on PCI-E x2 mode and is connected to the motherboard chipset. AMD Ryzen™ 2nd Generation/ Ryzen™ with Radeon™ Vega Graphics/ Ryzen™ 1st Generation Processors : 1 x M.2 Socket 3, with M key, type 2242/2260/2280/22110 storage devices support (SATA & PCIE 3.0 x 4 mode) AMD X470 chipset : 1 x M.2 Socket 3, with M Key, type 2242/2260/2280 storage devices support (SATA & PCIE 3.0 x 2 mode)*2
Just because NVMe supports much higher speeds doesn't mean loading time will improve much, random read is still pretty slow even on the fastest NVMe drives.
Sadly videogames aren't as straight forward with loading times as an OS or software where loading times can be as fast as they want. With games sometimes load times are limited and for some older games loading times that are too fast can even break games.
@@RazielXSR It may be a bottleneck in terms of other hardware, or it may be the application itself. The software has to be programmed to take advantage of the extra speed otherwise it won't. The same situation with single core applications not using multi-threading when it first came out. Though for Star Citizen, holy crap it makes a difference.
@@rodrigofilho1996 than its a cheap ass garbage ssd. even hdd are faster. im talking about normal ssds, like from crucial or samsung etc. or even kingston
The guy trying to kill you in Rust was so obvious to happen :D Oh i remember the loading times in Rust on my old Western Digital HDD with 5400RPM. I think it took almost 5 minutes to join everytime. Now with a Samsung SSD its about 50 seconds to 1 minute. Get an SSD guys, even if its a small one. Its a huge boost.
I've legit tested GTA v load times on an sshd vs a HDD, it was a wd Red vs a Seagate fire cuda, the fire cuda loaded the game in 40 seconds, my wd Red took 1 minute and 50 seconds, this was tested like 3 times with similar results, clearly your results must be skued
The answer is always yes no matter what you're doing. SSDs are faster at random read/writes and certainly faster for transferring large files and loading things. If you do anything with your system it should be adding an SSD. Even just a small one for your OS. It will dramatically improve start up time.
Overall, i think SSD's are the best option for windows bootup and HDD's for saving files/gaming. Or you can throw couple of games on SSD's but they are not suitable for saving important files. HDD's are known for lasting for a long time while SSD's don't.
HDD’s last around 5-6 years when heavily used, but SSD can easily reach 10 years when heavily used and i believe that because it cant be good for my HDD to constantly sound like a jet engine when just doing simple things and that HDD is only a few months old
Did you load the games multiple times on the SSHD before recording this? Things have to be cached first for it to work at its fastest speed, you can't just one and done. Its not made for that.
I would have liked repeat loads of the same environments after the first load. SSHD are supposed to be semi-smart and cache frequently used files into the haster access memory. I'm more curious as to how that works for large games than i am for the first load in an open world title.
Nope. Invest in the NVMe loading times is the only part you wont notice too much of a difference. Overall performance increases, less hitching and lag spikes, fps increase, etc.
porem o processador é o principal fator tambem para o carregamento rápido, você põe um SSD NVMe e um processador rápido, terá um carregamento de qualidade
Rust takes me legit 15 minutes to load and 15 seconds to die by a group of 15 dudes.
All while yelling "GET GUD NOOB"
all yelling "CHINA NUMBER 1"
@@meizpru2559 weird flex but okay
Rust loads quick as fuck for me but I have an M.2.
Trade in your parents computer for a better PC
My game loads so slow that I've already mastered the game by just reading the tips & hints.
k
F
F
F?
Fine
I just wasted 3 minutes watching loading screens 🙂
Our everyday struggle as gamers...
@@doktorsalami9315 i like when you can play minigames on the loading screen
@Wade Mercer I don't get why people still use HDD specially now, since they have dropped a lot in price and are so cheap
Same here. I realized this as I was watching, then I thought someone had the same thought as me, so I scrolled through the comments and here you are! Lol
Shut up Schlansky
2:05 SSD appears to get the attention of players....
