How many people run SSDs?

robdutchmonkey said:
Yes like I said, an ssd should be your last upgrade or investment because no matter how fast your ssd, you can't play games without a gpu. And a good cpu and ram will boost better gaming performance as well. An ssd only helps with load times and a fast pc in general
Click to expand...

Which I think sums up why I think its better to spend money on an SSD than a GPU. I have a 5770, which is fine for my gaming needs. For me, buying an SSD makes a lot more sense than buying 6970. Sure, a 6970 will be faster, but that doesnt really matter to me. Since my 5770 can run Deus Ex, a brand new game, pretty well, I really see no reason to upgrade. An SSD on the other hand, affects everything, and makes everything faster.

Is it worth the R4k? I'm not sure yet, but I'd rather spend R4k on an SSD than R4k on a GPU.
 
Ancalagon said:
Which I think sums up why I think its better to spend money on an SSD than a GPU. I have a 5770, which is fine for my gaming needs. For me, buying an SSD makes a lot more sense than buying 6970. Sure, a 6970 will be faster, but that doesnt really matter to me. Since my 5770 can run Deus Ex, a brand new game, pretty well, I really see no reason to upgrade. An SSD on the other hand, affects everything, and makes everything faster.

Is it worth the R4k? I'm not sure yet, but I'd rather spend R4k on an SSD than R4k on a GPU.
Click to expand...

Lol lets agree to disagree

My first point still stands

An ssd is a luxury, so is all my hard drives, so is a 6970, so is most of the lavish things in a pc we most have and will always be preference over anything else.
 
will my 5850 produce higher fps bec of a ssd?
or is it just load times?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using MyBroadband Android App
 
Someone answered your question already, it will only affect load times.

robdutchmonkey said:
Lol lets agree to disagree

My first point still stands

An ssd is a luxury, so is all my hard drives, so is a 6970, so is most of the lavish things in a pc we most have and will always be preference over anything else.
Click to expand...

its definitely a luxury, as is a 6970 as you say. Heck even a 5770 is a luxury. I suppose whether its worth it depends on what you are currently running. If I had integrated graphics or something, I would probably not even consider an SSD. Unless I was using a laptop I suppose.
 
Sorry Qrox, didnt see your reply....
Id rather get a new gpu then, lol :)

Sent from my GT-I9000 using MyBroadband Android App
 
Buying a ssd over a gpu? You must be on crack :D. I would rather have a better gpu than a ssd. What grinds me though is people who spend 3-4k on every component but look at you funny when you suggest a 2-3k hdd :D.

Once in game the ssd is basically useless. Rob is spot on though, if you want a gaming rig buy the ssd with spare cash, don't skimp on a gpu to buy one.

SSD is not a luxury if you use it for work purposes, it can actually save you a bunch of time during the day. It must save me an hour a day easily.
 
If you guys keep insisting that SSD's dont do anything for gaming, I suggest you guys stop playing Happy Kitten Island adventures / Solitaire / minesweeper.

Running on a SSD made some of my games perform BETTER than ever. All those annoying loading times in WoW when you enter instances, when you zone into a new continent... all those times on a normal spinner when move around in cities and the drive has to load data to keep the buffers full, thats all gone. All those times your pc stutters for a few seconds while its accessing your harddrive while running around in games with big maps... thats FPS loss. Like mentioned above, forget the insane sustained throughput... that's nothing compared to the low seek times when your drive has to access data on a SSD.

My first SSD was a intel X25 M 80 gig, I was immediately convinced that SSD's is the way of the future.... currently running on a Revo X2 160 gig and its one of those "non-negotiable" components I will build my systems around when I upgrade.

Do yourself a favour, and watch you HDD activity LED when playing games... you will be surprised how much loading your drive does in game... well except if you play those games mentioned in my opening sentence :-p

It doesnt mean you have to run on a Geforce GTS 250 .... but if you are faced with the option of running a GTX570 and no SSD, or running with a GTX460 with a SSD... the choice should be clear. Seriously, most of the negative comments are from people that are still too scared to jump onto the SSD bandwagon. I was one massive skeptic when it came to forking out 2 gorilla's for a SSD... now I am a changed man (aka fanboy!)
 
