NVMe M.2 SSD PCIe vs. SATA SSD vs. SATA SSHD vs. SATA HDD Game Loading Times
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 кві 2020
- NVMe M.2 SSD PCIe vs. SATA SSD vs. SATA SSHD vs. SATA HDD Game Loading Times. First-time start.
Grab the game: bit.ly/GameShops
Computer Details :
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
GPU: Palit GeForce RTX 2070 Super GameRock PremiumEdition
RAM: G.SKILL TridentZ RGB 2X8GB DDR4/3400 MHz CL16
PSU: Corsair CX 750 M 750 Watt 80 PLUS
SSD: SABRENT ROCKET NVMe M.2 SSD PCIe 4.0 1TB
SSD: Patriot SSD Burst 960GB 2.5 SATA 3
SSHD: Seagate FireCuda 1 TB internal hybrid hard drive 7200RPM SATA 3
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 1 TB 7200RPM SATA 3
MOTHERBOARD: ASRock X570 Taichi
COOLER: CoolerMaster MasterLiquid Lite 240
SYSTEM: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro - Ігри
Can you believe you just watched loading time on purpose.
@@96blocks no shit sheldon?
@@Lors111 what
um yeah for scientific purposes
I’m watching the loading screens now so that I won’t have to watch them in the future.
Research purposes
I don’t know why but I imagined M.2 to be a lot quicker than standard SSD
Not in games but in another tasks
It is, AFAIK tho, games dont utilize it yet.
It is
It seems it is bottlenecked by the CPU.
Its mostly bad implementation on the developer side, it all depends on the workload, the devs usually still target normal HDD, with little to no optimization for SSDs, much less m2 ssd
I feel like loading screens are a whole lot longer when there's a timer
That is because you become aware of time.
Because you get used to the wait and you are going into sleep mode till the game loads
Because rdr2 is a garbage game (technically, I'm not speaking about the plot or gameplay).
@@zuliwe its grand theft horses
for me it feels longer when I'm waiting to get back in the game
"you can't buy time with Your money" xD
You are not buying time with an ssd
But can reduce it to required efficiency.
@@BobMarley-zu5sc You're buying shorter loading times, which saves you time. So indirectly, yes, you're buying time.
@@Dagger_323 Define buying time
@@BobMarley-zu5sc He just defined it. By buying an SSD, you save so much time. So you are, quite literally, buying time.
For the SSHD it really shows a difference after several load cycles as it builds up the cache for frequently accessed files.
Even then a cache is only gonna be around 32GB or so and will not realistically hold many of the games files given how many other files get flagged as well.
@@alexsurber9404
Usually the last 3 games you played remain in its memory. It's still useful and you can actually see a big difference in loading times after 3rd or 4th shot.
@@yousef.al-assaf It's rarely significant and SSHDs are a quickly dying breed, they offer none of the capacity that the SMR titans are able to while simultaneously only offering a taste of the speed having the entire game on an SSD would. Just for the record, though, parts are reserved to accelerate writes so you realistically will not see a considerable benefit from an SSHD with a 32GB cache for more than even 1 modern game, much less 3. It's even worse when you consider that SSHDs are typically 5400RPM backed 2.5" drives, those are slower in the first place but having less platters additionally means less performance still...the result is a generally sluggish 2.5 inch drive that nips the heels of far better technologies like optane or simple OS based SSD caching software.
SSHDs are great in the proper application. Trying to cut aaa load times vs an ssd is not what it’s intended for. Under normal pc use it feels like an ssd. Mine only has 8gb of cache but the directories and sub folders load instantly like an ssd. I can cd into 5 folders before the hdd spins up. I wish my 4tb enterprise drives had 8gb of cache. Also I have 3tb of games. None of them are bottlenecked by hdd speeds. SSDs are not cost effective for all storage needs.
@@stevensgarage6451 Yeah my dad had an SSHD around 10 years ago on work PC as OS and it made his work go much faster. Mostly used Office and start PC in the morning
In short, performance per dollar king is the SATA SSD.
i mean yes and now, a "slow" NVMe is basically the same price as a standard 2.5" SSD while the second fastest M.2 on the market Samsung 970 Evo is 119€ while 2.5" SSD is 98€.
i really don't mind the extra 20€ here
@@tinosiemer4965 I doubt the price difference is so low for large-capacity SSD storage, especially on the NVMe.
i just bought one nvme for 119€ so ye (1tb)
No. Completely wrong. Because the primary function for its speed is to transfer larger files in shorter time.
You saw a game benchmark where it didn’t have to utilise its full power.
Transfer larger file and then you see why nvme is expensive vs sata ssd.
Reinstall windows in both. That’s another way to see how fast it is.
Trust me I know. I’ve owned sata ssds and installed to os on both drives and saw clear winner.
If you are budgeting and only gaming. The sata ssd Is fine.
@@tinosiemer4965 and 1tb 2.5" SSDs are $80.
I fucking knew it. SSDs are fast enough. I wish manufacturers would stop trying to make the fastest SSDs and concentrate on making them larger and affordable.
It depends on the game and the engine it runs on
What if most graphics cards have a transfer limit as well? Or the motherboard could be limiting it, who knows. But when you do direct transfer on it its like 2000mb/s?
Games rn are not optimised for nvme SSDs. Next year MS will release Direct Storage API and that'll improve load times significantly.
To be fair NVMEs are really a step up with things like windows boot time and large file transfers, but for loading times it's the same basically.
@@isaac10231 no, it's not the same. Wait for windows update nvme patch
It will be interesting to see a new video made once Direct Storage / RTX IO has been implemented and supported. Supposedly it will lower the time required to load game assets.
that most likelly will only be usefull for that streaming method of gaming on new games. Old games will need (most likelly) to be updated and recoded to use that function to its full extent
We can hope it does improve load times, because according to nvidia anyways it's going to improve load times especially for NVMe SSDs, because nvidia says it requires a lot of cores to actually take advantage of it.
@@vollkerball1 I honestly think it should be shipped within existing directx/opengl/vulkan apis
Wait another 2 years and you will see most new games making use of direct storage.
@@SuperSpeed52 Isn't Direct Storage part of Directx?
In any event, it would be interesting to see if it has an impact of existing games but I suspect the real impact will be on next gen console games on the PC as games will be designed to take advantage of them, if it worked on existing games for M2 drives, we would be more or less getting instance load times in most cases.
After all, even a 3.5GB M2 drive is 7 times faster than a SSD driver of 500mb, the one shown above was 5GB so even faster.
Gta V: still loading
To be fair, you're probably talking about the online mode, which spends most of its time matchmaking with other players.
Gta only loads a lot when it cant find servers but the game is already loaded its a kinda bad meme, when he servers are good i load very fast on my hdd
Play Rust
@@user-ow4lm2iu1o I have rust on a PCI Slot M.2 array and it loads into a rustafield server in 11 seconds, just don't have the game on a hdd lol
@@StrikeAa0 bruh you wot 11 seconds on rustafield it takes me a solid 4 min with an m.2 array. i stg if this shits been bottlenecked this whole time
Song name : Follow You - Fractal Chill mix
You r the best
Au5 - Follow You (feat. Danyka Nadeau) (Fractal Chill Mix)
@@mitsumune5459 thanksssssssssssssssssssss
When you reach a certain SSD-read spead, you essentially become CPU-limited when it comes to loading times as the cpu has to unpack certain texture packs and compressed materials and load things in to RAM och VRAM. We might se bigger difference in the future when CPU's get faster
hello its the future, direct storage is a thing now and the gpu can load directly off of the ssd, bypassing the cpu. allowing for insane second load times.
@@HolyOllie there is no games utilizing this feature as for now afaik
@@astwfxxxx5961 Thats why the future said hello and not the present.
@@HolyOllie storage was always "direct", it's just that CPU had a lot of pre processing to do (by the game engine) before it can load data into VRAM. Hardware always supported this.
@@astwfxxxx5961 Forspoken?
The reason the M.2 isn't a lot faster is because of the operating system overhead. Each read request has to be processed by the CPU as a system call (which is really slow), so the CPU is the bottleneck. This is what DirectStorage is designed to fix. It is a file streaming system designed for high throughput and minimal CPU overhead.
Two years later direct storage still hasn't taken off. Hopefully it takes off soon
@@sage4670 It took off two years ago on Xbox, and it's starting to get traction on PC now.
