• Now's your chance win big! Join our community and get entered to win a RTX 2060 GPU, plus more! Join here.

    Pi Cast Episode 3 streams live on Tuesday, August 4th at 2:30 pm ET (7:30 PM BST). Watch live right here!

    Catch Scharon on the Tom's Hardware Show live on Thursday, August 6th at 2:00 pm ET (7:00 PM BST). Click here!

Exploring SSD Performance In Battlefield 3, F1 2011, And Rift

Status
Not open for further replies.

clonazepam

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2010
2,625
0
21,160
119
Makes sense. I'll install sw:tor to the ssd after i figure out how to make its 20GB fit on it lol... the rest go to the HDD...

Good read. Thanks for being so thorough.
 
G

Guest

Guest
IMO, a WD Caviar Black or a Samsung Spinpoint F3 would have been a better test drive than the Green one.
 

christoforo

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2010
1
0
18,510
0
Thanks to all the reviews you made here guys. A couple of months ago I started planning my ssd purchase, and i decided to buy a Kingston HyperX 240gb bundle kit. I cant wait till it arrives. I have advanced computer skills, so many things I thought from personal experiences are published here, like I knew some games are more write dependant or read dependant from and HDD, and about the apps on the background on WIN7, and many many more. I already ordered my SSD, but its nice to have a serious review about ssds on gaming performance. Its all about the speed that the apps can be done by write/read on a ssd on the background that really matters, from this simple thing is that anyone willing to upgrade to an ssd can benefit with a smoother playable experience.
 

gmcizzle

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2009
944
0
19,160
55
Storage can actually make a difference in FPS in certain situations. Only put in 2gb or so of RAM in the test system and rerun Battlefield 3, and the difference in frame rates will be different between HDD and SSD as the game switches to secondary storage once RAM is exhausted.
 
True, but it is much more cost effective to add more RAM to your system in that circumstance than to get an SSD large enough for your OS and a couple of games. With RAM so inexpensive these days there is absolutely no reason to be running low on it under any gaming scenario.
 

cumi2k4

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2011
309
0
18,810
14
Agreed with xyzqwerty, please do another test with faster drives such as wd black or the f3. Comparing the ssd with green version is like racing your turtle with the neighbor's hare.
 

acku

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2010
559
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]cumi2k4[/nom]Agreed with xyzqwerty, please do another test with faster drives such as wd black or the f3. Comparing the ssd with green version is like racing your turtle with the neighbor's hare.[/citation]

I'm a little confused why you would want to see that comparison. We established there was no diff between a slow HDD and a fast SSD. And you expect a difference between a fast HDD and fast SSD?

Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com
 

FunSurfer

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
905
1
19,165
68



He probably want to see that comparison on the "Hard Drive Performance Comparison" page, where is a big difference between SSD and HDD performance (the HDD up to 477% slower)
 

masterjaw

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2009
1,159
0
19,360
40
IMO, a WD Caviar Black or a Samsung Spinpoint F3 would have been a better test drive than the Green one.
The point of using a slower drive than those is to emphasize the effects of using SSD vs HDD when it comes to gameplay/FPS. Of course, if the slower drive is quite on par with SSD on FPS ratings then the faster HDDs will do well too.
 

masterjaw

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2009
1,159
0
19,360
40


And who the hell would buy an expensive SSD but cannot even put a decent amount of RAM on his system? :pfff:
 

perfectblue

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2011
229
0
18,760
29
Quite surprised to see Skyrim and WoW left out of the pool. In my opinion games like these give a lot of improvement in SSD. Just think how many times you load in BF3 and compare that with skyrim. Pretty insane :D

Notably, my laptop with a Intel 510 250GB, my in-game load times are about 2 seconds in skyrim compared to the desktop running 1TB spinpoint at raid takes 4-5 seconds. The same desktop with a crucial M4 takes around 2 seconds. Moreover I never had any spikes/lags with SSDs while gaming.



 

gmcizzle

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2009
944
0
19,160
55
[citation][nom]masterjaw[/nom]And who the hell would buy an expensive SSD but cannot even put a decent amount of RAM on his system?[/citation]
Nobody would of course, but the point is it can make a difference.
 

Marcus52

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
619
0
19,010
9
[citation][nom]acku[/nom]I'm a little confused why you would want to see that comparison. We established there was no diff between a slow HDD and a fast SSD. And you expect a difference between a fast HDD and fast SSD?Cheers,Andrew KuTomsHardware.com[/citation]

If you are just looking at frame rate performance, you are of course correct Andrew; what's the point?. However, what about the launching of the games and level loading? In some games there is a marked difference.