No, just the cancer of Rust. Believe me, Rust really is that cancerous.
R/woosh
@The Box R/smoothbrain
@@Ash-vm5jq this is not reddit dumbass
@@Abysswdh r/brainless
You should have written NVMe instead of M.2 because M.2 is just the form factor.
Aldo Cachudo but people feel more comfortable with M.2
Putting this for anyone that doesn't know, if you get anything besides M.2 such as PCI E 16, make sure your CPU has enough lanes available, you can do this by just looking up "how many PCI e lanes does [blank] CPU have?". If it has for example 8 lanes still available and you are using PCI E 16, only 8 of those lanes will distribute bandwidth to it.
@@ODSTxGundam That is for data transfer speeds (550 mb/s vs 3500 mb/s), not loading times
@@ODSTxGundam Not really. Those marketed speeds are sequential but loading times are always random. Plus windows or games don't really use that much bandwidth. So in these cases NVMe just has more headroom. This is why NVMe has small rel life improvement over SATA. Most people will be happy on SATA. Only the people who transfer big files from one partition to another more often, will need NVMe.
Yes but when you think of an M.2 in this context, you would assume an M.2 NVMe ssd because would other component would you put in an ssd that is capable of storage and booting up an operating system.
That one guy trying to hammer you during your experiment. xD
Basic rust right there
welcome to rust, just spawned? have a rock
he looks kinda like thor
[WTH] -> No surprising xD
But that hammer doesn't do any damage
I am surprised to see the value of a regular SSD but the M.2 does come in clutch on some games where limited selections are a thing.
Makes me think somethings holding load times back on the m2. Game engines, windows, motherboards, no idea, but going from 500 speed ssd to a 7000 speed m2 and you only gain 1-4%? Seems off.
@@4gbmeans4gb61 that's because the games on PC rn can't take full advantage of a fast nvme ssd you have to wait until games start to implement direct storage, there is only 1 game that actually uses direct storage on PC, but I'm unaware if they have released it yet, the game in question is forespoken, there is a upcoming TW3 update which will also have support for direct storage.
@@4gbmeans4gb61 the real advantage of nvme is how small they are. it's next level stuff and i am interested in how smaller computer components may get in the future
@@tempusnostrumest No the real advantage is when you're editing, then speed shines .
Still today is a gret value. Some 2Tb SSD are as cheap as $100.
Legends say the HDD is still loading.
HDD 1 year later : No im not.....
...........GTA.
There, I finished your comment
@@anwarzakwan2039 it's been a year
@@RhoyaWRLD damn.... the HDD still loading... please come back a year later...
@@anwarzakwan2039 will do
2:02 - honestly I wouldn't have believed it if there wasn't that player, it's impossible in rust, being afk without shelter and no one trying to kill you
2:07 *SSD getting all the hate lol*
Hi there.
Ideally what you should have done here, was run each loading time test on each device multiple times & taken the average. Reason being is that the SSHD utilises solid state caching, giving it much higher speed than the standard HDD. This caching only really comes into effect however, if data is being loaded to it, so it can then be re-read from the solid state cache, instead of from the spinning disc. Once the data is loaded onto the solid state cache & reloaded, it won't be far behind the SSD. Additionally, SSHDs tend to feature a learning tech that predicts what data to keep stored in the cache & what to flush. The more something is loaded into & read from the cache, the more likely the drive will learn to keep it in there for longer, making it load faster.
I see HDD technology not being able to keep up for much longer, as price/capacity is its ONLY major selling point right now & even that is being eaten into by SSHDs having similar capacities for not much more cost & SSDs are gradually coming down in price, becoming more & more affordable too.
Cheers.
Hey,
Powerful Description..
Powerful.
Full of power
doesnt read but, powerful.
This guy definitely has a SSHD, and trying to validate his purchase for it.