@@sage4670 Well.. fast forward 2 month later and we have forspoken now. First game with direct storage on pc, but it lower your in game FPS with it enabled.
@@anemone5870 rip
@@anemone5870 no it doesn't wtf are you talking about? Turning it off lowers your fps and fucking tanks your 1% lows
why testing SSHD when you test "First-time start." ? SSHD use his cache at second start...
useless
@@leonardosextare5572 jkjkjk..... unless....
Yeah. Same thought.
Fantastic real world analysis, thanks for the work!
This music
the nostalgia hits really hard
Makes me think of simpler times, listening to mrsuicidesheep and his mixes when it still had amazing music like this. Around 2011-2013. Old enough to chill with your friends without your parents being worried. Young enough to not have all the responsibilities of today.
Thank you :)
Do you know name of the song played in this video
@@milojkokitic6991 Au5 - Follow you (Fractal chill mix)
ua-cam.com/video/05jd9fwGlSM/v-deo.html
Deep. But made me feel exactly the same
Does anyone still remember this crazy hype like 5 years ago about SSHDs? And today it is just trash.
yeah lmao
maybe this is the cause of the shortage of sshd in stocks
@@ThatOneCatNyx No Game No Life Anime
This is what i was looking for THNX!!!
For you wondering why SATA SSD is the similar to nvme SSD:
Is because it’s transferring data from storage to physical memory, then the game will transfer from physical memory (RAM) to GPU memory. It probably does so in smaller chunks (could be sequential, could be random) but it’s not optimized for either. So what you’re experiencing is probably random transfers that the only thing you’ll see from a boost a a drive that’s big on random transfers. I’m going to see if an optane drive will be faster than the NAND flash
It's also due to decompression of assets by the CPU before moving them in VRAM, once game engine take advantage of Direct Storage and rtx-io, loading will greatly improve.
Great video, I wonder if GPU Direct access to Storage will widen the gap between NVMe & SATA.
I’m still confused why most of these compilations don’t have Rust, that’s like the king of loading time differences in drives.
your not wrong red dead is not really good with all these comps
Coz nobody plays rust
Mark Lorenz Alamares steam charts says otherwise
IMO, he should've tested Total War: Warhammer 2 'cuz that game DRAGS the loading screens. I have it on an HDD and it sucks the life out of me with those loading times.
bruh u ever played GTA V?
People at 2040 watch this : What is loading screen?
"Hold on... You're telling me they used screens to see the game?"
Nah, don't worry there will be a heavy games that defeat all the fast storage like what happened in early 2000s when the sata HDD released to save the Day but end up defeated
people at 1990 watching this: What is loading screen?
I'm hoping with next gen GPUs, Nvmes would make things faster
I though game loading time is cpu dependent
Once games start leveraging the tech, it will be faster.
@@ethanoux10 Not with rtx IO
@@kaiprzadka6896 Yes it still will be. Streaming textures to gpu from ssd will be faster if DirectStorage is used, which may (probably) affects texture loading but nothing else.
yh i was thinking. even tho m.2 has 10x faster read/write. shouldn't the game pull data 10x faster. but its like its capped to the speed of an ssd
Could you do Optane with HHD and Optane with SSHD and include those side by side in the video if you get a chance to compare gen 4 m.2 against those as well?
Thanks for taking ur time into making this. I have wondered i never used any of the names drives u tested with i did not no if u ever tried WD black style drives i never new if they really where ever worth getting for games. My last system used 2 of these. I felt f4 was forced to load its self mid game and or areas not fully loaded...
Really needed this! I'm building my first computer and have been suggested to use a m.2 nvme as boot drive and ssd to store all my games, or use a ssd as boot and hdd to store my games by someone else. Seeing as there is very little difference between the m.2 nvme and ssd, i'd much rather just use 1 or 2 ssd's to save money without compromising speed. Thank you!
Edit: I found out that if you look away from the premium m.2 NVMes, you can get them for around the same price as normal SATA
You can usually get good mid tier nvmes for the same price as ssds such as the sabrent rocket (not q) or sx8200 pro when there's deals on
Another vote for the sabrent rocket.
I watched a video where it showed how close in performance the rocket got to the Samsung pros highly recommend but I am trying to find out now which nvme drive has the best longevity aka lifespan as I would rather have ok performance and long lifespan than great extreme performance but shorter lifespan.
I know maximum TBW or terabytes written is the metric used to express storage longevity but can't find any information for nvme drives on this topic.
you want a pizza me? Western digital’s website for their sn750 claims over 1.7 million hours mean time to failure. What is that like 20 years? LOL I think they come with a three or five year warranty anyways. I just ordered one off of Newegg. I watched benchmark videos that drive achieves around 3.4 GB per second read speed. After tax the one terabyte version will set you back around $165. That’s if you get the one with the heat sink on it which I highly recommend
@@Yoslizzle can you pass me the link or the model name, thanks
@@Sergio-gy3il If you're just playing games don't bother. The Western Digital SN550 will load them just as fast and is only $110 or so after tax.
I can wait that long no problem
That's hilarious 😂😂
just kinda frustrating when open your laptop or chrome :V Sometimes you want that speed when on rush
But that's not only about loading time. Because HDD is very slow in comparison to SSD you can experience some stutters in newer games.
(Sorry for my English)
@@diabelgrogaty1963 exactly this. Newer games stream alot of data from HDD causing stutters (in some cases severe stutters) during gameplay.
When u play online and make evey one wait for ur hdd
Can't wait to see these load times on that NVMe drive with next gen games
Playing an older fallout title like 3 or new Vegas with as SSD is really nice. It takes less time to get through a loading screen door than it does to open a non loading screen door. The second you hit E you appear on the other side.
Thats what i call new content! Im always waiting for this experiment to happen.
Thank you test mania!
You're welcome!
🤜🤛
With HDDs you at least have time to read the loading texts... Or bake a cake while the game loads at least when it finally begins you'd already be stuffed with dessert!
Maybe youre right but my hdd is so slow and broken that its affecting my fps...
@@vansaxd265 You may load smaller games into RAM as a ram disk :D Gives you nearly M.2 performance, if you've got enough RAM and wanna cope with copying/installing all the time, ofc. And you need to do some work for your savegames, if these aren't within a cloud.
@@vansaxd265 HDD should not effect FPS at all
@@Wipeout186 When its not fast enough to load stuff properly ...
@@mrn234 Most games today load a map or area, hence if the load time is not to bad and you don't mind waiting 30 seconds longer then having a cheaper HDD is fine as it speed should not affect FPS normally.
But I admit I have games where the load time on a HDD is to long even for my taste so SSD is used lol.
PCIe4.0x4 really does not make sense yet. The memory subsystem of Ryzen is still not optimized for full duplex PCIe, same to that Phison E16 controller.
building my first pc and wasn't sure what to buy and this help alot my man. thanks.
I was thinking the M.2 but 1sec faster then SSD isn't much.
Aha, fallout 4 heavy moded :
1 min 40 sec
Ssd kingston
The problem is the read access. Most NVME drives are barely faster on access than a fast SSD, so if you have to load a lot of smaller files, you will get nearly the same performance. The difference is in loading big files, but they usually need to be decompressed and if that's not optimized the CPU will be the bottleneck for the load. A fast Samsung SSD is probably better than a slower NVME SSD for most applications.
Yeap. NVME doesn't matter for games. A quality SSD/M2 will do.
You have no brain : ).... . M2 on 16x PCI adapter with SSD Micron Power...and I piss on that shit.... .
@hYPERs I wonder if the Asynchronous Data Copy from Global Memory to Shared Memory from the Nvidia's Ampere lineup could boost the loading times even more.
I'm looking to make an upgrade from a 1TB HDD to a 2TB SATA3 SSD this Christmas. Was disappointing because my motherboard didn't have any M2 interfaces, but it looks like I won't be missing out on too much.
Hi, I a month ago RDR2 updated and boosted performance in loading time on my NVMe.
That doesn't sound accurate. I upgraded to a Samsung nvme and didnt see any improvement. I dont believe you especially since virtually all the benchmarks show the same loading times for nvme and sata
@@2023awakening that's what I keep seeing in several tests too, but maybe that is because these are current-gen games. Ps5 and xbox series X is supposed to have 5gb speed so maybe when next-gen games start to become available and devs aren't making the games for both gens that is when it will start to matter more?