The comparisons I'd like to see would be the load times for game launching and levels with faster hard drive solutions. As an MMORPG player, the zoning times would be of interest - how long does it take to zone into another instance, and does that significantly improve with an SSD?

I'd like to see 2 hard drives in RAID 0 compared. Other single hard drives would be interesting (being a great fan of the Velociraptor series, I'm always interested in those, even if they are kind of an odd duck at their price in today's world) but to a lesser degree for me.

The other test comparisons I'd like to see would be SSDs used in caching systems, such as what the Z68 chipset allows, (a whole article could be done on the effects of size of SSD on caching, I think) and solutions like the OCZ Synapse, and RAM drives. (RAM is so cheap now popping an extra 12GB into a 24GB capable mainboard and setting up a 16GB RAM drive looks like a very attractive way for me to boost performance in my aging X58 system. :) )

Please don't take any of my suggestions as complaints or that I'm saying your tests were incomplete; I'm just throwing some ideas out. I'm well aware of how much effort goes into producing these articles, and am grateful for all that you do.

;)


 

jemm

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2010
2,359
0
20,160
102
There a lot of things to consider, however smoothness in gaming is still an expensive feature. In the future we´ll be looking at SSDs prices like we do today with RAM.
 

Marcus52

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
619
0
19,010
9
[citation][nom]perfectblue[/nom]Quite surprised to see Skyrim and WoW left out of the pool. In my opinion games like these give a lot of improvement in SSD. Just think how many times you load in BF3 and compare that with skyrim. Pretty insane Notably, my laptop with a Intel 510 250GB, my in-game load times are about 2 seconds in skyrim compared to the desktop running 1TB spinpoint at raid takes 4-5 seconds. The same desktop with a crucial M4 takes around 2 seconds. Moreover I never had any spikes/lags with SSDs while gaming.[/citation]


He did WoW in a previous article.

I would like to have seen Skyrim too, but really Andrew's test suite should be about displaying different facets of storage solution performance before it's about pleasing the readers with games they want to see - and the games he chose are extremely popular. In my opinion, Rift isn't "the latest craze" in MMOGs, it's kind of old news, but it is still a good test to run at least once in that we see how it runs and how it is different than, say, WoW, or the other non-MMOG games.

One thing is very clear, games aren't all the same; not even games of the same type. One of the reasons I kept asking for WoW to be used as a bench in the past was because it was so CPU intensive, and most game weren't. In Cataclysm, that changed, and it became a game that could stress both CPU AND GPU, so I think it is a very good game to use for benches. However, MMOGs are harder to bench with than other games.

You can only use so many games for benchmarks, and some people are going to wish other games were used so an article relates to them more directly. I think it's good to make suggestions, but have trouble understanding why people get surprised when a game isn't used, talk in terms of something being "left out", or seem to take things personally.

;)
 

BrightCandle

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
Arma 2 is one of those games that really leans on hard drive performance. Because it uses a very large continuous world the game struggles to load the textures when travelling any faster than walking speed. There is never any texture/world popping with a Vertex 2 however, even an Intel X25-M is fast enough to solve the problem.

It matters a lot when using a helicopter or plane as trees are notoriously appearing at very short range all of a sudden. While it doesn't affect the frame rate the game works a whole lot better with enough IO performance.
 

BrightCandle

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
Wow benefits from an SSD in a few circumstances. With a normal HDD in Dalaran players will pop in very close to the player. An SSD on the other hand ensures the players are loaded much further away and the odd popping never happens. The SSD also seems to load faster between areas, twice as fast or so. However I have never seen Wow suffer frame rate issues related to its continuous use of the drive, and the other benefits are of marginal utility.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
I noticed a column called "disk queue" in the Disk section of perfmon, and i noticed origin and ie launched with a disk queue of 0.xx, while bf3 launched with with a queue of 1.xx. I'm using a 7200 RPM drive.

Question is, how can the disk queue be fractional?
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
Is the BF3 launch chart correct? you've listed:

I/O Trends:

93% of all operations occur at a queue depth of one
53% of all operations are random
42% of all operations are 4 KB in transfer size
16% of all operations are 8 KB in transfer size
11% of all operations are 16 KB in transfer size
15% of all operations are 32 KB in transfer size
11% of all operations are 128 KB in transfer size
But the chart shows 40% for 8KB.

Also, does
average transfer size * IOPS = MB/s
(from Understanding Storage Performance)

still hold in this case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY