PC Makers: We Need to Talk About the Boot Drive

[rantoc]

Agree, boot-drives are often overlooked and quite important for an overall snappy system. Also find a noticeable difference with stream read games where textures/objects and what not is read while in game when on good fast storage.

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

Both my desktop and laptop have 250GB class SSDs for OS and often used programs, with a 2 and 1 TB mechanical drives (respectively) for less used games and extra storage. I also have an external 4 TB drive for long term storage that I rarely access. Everything was peachy keen until I bought the new Doom. I downloaded it, played the crap out of it, and after closing out and going to find a document I was working on noticed my SSD had 900MB left on it. I didn't pay attention to what drive I had downloaded it to, so I moved the 50 GB game to the big drive and did my work, then went back to play it some more. It was GLACIALLY slow loading up and suffered from stutters as things loaded in. Very much a night and day difference. Needless to say, I'm in the market for some bigger SSD boot drives.

My company laptop has a 250 GB class SSD as well, but no games or music or movies on it. It works just fine and I'm not even a quarter full on that drive. So I can see where business laptops would be just fine for this small SSD configuration. Heck, I have a Surface Pro 2 with 128GB drive and a 64 GB SD card. My drive is 70% full, but I have no problems there because I don't use it as a gaming machine. It is purely a lying in bed Facebook/YouTube machine and a very portable travel companion. I have some games on the SSD, and my SD card has music and a few movies. That setup works very well. So... drive size depends on usage. A standard consumer machine is probably just fine with a 250 GB class SSD, but if you slap "Gaming" on it you REALLY should have AT LEAST a 500 GB class SSD, if not 1 TB.

A good rule of thumb should be: If it has only an IGP then use a little SSD; if it has discrete graphics, more storage so they can really pack it.

 

[cryoburner]

I recommend that you use some type of SSD for any system going forward, an NVMe drive for any system where performance matters (like a gaming or content creation rig), and a 500GB drive as a minimum for anything other than a basic budget machine.

At least in today's games, you'll be lucky to see more than a 10% difference in load times between the fastest NVME SSDs and even a mediocre SATA SSD, and for many games, load times will be virtually identical. Games are doing a lot more with data than just loading it, so nearly all recent SSDs should perform fairly similar in most games, whether SATA or NVME. I think most gaming-focused systems might be better served by an SSD with more capacity at a given price point, than by a lower-capacity NVME drive that will mostly be faster in benchmarks and certain non-gaming tasks. Or keep the same capacity and put the money toward other hardware that will make an actual difference to in-game performance, rather than just shaving a second or two off load times.

The Intel 660p actually seems somewhat reasonably priced, at least at that current Newegg pricing, but that's not typical pricing for NVME SSDs, and even at most other online stores the 1TB model of that drive is around $180-$200. And it is a lower-end model among NVME drives, that can apparently encounter some performance issues with very large writes, where in some cases sustained file transfers can perform worse than on a SATA SSD. It might arguably be worth paying a little more for a drive like that, but I'm not sure its worth paying significantly more unless the system is already rather high-end and that money couldn't be better spent elsewhere.

As far as prebuilt gaming systems go, most of the people buying them are probably not even going to have a good idea of what NVME even is, let alone see tangible benefits from having it over a SATA SSD. When it comes to where the manufacturer is willing to spend money on a gaming system, NVME should understandably be fairly low on the list.

 

[t99]

It's sad because most people buying a pc have no clue they are buying bottlenecked devices from the start. I've seen it so many times. For most people they will think the system runs fast even without an SSD. They don't know the difference.

 

[jamesltoa4]

AFAIK most reasonably recent systems such as those that would allow a PCIe connection, and run an OS such as Windows 10 do not have a "Boot Drive"
They have (as can be seen using the Storage ~ Disk Management links from the "This PC" icon
PARTITIONS labelled "System" "Boot"
The OS being run is only associated with the "Boot" facility by the OS selection list and startup modules.
That being why you can have GRUB and WIN-10 partitions on the same drive in a system.

So – where the Boot is, and it's size is only relevant in the short period until the OS startup process actually starts running.