Last edited:
Pornolio said:
.... but if you are faced with the option of running a GTX570 and no SSD, or running with a GTX460 with a SSD... the choice should be clear.
Click to expand...

Yeah well said, all about your PC being in balance... WEI taught me this:p
No need to go huge on an SSD though, it is purely for things you want to speed up... windows and your favorite game, or 2...
 
Sigh
SSD = ZERO increase in FPS for games
SSD = ZERO loading times, for everything thats on the SSD

The end. Now you decide whats more important
 
Pornolio said:
If you guys keep insisting that SSD's dont do anything for gaming, I suggest you guys stop playing Happy Kitten Island adventures / Solitaire / minesweeper.

Running on a SSD made some of my games perform BETTER than ever. All those annoying loading times in WoW when you enter instances, when you zone into a new continent... all those times on a normal spinner when move around in cities and the drive has to load data to keep the buffers full, thats all gone. All those times your pc stutters for a few seconds while its accessing your harddrive while running around in games with big maps... thats FPS loss. Like mentioned above, forget the insane sustained throughput... that's nothing compared to the low seek times when your drive has to access data on a SSD.

My first SSD was a intel X25 M 80 gig, I was immediately convinced that SSD's is the way of the future.... currently running on a Revo X2 160 gig and its one of those "non-negotiable" components I will build my systems around when I upgrade.

Do yourself a favour, and watch you HDD activity LED when playing games... you will be surprised how much loading your drive does in game... well except if you play those games mentioned in my opening sentence :-p

It doesnt mean you have to run on a Geforce GTS 250 .... but if you are faced with the option of running a GTX570 and no SSD, or running with a GTX460 with a SSD... the choice should be clear. Seriously, most of the negative comments are from people that are still too scared to jump onto the SSD bandwagon. I was one massive skeptic when it came to forking out 2 gorilla's for a SSD... now I am a changed man (aka fanboy!)
Click to expand...

If you need these thoughts to justify your overpriced ssd then go ahead, it's your money but don't go out talking nonsense.

I play many pc games, from racing to FPS (given I don't play wow, hon, etc) but honestly, even with newest of the new games, a normal hdd is more then good enough and no there is no real FPS loss. You'll get more FPS loss with a smaller gpu than with an ssd so I don't know where that argument even comes from.

If you wanna see and FPS loss due to moving across a large map, try KZ on ps3. Even there it's only a split second stutter so I'm sorry but your argument stinks of you talking about something you don't know much about.

Like I said, if you use a ssd, you might notice a few milli seconds worth of differences in-game, and indeed faster loading times. However, give anyone a normal hdd and there won't be too much difference gaming wise to justify the expense since a normal hdd is perfect enough.

Show me a game where it has an ssd as a recommended requirement
 
Look, I'm not a gamer and am new to the SSD scene and loving it but I concur that SSD's are currently 30-40% too expensive to be considered viable for mainstream penetration. Having said that at this point I do not regret the R2.5k I just dropped on a Vertex 3. Also have a look at this 15 page PDF file documenting SSD effect on gaming.... It slightly technical but not overly and I'm sure you guys can draw your own conclusions from the data presented in it...
 
sandmanm34 said:
Look, I'm not a gamer and am new to the SSD scene and loving it but I concur that SSD's are currently 30-40% too expensive to be considered viable for mainstream penetration. Having said that at this point I do not regret the R2.5k I just dropped on a Vertex 3. Also have a look at this 15 page PDF file documenting SSD effect on gaming.... It slightly technical but not overly and I'm sure you guys can draw your own conclusions from the data presented in it...
Click to expand...

More sigh
Did you check the test rig they used? They deliberately only used 2GB of RAM so that not enough info would get stored in RAM, hence the HDD would need to work more than usual. Seriously, if you are running anything less than 4GB in your gaming machine you are dumb, and should save yourself R2000 and get another 2GB of RAM for R250 instead of buying a SSD

Running 4GB of RAM any game will store the required data on RAM (which is waaaaay faster than a SSD), and your HDD will not see use except when loading. Hence, we are back to:
SSD = ZERO increase in FPS for games
SSD = ZERO loading times, for everything thats on the SSD
 
Last edited:
robdutchmonkey said:
Like I said, if you use a ssd, you might notice a few milli seconds worth of differences in-game, and indeed faster loading times. However, give anyone a normal hdd and there won't be too much difference gaming wise to justify the expense since a normal hdd is perfect enough.
Click to expand...

im sorry dude, but this is complete and utter BS. anyone playing a game at 1920x1200 max res max details (read = longer load times) saying that its not worth it has rocks in his head

unless you just not aware/knowledgeable enough to be aware of the differences? :p

edit : otherwise maybe u just play pony love

:D :D
 
Let me paint another analogy for you...