So SSD would be best price/performance= best value?
in the near future, yes. Current price, 40GB/$ for a 4TB HDD, 2GB/$ for a 1TB SSD. But when studying the price history of SSD and HDD, you'll notice that one day the price per GB will be around the same in about 10 years time, not considering any production breakthrough on NAND production.
Zuver SSHD
SSJDD
@@711jastin Where did you get those numbers from? In Sweden for a newer generation 1TB Samsung SSD you pay $0.20/GB (5GB/$)
yes, overall. some rare cases when you xfer large files, HDD (10k rpm) will be faster. for example many video editors lean to high speed HDD's.
2:06 this is Rust, where you cant even do benchmark quietly hahahaha
2:05 I guess that was the NVMe drive owner LMAO
LOL
It is true that 99% of the software simply isn't optimized to benefit from the massive throughput of the M.2 drives (>6x read/write compared to a SATA SSD). So much so that in rare cases I've observed my "970 Evo Plus" M.2 to even be fractionally slower at load times than my 860 Evo SATA SSD. Windows Boot up and shutdown times though feel faster on an M.2.
It isn't just that, but also sometimes hardware constraints, especially such as a CPU. Your computer also has to be able to open and process all those packages fast enough. If you don't have a great CPU, it'll slow it all down.
You can't optimize further if no stuff is read from disk. A faster HD only affects loading stuff from disk.
If reading from disk takes 1 sec, and rendering afterwards by cpu takes 30 seconds then you wont get faster than 30 seconds by putting a faster disk.
The RAM is much faster than the hard drive. So once everything is loaded to RAM you can only get more performance by buying faster cpu / ram or optimize your cpu bound code.
Finally someone covering Rust.
Its a pretty hard game to run idk why ppl dont do benchmarks on it more often.
because it runs equal shitty on everything that has same cpu´s the cpu counts.
Bro. Rust on a HDD is death. Imagine your base getting raided and you needed 3+minutes to join the server XD
2:06 HI MOM IM ON UA-cam
M2 $$$$$ vs HD $$
Ssd's are cheap
Now they are less expensive
Yea just buy a 128 GB nvme for the OS and a 1-2 TB HDD for everything else and your good
@itatchisasku F
M. 2 ain't that expensive just buy a 300 quid 1tb one
The firecuda becomes faster when you load the same game a couple of times. I have both the 970 evo and the evo pro nvme, also firecuda and barracuda. The pro model reads almost twice as fast as the evo model, even if the spec says they should be close. 1800 read and 1700 write on the evo, 3500 and 2700 on the pro.
Then theres something wrong with your evo model. The pro should only be a couple hundred MBs faster.
@@emmanuelmedina2740 Yes, changed motherboard that has cooling on both nvme drives so now it is faster.
@@Topper_Harley68 indeed. NVMe gets hot real easy, causing throttling.
Isn't that just cache memory?
Finally, a video that can clear all confusion about SSDs
ThunderBlastvideo except for the more complicated issues with hybrid SSHD, totally
One thing I would have added, was a defragmentation (and disk file optimization) for SSHD and HDD, because it can speed up a lot; for example in GTA V loads on a core i5 4690, 16gb ddr3, rx480 on a seagate barracuda 2tb, in around 45s, considering that I have bottlenecks on hardware, not storage.
Brother you are right we have to defragment HDD and SSHD after some time(Week/month) defragment helps to arrange files in sequence in media but there is issue because after 4 or 5 years hard drive have some bad sectors and also HDD generate overheat if we transfer a large file or playing heavy game such GTA 5, shadow of tomb raider
Edit : sorry for my poor language
@@gaganstechnicalpoint yes, but not all HDDs go bad after a few years and most HDDs (decent ones) do not overheat, this is something that SSDs suffer a lot (bad sectors and overheating). Still I would expect a ~10-15% difference in load time, just if it would be defragmented.
You don't need to defragment it, windows does it automatically
@@crossltg8329 only when the computer is idle.
@@rwky if you would open the defrag option window now by pressing windows key and searching for "Defragment and Optimize drives", you will find a name called scheduled optimization below in that window (weekly, monthly yada yada, depends on how you set it). You can see that that your HDD has 0% fragmentation, that means it's working. So my answer that it only works when the computer is idle, is wrong.. you won't notice at all because defragmentation is a background process (since it only quickly fragments it) that doesn't use all the resources but only when you decide to do full defragmentation. That applies when you have a multi-core processor.
Typical Rust... 2:05
yes
playing rust gives me time to slap up some food while i wait lmao
i'm actually surprised by the time in the video,before getting a ssd i would wait for up to 20 mins,my friend once waited on the loading screen for 1 hour then it crashed
That guy was a real noob.
lol
2:06 "Can you PLEASE get out of the frame, we're shooting here!" :D
"You cant buy time"
SSD: Am I a joke to you?
HDD: yessir
NVME is a waste of money for game storage. A decent SSD is the max you should go for
It looks cool honestly. I have a setup with no ssd or hdd just pure m2.
Yeah me too it looks nice and clean without hdd and sdd 👌🏻
@Dinkelstein Kerman it's just good when you're transferring alot of data on a daily basis, you won't experience this way faster speed while gaming.
@@nyxhiiragi3659 I spent more time looking at the display my PC is hooked too then looking in the actual PC itself.
Thank you so much for adding Rust, it takes my pc like 10 minutes to load the game, I need an m.2
M.2 970 evo, I load Overwatch maps in literally 3 seconds. Always get first hero pick, came in quite hand when Ashe was released.
Sec 0:03 its a 960 evo
@@josepaoloherreradavalos6677 there is a 970 also, look to the left
@@docweird3082 good eye
Nice, same here, but 970 Evo Raid 0 XD
NVME: Yes.
HHD: You think u are faster than me?
And i keep asking my friends in rust why loading in takes them so long.. never knew it was this much of a difference
I know this is already a year old but , my mate and i once got offlined logged in mid rain and he had to defend all by himself because it took me 10 minutes to load in
Left a like just because the guy tried to beat you with a hammer mid test 😂😂😂😂
Acctually that's a rock.
2:03 Yep, that's definitely Rust lol.
2:07 when you try to peacefully show people loading time comparisons but some random guy runs up to you and tries to kill you with a wooden hammer that does no damage LMAO.
perfect. just what i was looking for. thank you!
Very nice production value! Loved it!
Me: standing peacefully
Other player: *come here boy!*
2:06
I was surprised at how small the difference was between the NVME drive and the SSD. I honestly thought it would be more than a couple of seconds faster in larger load times like Rust.
Depends for each game, sometimes a game doesn't take advantage of the full speed and does like 200MBs instead of the 500MBs an SSD is capable of :/
Look at his computer specs in the description. He's running a pretty medicore rig. So likely bottlenecks are random and not truly testing SSD in isolation
TL:DW
1. NVME isnt much faster than SATA SSD's for game loading (save it for your OS)
2. SSHD had very similar load times to the HDD, which means it wasnt given a chance to cache data and actually USE the SSD part of it, making its test data useless.
If you are loading 50-100 gb games you probably wouldn't even get to use the cache. Just get a 7200 black WD drive, it loads plenty fast and use an NVME or an SSD for a boot.
Hat Spaß gemacht zuzuschauen
ngl the regular SSD blew me away, anything over HDD and M.2 isn't worth the price increase
M.2 is an SSD
M.2 runs on Nvme OR AHCI (=sata3) protocol
M.2 Sata3 has same speed as 2"5 SSD Sata3
Everyone: I hate loading screens.
Everyone: Here to watch loading screens.
Seeing that the M.2 and SSD was about the same speed, makes me think that the Samsung drivers for the M.2 was probably not installed. Installing the driver does improve performance.
honestly it does not really improve loading screen times. What it does for gaming is reducing lags caused by slower reading speeds when loading new areas on big maps for example. I just got myself a 970 Evo and it's so extremely smooth now. With my SSD I had small lags when moving fast, although it is pretty decent.
Efficient code > efficient hardware
(Efficient code + inefficient hardware) > (inefficient code + efficient hardware)
Before most of the current gaming community left their father's testicles we had efficient code. Now we have inefficient so heavily dependent on efficient hardware to compensate the industry has been overwhelmingly saturated with garbage games it's becoming an increasingly toxic experience to browse through new games recent, new, and upcoming.
Love these tests. Keep up the good work.
Thank you.
I'd be curious to see how they compare in 1% and .1% low frame times due to reducing stutter and pop-in as new assets get loaded.
ArmA 3 will benefit a lot from an SSD since it does load assets and stuff from the SSD... On HDD when you zoom in and out and also why like a jet or just move fast you will stutter like hell on an hdd... But on SSD is like a new game same goes for DayZ Standalone xD
@@kajmak64bit76 nah, i always play on HDD and never have problems
@@lnfinyx With new consoles having m.2 built in that will start to become a problem in the future though.
Видос круть!👍( Хорошо что заказал себе комп на SSD M.2 ) спасибо друг 💯% раскрыл разницу, теперь проще будет объяснить людям... просто дам ссылочку на твой видос
I think what we can all agree on after watching this, is that game loading times are unacceptably long😂
a way to identify what type of storage to buy. compatibility applies. nice vid
People who make videos like this are real heroes imo
I wonder if computers in 30 years will be able to load GTA5 in less than 20 seconds...
I know what you are thinking, it's almost impossible, but i believe we can manage to
SSHD is the Poor Man’s SSD
Send me 4
Then Make a RAID 0 and put games on it... :)
My poor is showing.
damn where you been all that time? first time heard that ssd faster then any hdd or shd or anything else, damn you make my life good
🤜🤛
i was playing on hdds my entire life and i always thought that my pc was crapy because of its specs , hdds dies and decided to replace it with an ssd , and MAN. it was like i bought a new pc , can't imagine what diffrence an M.2 will make.
Load Screen Results for
Watchdogs 2: @0:37
Rust: @ 2:13
GTA V: @3:14
You're welcome
Ur an Angel thank you
HDD: Low Cost, Low Speed, Ultra Capacity
SSHD: Low Cost, Medium Speed, High Capacity
SSD: High Cost, High Speed, High Capacity (4TB)
M.2: High Cost, Ultra Speed, Medium Capacity (2TB)
M.2 needs ultra good motherboard
SSD, HDD, SSHD use sata
Nice work there!
Is the HDD partitioned %20 for optimal speeds?
Is the NVMe controlled by AHCI and its firmware up to date?
Finally, what's the capacity of the V300? Appreciate the help.
Would be interesting to see what the Barracuda clocks in at when accelerated w/ an Optane module, particularly if compared to the Firecuda.
It would be similar to just running an ssd
and xfering a very large file i might add
Great video! Right to the point, love the way you set it up. Thumbs up!
Thank you!
Thank you for a good comparison video :))
2:09 does he know hammers dont do damage?
An SSHD is definitely the perfect choice for a secondary / game drive I'd say. The loading times are already way ahead of the standard HDD, and with time they should improve since they basically function like an HDD with Intel Optane permanently strapped to it, and they'll gradually self-optimize as you play your games.
Your are also limited by the speed of the CPU extracting game assets.
Way ahead? 🤣
i have seagate barracuda sshd 2TB, and yes it really nice storage investment for gaming, especially for high modded game like fallout and skyrim if you didn't have many budget option for ssd ...
@@rizkyburnaby993 SSHD will always be trash. No point in spending the extra money, considering all the bottlenecks in real world performance. Better off buying a high performing HDD.