Regarding the terminology
There is no such thing as a C: drive
Almost all storage facilities – hard drive or memory stick or SSD are IDE devices –
As in the drive comes with "Integrated Drive Electronics"
So PATA and SATA and PCI-E devices are all IDE

Additionally, there is NO requirement for the windows OS to actually run from a PARTITION labelled C:
When the startup process runs it can allocate any letter from Z down to C to any PARTITION including the one that the selected OS is running from.

You purport to have some 'Technical' expertise, so please show it by using the appropriate technology.

That dealt with – regarding actual devices in a system
Windows 10 will run on a 32GB partition –
You will of course have problems running any modern apps, or even Windows Update with just 32GB
I believe you should, for the current windows 10 management and change it for you Microsoft policy, need to have at least 64GB for the OS itself
With, maybe an additional 30+GB needed when you get to the bi-yearly update process.
So – anyone buying a system will need a 120GB level PARTITION for the OS
Regarding "Boot" – well maybe 200MB

Now, if you want to run applications or games in a fast response mode – then separate their storage from the OS Pagefile
As in a separate interface path to the motherboard
That should allow loading of programs from the drive concurrently with the OS using the Pagefile.
OK better to have enough RAM to allow you to not to have any Pagefile.

Re OS partition separate from the apps and data –
Yes – definitely not only for backup and restore purposes but also for throughput speed
allow OS processes to run on 1 device with the app (especially games) running from a separate device
Consider file processing –
OS gets asked for a file – is in in RAM cache? Is it in Pagefile cache?
Where on the device is it – scan MFT – repeat for the MFT pages – in RAM, on Pagefile)
Allocate RAM for the data block if not already done – as in page out somethings to get re-assignable RAM
Know where the file is on storage – Logical Block Nº request blocks from the device –
Is that block in cache on the device – if not load it into cache – and pass it back to the OS.

Yes - Real RAM can so much improve performance as can (if you have one) Pagefile on a fact response device.

So –
Do you need a fast BOOT PARTITION – Nope – BOOT is only done before system startup
Should you have your OS running from a fast partition – Yes it handles the I/O
Should you have your Pagefile on a fast partition – Yes if you cannot avoid one - it delays almost all throughput
Should you have the app and data separate from the OS and Pagefile – Yes especially if the device has a large cache – as in the up to 32GB optane
I would (am) looking at a system for good response under Windows 10 as
RAM 16GB at least – preferably for VM – as in sandbox and VM browsing may need 16GB for a session
CPU – at least 4 cores – see the current apps from MS
OS partition – SSD is nice – but if 32GB of Optane is available – then won't that hold almost all the files used by the OS so reducing access to the drive storage itself.
Apps partition – again Optane – another 32GB would be nice – but games etc may well have over 32GB of program and essential data – screen environment etc.
Multimedia and backup – only written once and maybe read once – and sped – well, at what multiplication rate can you watch and listen.

So – for a fast system 4+ core, 32GB RAM, 32GB optane on OS device 32GB Optane on apps device and large bulk store for installed apps and other bulk data

Boot drive – who cares as long as it does not also hold the OS PARTITION.

 

[g-unit1111]

The thing is no serious self respecting gamer would buy a Dell for gaming purposes when you can build your own and get way better hardware for the same price. And if they do, they know that you should have at least one or multiple SSDs in place. I just built a new rig a few weeks ago and eliminated the mechanical HDs for SSDs and it makes for a way better experience than it does having a mechanical HD does.

But let's be honest here, your average PC user who chooses to buy a Dell over building a PC, would they actually notice a 0.0000001% increase in load times?

 

[-Fran-]

The thing is no serious self respecting gamer would buy a Dell for gaming purposes when you can build your own and get way better hardware for the same price. And if they do, they know that you should have at least one or multiple SSDs in place. I just built a new rig a few weeks ago and eliminated the mechanical HDs for SSDs and it makes for a way better experience than it does having a mechanical HD does.

But let's be honest here, your average PC user who chooses to buy a Dell over building a PC, would they actually notice a 0.0000001% increase in load times?

That's a bit disingenuous, g-unit. Unless you're talking between SSDs or an array of.

The difference between loading times from an HDD to and SSD are really measurable. I came from a RAID 0 (512GBx2) 7200RPM black WD's to a single 256GB "boot drive" NVMe Samsung 960 and the difference is just mind blowing. My notebook takes, times, 12 seconds flat to be in Windows, ready for usage, whereas my PC used to take 2 minutes with the RAID 0 and now it takes around 20 seconds (damn UEFI load times).