It's kinda like going to an iPhone after being an avid Blackberry user. Sure Blackberry was good enough, hell it was even awesome. Then you got your iPhone... which turns out to be EPIC!! But you cant explain that to someone who is a Blackberry fan... They need to experience it.

You try to tell them... but all they see is the "oh no way thats tooooo expensive, *shakes head* never worth it! /sticks head in sand

Then you go back to your Blackberry, and it feels like you side-by-side with Noah building his Ark :)

experience > perception
 
Last edited:
Archer said:
More sigh
Did you check the test rig they used? They deliberately only used 2GB of RAM so that not enough info would get stored in RAM, hence the HDD would need to work more than usual. Seriously, if you are running anything less than 4GB in your gaming machine you are dumb, and should save yourself R2000 and get another 2GB of RAM for R250 instead of buying a SSD

Running 4GB of RAM any game will store the required data on RAM (which is waaaaay faster than a SSD), and your HDD will not see use except when loading. Hence, we are back to:
SSD = ZERO increase in FPS for games
SSD = ZERO loading times, for everything thats on the SSD
Click to expand...

You'll never have memory used as efficiently as you would like. I mean, lets assume you wanted to reload a quicksave in a game. Most of the time, the assets from the game will be loaded from disk again. This is because the game is not smart enough to work out whether it really needs to hit the disk, and the OS cannot make any assumptions in case you deliberately want to load from the disk again and discard any possible changes.

I mean, hence why even playing IWD2, an ancient game from 1998 or something, on my 4GB PC still results in load times when quick loading. They arent long compared to some games but are about the same as if I was loading a new level.

So, for me, the choice is obvious. My FPS is high enough for me, while I could always use faster load times, faster boot times and faster compile times.
 
HTC_guy / Ancalagon... you guys hit the nail on the head.

What guys like archer/Robdutchmonkey fails to understand is the following, the thing with more RAM, it's not a given it'll be used. Most games won't use your 6 gigs, many will hardly use 2. Most games will insist on loading resources on the fly regardless of how much RAM you have, and this is when an SSD will reduce the impact of loading hitches, over an HDD. Loading on the fly, causes stutters / glitches / fps loss / overall loss of playability.

You can have the fastest cpu, best video card, best motherboard and 10000000 gig of ram... guess what... your pc will still feel / react / load, slower without an SSD.

Another interresting article I think they should read is : http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/hard_data_proves_ssds_improve_game_performance

Then in rob's excellent example of a PS3 game which he likes to use an example, you do know the ps3's comes out with normal spinners hey ? Coincidence ?
Go read up on the net what the guys are saying which managed to get ssd's into their PS3's.

And before you start with rubbish statements again... Its not a requirement to have ssd's for gaming, but hell it makes one HELL of a difference.
Your pc is only as fast as the weakest component in it....
 
What you guys epicly fail to understand is that SSD gives ZERO increased fps,
BUT
the epicness of a SSD in other areas is still worth it
 
Last edited:
Ancalagon said:
You'll never have memory used as efficiently as you would like. I mean, lets assume you wanted to reload a quicksave in a game. Most of the time, the assets from the game will be loaded from disk again. This is because the game is not smart enough to work out whether it really needs to hit the disk, and the OS cannot make any assumptions in case you deliberately want to load from the disk again and discard any possible changes.

I mean, hence why even playing IWD2, an ancient game from 1998 or something, on my 4GB PC still results in load times when quick loading. They arent long compared to some games but are about the same as if I was loading a new level.

So, for me, the choice is obvious. My FPS is high enough for me, while I could always use faster load times, faster boot times and faster compile times.
Click to expand...


So ie
Zero increase in FPS but zero load times. Ok just checking. I'm sure someone has said this before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X