@@zqzj lol, i have sshd and hdd myself the price difference is very small but performance gap is very noticeable, so you'r statement is wrong both are nice selection by consider ur budget.... there is no need saying 'trash'
What??? Only 52 seconds for GTA V? Impossible! I have it on hdd too and it's always loading like 4 minutes or something
and me
Maybe its an old hdd
Defragment your HDD my guy
Me it s 8-9minutes to reach gta online
thats cuz ur other pc parts are shit.
Awesome Comparison Bro
this's best and cheapest 1tb ssd and 2tb sshd
amzn.to/2WYAsZ6 2tb sshd
amzn.to/3aACtif 1tb ssd
This must have cost a lot of work and I appreciate your effort. Really interesting video!
Thank you very much!
Price, Quality SSD Wins.
But not in storage
...
You also forget noise. Ssd wins. Don't ever buy a sshd. Get an ssd and hdd separately if you need the space.
@@rnegoro1 Whats bad about SSHDs?
ElvenMan he just told u lmao
This Video shows that there isn't much difference between SSD and M.2 speed wise, the only difference is in the size as M.2 is compact. As for SSHD and HDD there's a slight improvement on HDD but still not as compared to SSD.
Well I can def say that these tests are what should be expected in general. But, Yeah upon reading the comments with all the variations of these storage types. There are a lot to really consider outside these test results. For example my HDD drive 7200 rpm load games decently. So, I'd say I'll stick to this one for the mean time until I have another budget to buy an SSD. (which is common combo still for 2019) and play around with that w/ just the OS and some games I have. Ill be going merry until prices go down and I can get a better deal.
2:06 lmao i love the fact that a random person just starts attacking you 😂
Thanks for the video! Im getting a used firecuda sshd for a batocera build. Since the sshd learns what processes are frequently used I hope most of the lightweight OS can be optimized on the 8gb of solid state storage. I paid $71 for a i3 10100 based slim office pc, and about $60 for two 2tb 3.5" drives. One drive is the firecuda, and the other I hope to fence to recover $20-$30. After that I hope to find (probably a rx 6400) a single slot gpu for upscaling.
Well i prefer hdd it gives us time to drink and pee😂😂😂
Yup once the bottles are full, it's the only time we gamers get to shower, too lol
Tesityr I once walked into a GameStop and it smelt like bedhead and booty blood and narcotics.
@@seggzyantilope6023 nice
I don't really care for M.2 so far. From a gamer perspective it doesn't save that much time. while it does cost more and also brings you a bit of a disadvantage depending on your motherboard. My MSI Z170a PC MATE for example has a M.2 slot BUT if I use it, then I would loose 2 of the 6 SATA ports. That and also the bigger price tag aren't worth it for me. Surely M.2s will be worth it for some people but I'm not one of them.
I have an M.2, so now in rust I can die by a squad before my friends can even load in the match!
Great comparison!
Идеальный варант: M.2 NVMe 1.3 SSD для Windows 10x64, у меня это AMD NVMe 1,3 SSD 240Гб.
Под игры SATAIII SSD. У меня это Patriot P200 512Гб, брал за 3550руб в ДНС в августе 2019г. За год его цена сначало скакнула в ДНС до 7300руб !!! Час она 5650 руб. Хотел 2й Patriot P200 512Гб купить. Но по 5650 руб нет желания брать.............
Всё остальное у меня на старом добром WD blue 1000Гб HDD, - (2 шт у меня их) - он всегда стоил 3000руб, он и сейчас стоит 3000руб в ДНС. Это приятно !!!!
Получается маркетинг это всё: Обещали постоянное снижение цены на SSD, а на деле она растёт. Народ планомерно подсаживают на покупку дорогостоящих HDD, выжимают с людей деньги последние !!!!