Then you have MMOs and their loading times for maps, dungeons/instances, etc. Or even single player games to load their own maps and campaigns. The rule of thumb is really simple: the more assets need to be loaded, the more horrible the load time will be. If you're playing in 8K at full texture resolution, you'll be in for a wait-fest (yeah, bare with me here) and it is absolutely measurable.

Hence, I go back to my simple solution: start measuring it for the value judgement for pre-build systems.

Cheers!

 

[Crashman]

Amen brother. Unfortunately, this sermon was written 3 years ago and you're preaching to the choir.

Nah, ever heard of linking?

 

[photonboy]

The thing is no serious self respecting gamer would buy a Dell for gaming purposes when you can build your own and get way better hardware for the same price. And if they do, they know that you should have at least one or multiple SSDs in place. I just built a new rig a few weeks ago and eliminated the mechanical HDs for SSDs and it makes for a way better experience than it does having a mechanical HD does.

But let's be honest here, your average PC user who chooses to buy a Dell over building a PC, would they actually notice a 0.0000001% increase in load times?

BAFFLINGLY CONFUSING COMMENT...
You say SSDs make for a "way better experience" but then think someone who buys a Dell rather than building wouldn't notice the difference?

Where did the ".000001% increase in load times" come from? Are you implying a fast SSD vs slow SSD? Or HDD vs SSD (can't be because you said it's way better...)? Like I said, confusing.

BTW, since you mention Dell (Alienware AFAIK), if interested there's a set of videos at LTT (Linus Tech on YouTube) that went through the entire ordering, getting, troubleshooting (made-up problem), benchmark and comparing procedure for different companies. It was really interesting.

 

[tomandersonrocks]

I like my M.2 SSD that settles it for myself.

 

[tomandersonrocks]

I really like my new video card I enjoy it. Do you guys here on Toms Hardware?

 

[thinkspeak]

I prefer to keep the boot drive lean, because I do yearly installs of my OS and not having to even worry about what I wipe and need to install on fresh reinstall is nice. Saves a ton of time too.

 

[King_V]

The thing is no serious self respecting gamer would buy a Dell for gaming purposes when you can build your own and get way better hardware for the same price.

au contraire.... the sales can be amazing, and my last 3 PC purchases were Dells on a sale where purchasing the components, and OS, on my own would've cost more, yet it's pre-assembled and with a warranty.

Then I install my video card of choice.

 

[littleleo]

With QLC it will be interesting to see how the price per GB will be by the end of summer.

 

[littleleo]

au contraire.... the sales can be amazing, and my last 3 PC purchases were Dells on a sale where purchasing the components, and OS, on my own would've cost more, yet it's pre-assembled and with a warranty.

Then I install my video card of choice.

DELL doesn't always use the top quality in all it's components. That is why their prices can be so low. But if your happy that is what maters.

 

[King_V]

Yeah, it is true that their ability to update is somewhat limited based on some of their proprietary components in certain models.
Oddly, though, I'm given to understand that their power supplies might be a bit more robust than their generic appearance and modest power ratings indicate.

That all said, I am still running on an Haswell XPS 8700. This is my main PC. Over time I:

• Put in an R9 285 (when I bought the Dell)
• Upgraded to 16GB of RAM
• Added a pair of 500GB SSDs
• New PSU (Seasonic, 650W) - with the intent to get a 1080Ti
• GTX 1080 FE

Had I known I'd wind up with a 1080 instead of a 1080Ti, I likely would've stuck with the factory PSU.

My son's XPS 8910 wound up getting the R9 285, added a 500GB SSD, and recently upgraded to an RX 580 8GB. Going to increase his RAM to 16GB from its current 8GB as well.

For the most common upgrades, they're quite doable, and have been reliable. At his mother's house, he's using an old Sandy Bridge XPS 8300, with a GTX 660Ti+ (EVGA 3GB model) swapped in.

Some of their layout choices and proprietary bits are irksome, but they've been very reliable, and handle gaming and such pretty darn well.


I do keep telling myself I'm going to build my own "next time" . . but when I get to that point, it's like they know, and have some kind of crazy sale.