[SOLVED] Beter NVMe for Better Gaming Performance?

[DeviceManagerSteve?]

I realize it may be a tiny percentage but for in-game performance, would a better quality NVMe give better performance and hit registration? For instance, a WD Blue 1TB has a read speed of 2400 MBps and a WD Black 1TB has a read speed of 3430 MBps. Would having the WD Black 1TB provide a slight (even if unnoticeable) edge to the person using it, assuming all other things are equal?

 

[logainofhades]

Games don't really benefit from faster NVME storage. Your load time might be slightly faster, but that's about it.

 

[USAFRet]

I realize it may be a tiny percentage but for in-game performance, would a better quality NVMe give better performance and hit registration? For instance, a WD Blue 1TB has a read speed of 2400 MBps and a WD Black 1TB has a read speed of 3430 MBps. Would having the WD Black 1TB provide a slight (even if unnoticeable) edge to the person using it, assuming all other things are equal?

No.
You might get a 0.5 sec benefit in level loading time, but thats about it.

 

[DeviceManagerSteve?]

I have heard that but doesn't it make sense that when the game is loading textures in different spots on the map that it would use the ssd in some way? I don't know that it does, which is why I sm asking.

 

[logainofhades]

The SSD does help with the loading, but you have to factor in many games are online, and online connections will be slower, than any SSD, for the vast majority of people. Then you also have the CPU and GPU that have work they have to process. For just gaming, a SATA SSD is enough, but with prices as they are, a cheap NVME, like a Crucial P1, or Intel 660p, is often the better choice, if you have the available slot.

 

[USAFRet]

 

[sizzling]

I’ve moved many games between NVMe and SSD in the same system. I cannot tell any difference.

 

[DeviceManagerSteve?]

The SSD does help with the loading, but you have to factor in many games are online, and online connections will be slower, than any SSD, for the vast majority of people. Then you also have the CPU and GPU that have work they have to process. For just gaming, a SATA SSD is enough, but with prices as they are, a cheap NVME, like a Crucial P1, or Intel 660p, is often the better choice, if you have the available slot.

I’ve moved many games between NVMe and SSD in the same system. I cannot tell any difference.

But what if you were to give it to a professional gamer. Would that player (conceivably) be able to tell the difference between the two?

 

[USAFRet]

But what if you were to give it to a professional gamer. Would that player (conceivably) be able to tell the difference between the two?

'difference', in what aspect?

FPS?
Load times?

 

[DeviceManagerSteve?]

'difference', in what aspect?

FPS?
Load times?

In-game performance, specifically hit registration.

 

[sizzling]

But what if you were to give it to a professional gamer. Would that player (conceivably) be able to tell the difference between the two?

I’ve never seen any reviews show any measurable difference and never read any articles saying pro gamers see a benefit. I have seen a blind test done by LTT and their staff couldn’t identify the difference between SSD and NVMe in general use including gaming.

 

[USAFRet]

In-game performance, specifically hit registration.

That is CPU/GPU/RAM.
Not the drive.

 

[logainofhades]

But what if you were to give it to a professional gamer. Would that player (conceivably) be able to tell the difference between the two?

There will be no perceivable difference in load times, between a WD blue vs a black.

 

[Math Geek]

i had to just accept that there are better players out there. it's not my mouse, keyboard, fps, cpu, gpu, ram speed, ssd speed or anything else. i just suck at the game compared to others around me.

spend all the cash you want but in the end, practice practice practice is all that will really "make a visible difference" in the game

 

[hotaru.hino]

Once everything the game needs is in RAM, storage is no longer a factor in the performance equation. For games that aren't open world, loading usually takes care of everything the game needs to play that instance. However, even for open world games like say GTAV, I've noticed that the game only asks for the bare minimum to be playable, then loads in the rest as needed. That is, it loads the boundaries of the map (so the physics knows how to work), then low res assets, then high res assets. Basically, it may not matter as much in performance than in the days of old that seemed to try to load everything at once.

If we're talking about online gaming performance, at a certain point it doesn't matter. The netcode and logic are sampling everyone's inputs at a fixed rate and this can be as low as the bare minimum FPS people are willing to play at, not to mention some games employ lag compensation. Granted, the in-game performance should be well above this sample rate (maybe like 2x), but the advantage of going further rapidly diminishes.