Да еще и кучка мразей специально агитирует покупать именно SSD Самсунг, типа он лучше всех, хотя они такие же как все, тока за брэнд Глупцы готовы переплачивать еще в 2-3 раза!!!! Это уже какой то идиотизм, граничащий с шизофренией и массовым помешательством.
А теперь еще масла в огонь подливают SONY и Майкрософт- типа наши консоли выебут все ваши компы по скорости загрузки игр, выкиньте ваши компы - они говно, у нас на консолях будет стоять супер-пупер SSD 5.5 Гб\сек, и игры грузится за 0.7 сек !!!! (Это бред, такого не будет никогда)............
Мир на грани Безумства!!!! Да еще эта пондемия с COVID 19 и масочный режим, что пожрать не купить в магазине без маски, в автобус не сажают без маски. Идиотизм Мирового масштаба какой то !!!! Жесть..........
Вывод : Это маркетинг. Это не чудо!!!! ЧУДА не произошло. А денежки народ заплатил. Подсадили народ на "новый быстрый" вид накопителей по цене в 4 раза дороже. Хуйли толку что Винда стала быстрей грузится в 6-10 раз. Игры то быстрее не стали работать. Ускорение работы компа не слишком заметное. При этом платить за размещение информации теперь всем нам предлагают в 4 раза дороже, нас по сути умалчивают про буферы, про TRIM, про "балансировку нагрузки". Про срок службы SSD и его ячеек. Доверия пока нет к SSD полного. К HDD - доверие есть. Они доказали свою живучесть и надёжность за 50 лет использования и верно Служат Людям планеты Земля !!!!!!
Печалька.
Но это факт. Я прав на 100%. Докажите если я не прав. Я - ПРАВ !!!!
This doesn't look legit. Was the NVMe drive used with PCI-E x4 NVMe compatible m.2 slot? That motherboard has 2x m.2 slots of which, one is running on PCI-E x2 mode and is connected to the motherboard chipset.
AMD Ryzen™ 2nd Generation/ Ryzen™ with Radeon™ Vega Graphics/ Ryzen™ 1st Generation Processors :
1 x M.2 Socket 3, with M key, type 2242/2260/2280/22110 storage devices support (SATA & PCIE 3.0 x 4 mode)
AMD X470 chipset :
1 x M.2 Socket 3, with M Key, type 2242/2260/2280 storage devices support (SATA & PCIE 3.0 x 2 mode)*2
PCI-E x4
Just because NVMe supports much higher speeds doesn't mean loading time will improve much, random read is still pretty slow even on the fastest NVMe drives.
Sadly videogames aren't as straight forward with loading times as an OS or software where loading times can be as fast as they want. With games sometimes load times are limited and for some older games loading times that are too fast can even break games.
Those 1 second faster loading times add up. Remember what your dad said about not ignoring pennys.
@@RazielXSR It may be a bottleneck in terms of other hardware, or it may be the application itself. The software has to be programmed to take advantage of the extra speed otherwise it won't. The same situation with single core applications not using multi-threading when it first came out. Though for Star Citizen, holy crap it makes a difference.
Samsung 970 EVO - 2018 year
Kingston V300 - 2013 year
Five ... 5 ... V... years age difference ...
Are you serious ???
Most ssd have the same speed anyway
@@kacperwoek6026 Not at all, the old ssd drives provide 3.0 GBPS speed but latest ssd provide 6.0 and i think it's the huge difference between them.
@@kacperwoek6026 m.2 nvme ssd are around 3500mbs normal ssds are around 500mbs.
My 120GB Kingston V300 gives me 180MBps on the Sequencial and 60MBps on the Random.
@@rodrigofilho1996 than its a cheap ass garbage ssd. even hdd are faster. im talking about normal ssds, like from crucial or samsung etc. or even kingston
You just saved me 100+ euro! Thanks :)
The guy trying to kill you in Rust was so obvious to happen :D
Oh i remember the loading times in Rust on my old Western Digital HDD with 5400RPM. I think it took almost 5 minutes to join everytime.
Now with a Samsung SSD its about 50 seconds to 1 minute. Get an SSD guys, even if its a small one. Its a huge boost.
Cool video! Have you done a test using HHD with MS storage spaces?
I'm running that right now, it seemed to help, but not sure by how much. Thanks!
I bought a 120 GB SSD for a boot drive it's nice great investment for 25$
Does it speed up the loading ??
@@openmind2161 yes
I've legit tested GTA v load times on an sshd vs a HDD, it was a wd Red vs a Seagate fire cuda, the fire cuda loaded the game in 40 seconds, my wd Red took 1 minute and 50 seconds, this was tested like 3 times with similar results, clearly your results must be skued
If you have a 5400 rpm hdd then you will load even slower then the 7200 rpm drive in the video
Everybody: makes No difference regarding image quality
This video: thumbnail x4
My guy u realize that m.2 is a type of ssd not a whole other type of storage device
Glad to see a Rust load comparison here.
I've been wondering is getting an SSD would make loading into Rust faster, thx dude!
The answer is always yes no matter what you're doing. SSDs are faster at random read/writes and certainly faster for transferring large files and loading things. If you do anything with your system it should be adding an SSD. Even just a small one for your OS. It will dramatically improve start up time.
Overall, i think SSD's are the best option for windows bootup and HDD's for saving files/gaming. Or you can throw couple of games on SSD's but they are not suitable for saving important files. HDD's are known for lasting for a long time while SSD's don't.
well , something that works fast , dies fast i guess.
No dude ssd live longer than hard disks
HDD’s last around 5-6 years when heavily used, but SSD can easily reach 10 years when heavily used and i believe that because it cant be good for my HDD to constantly sound like a jet engine when just doing simple things and that HDD is only a few months old
I’m getting a WD blue s550 for my budget gamin pc
HDD and SSHD: Go make yourself a Coffee or Tea while waiting it done
Did you load the games multiple times on the SSHD before recording this? Things have to be cached first for it to work at its fastest speed, you can't just one and done. Its not made for that.
I would have liked repeat loads of the same environments after the first load. SSHD are supposed to be semi-smart and cache frequently used files into the haster access memory.
I'm more curious as to how that works for large games than i am for the first load in an open world title.
Not a real world scenario, so it's a fruitless test result. Hybrid drives are a joke. Just buy an SSD
So, for gaming, there's no use for a M.2. Just invest in a good SSD
Gonzalo Tapia yep
Theyre really easy to install and quite small. Would definitely recommend of theyre in the same price range. legit pop in 1 screw down and youre ready
Nope. Invest in the NVMe loading times is the only part you wont notice too much of a difference. Overall performance increases, less hitching and lag spikes, fps increase, etc.
Wait gta Takes 1 min on hdd?? I had hdd 1 year ago and it loaded 5-10 mins srly!!
depends on how old or bad it is. i load rust in around 30 minutes with my hdd
You'll need to defrag the drive
I load Gta 5 in 4-6 Minutes with a SSHD :-(
LOL guys, I load my GTA 5 with hdd in around minute like in the video
How?
porem o processador é o principal fator tambem para o carregamento rápido, você põe um SSD NVMe e um processador rápido, terá um carregamento de qualidade
As a m.2 user. I think ssd is better compared to price than nvme.
Not much difference between nvme and ssd in game load times but what about rendering, editing, etc.
It's game apps that lock down load times to the year 2011. Everything else is 14X faster. 500MB Vs 7000MB with a second generation NVMe.
GTA V loads from my 970 evo in 13 seconds
hi did you configure the m.2 mvme in the bios ???
I'm curious as to what speed it is running at. Mine runes at x2 speed
Correct would have been SSD via M.2 and SSD via SATA 3. Also, did the Firecuda get a chance to build up the cache? Apart from that, nice vid
I"ll take the SSD for the price difference. Great video!