Come one guys, you can put 70000mb/s nvme and the loading still will be the same against a sata ssd, clearly the bottleneck is the cpu that has to talk from storage to system memory and load every thing up to gpu memory, hopefully nvidia rxt 3000 series promise to fix that.
actually, that isn't 3xxx nvidia feature, even older cards could do that
but windows introduced support for this very recently and as for now, it's opt-in, not opt-out, so not many people enabled it...
also it doesn't make almost any difference now, implementation is very poor, hopefully that will change soon when game developers and gpu driver developers will start taking this feature in mind
@ yeah i know that, thats why i hope the rtx cards will push more this feature
I think some of the bottleneck is also just the lack of game engine efficiency.
No the real bottleneck is the engine, otherwise old games would load in an instant. 99% of games are still designed around mechanical drive speeds. Later this year once next gen consoles come out tons of games will take actual advantage of NVME and Sata SSD speeds.
@ Are you sure you aren't talking about hardware accelerated GPU scheduling that has recently been enabled in Windows WDDM? The hardware for that is already on existing GPUs, but before now it couldn't be used under Windows, and, for now, it actually slightly reduces performance compared to the traditional way of doing it.
I liked how the test started right away no chitchat shit.
Be cool to do a raid 0 with two 7200 drives. They're still decent and usable today given that 2TB+ is still expensive.
Games and NVMe... One thing to keep in mind is that you can pull out your SATA SSD and plug it into almost any old computer, which cannot be said for NVMe.
You can use a case to plug it in the usb
@Александр Борзов 2.5" SATA SSDs are plug in compatible with SATA HDDs.
You can use a pcie adapter for old boards.
@Александр Борзов ua-cam.com/video/L9ENVGa2e50/v-deo.html&feature=share
@Александр Борзов your computer has to be like 20+ years old to be uncompatable with AHCI and/or a custom make with its own hard drive control command queue system instead of AHCI
hai Bro, which one is better for gaming?
SSHD with 5400rpm or HDD with 7200rpm? thanks
ssd + hdd(5400rpm if you have a lot of important documents, because it's more
reliable than 7200, and for music, video e.t.c storage i used 7200), forget for SSHD
@@evgeniyproweb thanks bro.
I'm curious if there is something about NVMe and SATA3 that may be bottlenecking things to make them virtually identically matched. A simple reason would be bus that is bandwidth limited, though if it was that simple we'd widely be talking about it and introducing something to solve it. A less simple reason would be a memory(storage) controller not being fast or efficient enough to take advantage of NVMe. Certainly something to look into as I may be building a PC sometime this summer or fall.
@@youtubekilledtrustedflaggi9274 that doesn’t make sense. The size of the data is the same no matter the drive. A faster drive would force, or “allow,” the same GPU to do more decompression work faster possibly competing with rendering GPU resources. If anything a slower drive might gain performance, or stutter less than a faster drive.
@@EbonySeraphim It can make sense, but probably isn't the reason here or only partly. GPU decompression wasn't a thing until more recently, the CPU did, or does in every game so far to my knowledge, the decompression and the faster the SSD/drive, the busier the CPU will be with decompression and managing I/O operations. So, the CPU can be the bottleneck on fast NVMe SSDs, not allowing to make use of the full transfer speed.
But I think the reason is rather that 4 KiB read performance is much more relevant in these games than sequential speed and there's not necessarily much difference between AHCI (SATA) and NVMe (PCIe) SSDs. Or that the loading systems of those games aren't making use of NVMe capabilities, like high queue depth.
That said, I haven't done any testing myself (maybe I will at some point, but time is always an issue^^), just my thoughts now.^^
Thanks for the comparison
GTA Online:- I am about to end this SSD's whole life career
@13432 2dkti3 He means there is a read/write times limit on SSD so the more you use it the less it lasts
Wow great comparison, and here i thought i needed an Nvme drive over my current Hikvsion 512GB Sata SSD to speed up loading times even more. Thanks.
🤜🤛
Soon games will require to use an SSD at least.
Next gen games are designed to work on NVMe since those are the new drives on the next gen consoles
@@guidorussoheck2100 Next gen is only a console term, doesn't imply with PC upgrades, PC upgrading and power is endless and console will never catch up to it.
Hopefully RTX I/O and with Microsoft releasing DirectStorage API to game devs next year will make a dramatic difference in this test for 2021.
Raided 4 sata ssds a while back hoping it could get me into GTAV a lot faster. I learned my lesson. Is there a way or are there any games that don't have to unpack before it can be used?
This doesn't measure my happiness at not having SATA and power cables for anything but M.2 though :|
There are also M.2 SSD's with SATA connection AFAIK
@@ComradeFrana yeah msata is a thing and is compatible a lot of the time with m.2 slots but not always. good for laptops though.
Can't wait for the new consoles to make games actually able to load quickly when you give it the hardware to do so.
Still gonna rely on game/engine developers though..
Nice, suggestion is right over the results.
NVMe and SATA SSD is very similar in game load times because their random read/write performance is practically on par, the real benefit of an NVMe drive is with sequential read/writes such as video editing, then you get a night and day difference!
they should do windows boot time on those drives to show the difference
Guys i bought an ssd (500gb) and an hdd (2tb) and the ssd loading time is way faster but certainly it wont be enough to install all my games on the ssd so what do i do just install the games that take alot of time on my ssd and the other games on the hdd
I did something better. I actually went with a 2Tb NVME instead. Turns out the 2Tb nvme's are around the same price as the 2TB ssd and sometimes cheaper. I went with Sabrent 2TB Rocket NVMe PCIe M.2 2280 & The WD SN 750. The WD is way more expensive than the sabrent, i just wished i found the sabrent before. Im thinking of buying another sabrent for my system. So i have 2TB for Steam, 2TB for GoG/DRM Free games and thinking of getting another 2 TB for my origin/uplay/other launchers stuff. BUt to be honest i might not cause i don't support EA or Uplay for the most part, these are just games i've had years back. I like to keep a clean well organized system, without having to worry about space.
Nicholas Tracy did you know what the ratio is?
@@APMATT i think its about 80%
@@jesusvazquezramirez6407 Thank you!
@@__Nicholas__ I think that used to happen in the past, but they've fixed it with later iterations
Loading screens are nice an all, but the true difference can be seen AFTER, loading assets during gameplay is the real difference. Stutters and breaks VS fluid gameplay.
True, I moved horizon zero dawn from an hdd to an ssd because the in-game stuttering any time a new area got loaded was insane. Now it runs buttery smooth.
it's funny how a 5400 rpm hdd on a ps4 can move that thing easily
@S. T i played origins on ultra quality on a seagate hdd and i never experinced anything expect loading times of 50 secs to 30
Lots of times users use a pci-e 4x slot what is shared between the nvme slot. I added my old pci-e Xfi card and my speed went from 3560MB/s to 1700MB/S. I put the soundcard in another slot and i had the full nvme speed back. Always check link speed in Intel optane software
The Crystal Disk Mark is completly insane. On loading the games the diference between NVMe PCIe 4.0 vs SSD SATA is only 1 second
NVMe SSDs performance is expected to improve a lot in newer games starting some time next year as Microsoft unrolls a new API that allows for faster memory access from them, and games start being programmed for it and for the new consoles.
1 year later there's no difference in games
@@bladeofmiquella8633 6 months later there's no difference in games
@@calahan59 4 hours later there's no difference in games
@@Gruxxan 3 months later there's no difference in games
amazing comparision lot usefull keep up the hardwork best wishes from pakistan
hmn wonder if the save file for each of these games are also stored on the fastest NVME though, otherwise, that could also bottlenecking the NVME loading speed
Как все наглядно! Спасибо!
Music ?
Au5 - Follow You (feat. Danyka Nadeau) (Fractal Chill Mix)
ua-cam.com/video/05jd9fwGlSM/v-deo.html
I wasted 2 minutes and 55 seconds of my life.. Watching loading screen
Sata ssd is still the best price performance though..
and storage ,
Does the high speed of write/read effects the speed of downloading games?
Nice you are smart. You started hdd test first.
I've looking a lot into this and to be honest, nvme doesn't seem to be worth the cost over sata for gaming. This seems to be consistent with lots of benchmarks. I'll wait an extra 2 seconds if I can save a lot of money.
it was never going to benefit gaming. nvme pcie, especially gen 4 will benefit applications that make heavy disk usage. So video editing, certain specialised apps will benefit, most else won't.
@@davepastern So for gaming a good solid sata with dram will suffice is what you're saying?
@@105rogue yeah pretty much. if gaming is the sole thing the PC will be doing, go with Intel. if you wanna mix up gaming and productivity, and productivity that requires some oomph, I'd recommend going with AMD. The Ryzen CPUs smash Intel when it comes to multi-core/multi-threaded apps. A normal SSD will suffice for general usage and gaming imho. I'm currently building a new PC who's sole reason for existence will be to run PixInsight, which is a very specialised application designed to process astrophotography images. It DOES benefit from nvme pcie m2 SSDs and multi core CPUs (more cores the better!). But, it is a specialised app. I'll be using a mixture of normal SSD for boot and base data drives, a seagate ironwolf 7200 rpm nas drive for long term storage (4tb prolly) and 3 nvme pcie m2 drives - 1 gen 4 (seagate firecuda 520 500gb and 2x samsung evo plus 256gb). The nvme drives will ONLY be used for disk cache for PixInsight and parallel processing. I hadn't build a PC since my last one in 2012 and so much has changed!!!
@@davepastern Yeah I already have a 3600 cpu in my pc
@@105rogue should be fine for gaming, not as fast the equivalent Intel, but you know, some games it's only a few percent slower than the Intel, other games the gap may be wider. I wouldn't sweat it with nvme for games though.
You can clearly see in which games the SSDs are CPU limited and cannot reach their theoretical performance. This should greatly improve when Microsofts DirectStorage starts to become common, which uses the GPU to accelerate decompression of game data when it's loaded into memory.
I would like to know what program you used to measure load times?
Not enough info to get a full picture on the NVMe - was this on a motherboard with PCIe gen3 or gen4? With the lanes going direct to the CPU or through the chip set?
Just expanded the info box - So it was a Gen4 board, that surprised me.
The thing with SSHD, it will have to be preloaded with a certain software to get the best out of it, which is what this video doesn't show
5007 MB/s - 7 It is important))
Sure it's important.
007 Bond.. James Bond.
We need DirectStorage API to take avantage of M.2 speeds
So can games just be decompressed from installation? Is it possible to modify games to utilize storage speed by software at home?
The small difference between SATA and M.2 in some of the games is CPU bottleneck as it's decompression the data. This is why next gen consoles are solving this with either dedicated hardware like in the PS5 or more efficient process like in the XBOX Series X and using the GPU to help. This feature that the Series X is using Microsoft is bringing to Windows 10
Less than 5% difference for more than half the cost=not worth it
Why aren't games loading faster on m.2?
It is compared to the regular sata ssd but the difference is negligible. In real world testing, you won't be able to tell the difference 99% of the time.
@@TaijiArban Yeah, I see that now. But I was always under impression that a Nvme at 5000 mbs read will load games much faster than regular SSD at 500 mbs. This I can't figure out why doesn't work like that? Does it have something to do where the Win10 is installed? Maybe Win10 must be also on the Nvme drive?
@@prodigy_84 as far as I know, there's a limit to how much speed a game can utilize from a drive.
@@prodigy_84 5000 MB/s is only a sequential read, meaning just one large file, like a movie for example.
Games however, are stored as many smaller assets. The benchmark at 2:47 shows the performance in a more relevant scenario. The bottom number in each result screen is the speed when accessing multiple small chunks of data in random locations. Then the read speed is ~60 MB/s.
@@prodigy_84 5000mbps is the top speed, but it can go below, depending on the load, even then most games have a limit to how much they use
you should do a video on the npc and textures pop in after a load screen. that star wars one the m.2 had none where the others took longer to spawn the npc. watching that was better
just wandering what 2x Gen3 TLC ~3,500mbps drives in raid 0 would do
m.2 NVMe: Bro
SSD: what
m.2: how fast you are
SSD: a VERY little slower than you
m.2: yes, hey SSHD
m.2: SSHD?
SSHD: what
m.2: how fast u are
m.2: dude wtf
SSHD: half ur speed
m.2 ok so now hdd tell me ur speed
m.2: as fast as sshd?
SSD: he is not responding
Hilarious Comment!
@@railfan_indian i know
Cringe
@@lxerol no u
Cringe and i had a stroke reading this
Do you have a 9900K processor? I think that at a certain data transfer rate, the processor and RAM are the weaker place. That is, the more powerful the processor and RAM, the greater the difference between a slow SSD and a fast SSD.
i think with newer technology this will change to favour nvme even more and we could see load time reduced beyond 3-4x
I'm happy with my SATA SSD's, by far the biggest boost to gaming we've been blessed with.
Back to the good 'ol days
After the next gen console, NVME should have much quicker load time
@@bowenfeng9750 instant game load sounds fun
@@bowenfeng9750 NVMe on PCs for games deal with many bottlenecks. Sony removed them on PS5 and literally loads PS4's Spiderman in 0.83 seconds... and that was a year ago. After the new Oodle texture compression tech it's twice as fast, though we won't see games with it until next year. Xbox on the other hand will take a while (looking like 18 months) as MS' direct storage tech isn't ready yet, but once it is you'll see it in PC games as well.
@@bowenfeng9750 Depends on where you live. NVME doesn't cost a whole lot more than SATA drives here.
@@roller12coaster They won't probably make any real difference since game loading time is dependent on various factors, the most important being the SSD's random read speed, which has never, ever reached anywhere near the SATA speed limit. In fact, a decent drive only gives about 50-60 MB/s random read - even less than PATA!
The second thing is certainly CPU and memory bottlenecks. As game loading isn't only a copy-and-paste job but the CPU also has to process the information pooled from the drive and load them into memory, these speeds are going to limit loading times.
@@phamnguyenductin Okay, and why are you telling me this? Did you tag the wrong person?
was the nvme ssd used as a boot drive and local game config??
Wow , 15 year of tech progress in order to see 30sec less of loading time!
Does the hdd have windows on it or is it just loading the games
Could people please stop referring to the left drive as the "M2" one???? Geesh
M2 is just the slot, it's not the deciding factor here, NVME is.
There are M2 Sata SSDs too ya know ... and they're just as "slow" as the 2.5'' ones.
SSHD performed a lot better than I expected in some instances.
The SSHD doesn't really get any benefits unless it's something you use regularly, right? Because then it stores it in the SS cache? I have a feeling if you were playing the same game every day, your SSHD loading times would get lower
A few years back: hdd vs ssd
Now: pcie 4 vs pcie 3 vs sata
A few years later: ram vs ssd
A few years after that: DDR6 vs DDR7 ram
the simple concept of ram make it useless for storage, maybe a different but kinda similar thing could work, but ram eliminate all content as soon as current stops
@@seemysight You can create what is called a Ramdisk.
@@Keepone974 that you have to power by a battery :p
@@jared5941 its great as cache and ramtemp
In the future ssds could replace ram but the other way around is not possible because ram is volatile
0:45 - 17ms NVMe over SATA? THATS WORTH IT, gonna buy!
If u stand as middle class i’ll take it as a joke if higher then serious xD
Was the NVMe pci express x4 or SATA? If SATA the drive would be bottlenecked by interface just like the SSD. My older MB has two NVMe slots, one pci express and one SATAS.
how come the standard is almost as quick as the (10x??) faster m.2?
human eye can't see past 560mb/s
This confirms my personal experience. Despite the much faster speed of the NVMe SSD, it doesn't change much in a real world scenario. Windows won't boot any faster either.
Unless you're copying big files around, you're not gonna notice much of a difference.
NVME not worth the price, not much difference between SSDs
So i have gigabyte-ga-a320m-s2h motherboard. What 500GB SSD would y'all recommend? I'm thinking of a crucial mx500 m.2 or gigabyte NVMe m.2.
Damn Nice Tunes
Basically NVME is a marketing scam. Well, for most gamers.
there's clearly a huge bottleneck somewhere in the i/o subsystem.
this is going to look VERY different in two years time.
The 2020s are gonna crazy for CGI related products/services. Off to a great start this year.
bottleneck come from HDD. Games were optimalized for HDD not ssd and nvme.
Seems like the M.2 is running in SATA mode and not PCIE Mode. You may want to check your Bios settings.
check the benchmarks at the end
thanks for that. i almost bought a 512GB NVMe over a 1TB SATA one, thinking a PCIE one would be crucial for those next gen games even on PC.