Hello, 00:00 Windows Boot (First startup after installation - this is very important) 00:36 Driver Installation 02:06 Game Loading Times 02:47 Benchmark Results
Can you do this test with a heavily modded game like skyrim? I'm getting 6 minute load times and want to know how much upgrading will help out before throwing money at the problem.
the worst part about hdd is even tho the start up time is slow af but even when it boots up u need to wait a couple extra seconds for it to become responsive and usable
That's why hdd will be history and they need to disapear for ever...i am now on ssd m2 and there is no turning back, i cried because of joy seeing everything instant..and my pc boots up in just 10 seconds.....i was on hdd...i stayed 5 minutes or 2 minutes until boots up..lost time....i waited for ages at any little thing..finally that shiet is over and now i am a normal man enjoying speed on a normal pc from this days
Imagine saving 1 minute at startup, few seconds at loading of your game and then... spending at least 10 minutes in the lobby, waiting for the match. Sounds useful 🤣. What is more relevant, SSD boot speed will not deteriorate over time (even old, dirty OS will still work as fast as new), as the HDD boot time will - therefore you don´t need to reinstall the OS on SSD as often, as with HDD. You also don´t need to defragment the drive. That saves LOTS of time per year.
Cuz HDDs are not that slow. They're only slow cuz it's hard to find a brand new one. Old used ones slows down with time. I managed to find a 1TB HDD and the difference between it and my old 500GB HDD is like day and night.
The data that has to be transferred is much bigger now. We live in a world of gigabytes and terabytes, no longer kilobytes and megabytes. HDD’s were plenty quick when every file was small.
this vid assured me that i could migrate windows to my larger ssd so it isnt always running low on space, which in the end actually helped responsiveness
@@mr.savage778 I5 3470 8gb ddr3 1666mhz Gtx 1050ti 500watt chinese cheap psu Asrock mb(i forget the full name😂) I know it isn't a beast but its doing a good job
One of the biggest upgrades you can do to any older PC is a SATA SSD. I've been running them 11 or 12 years now and never looked back except for large volume long term storage/backup (using HDDs).
That's because the 470 Mb/s is sequential r/w and it rarely happens during real life workloads like booting Windows. The real indicator of speed is Random r/w and it's almost the same on Sata and NVMe drives hence why you won't notice any speed difference.
@Casper's Studio Not all Nvmes are super expensive you know. Prices dropped spectacularly over the years. Especially if you are willing to be flexible with brands .
@@Gameslord-yk7ss a lot of those cheap nvmes though are pretty bad. often using dramless technology which means it keeps an area of the memory in slc mode and uses that as a cache. The performance drops like a rock real quick. they're still ok for reading but their write performance is usually horrific
it also isnt a fair fight from a hdd. the 10 minute boot up means it is really old and probably paired with not the best config. some hdds boot as fast as 15 seconds. the average from what ive seen is around 40-80 seconds; which is still a slow boot up but its faster than the boot up in the video.
Thats why I dont understand why anyone would ever buy them. Save a little bit of money and buy a regular hdd or spend a little more to get a lesser capacity but much faster sata ssd
@@Bluecolty Or buy both and use software caching and get the best of both worlds. SSDs are fast because of random IO but SSHDs aren't good at it and Seagate SSHDs are unreliable.
Depends on where you're from with regards to price/performance. where i come from, NVME ones are only like three USD more expensive than SATA ones, & it's common to even find NVME ones being CHEAPER than their SATA counterparts. going for NVME becomes a no brainer if you've a motherboard that supports it.
When you see the Read/Write speeds of the NVMe SSD versus the SATA SSD it's really hard to believe that such a big difference actually results in a really small real-world difference. That, or there is a metric which has been omitted here relating to data transfer size/file size etc.
That's be because of the random read and write speeds which are the same on the NMVE and SSD, also no real world usage would reach 470mbps in usage anyways, let alone 5000, unless file transfers
Also nvme pcie gen 5 with pcie 5.0 Mobos with ddr5 and Gpus that are pcie5.0 will see the biggest jumps when the all start utilizing the bandwidth of pcie5.0, 4K 120 or more will be the std…
Especially as the destination would have to be just as fast. Not useful for the standard PC user, generally only useful in a professional setting dealing with big data
NVMe PCIe 4.0 or even 3.0 only make sense when you are transferring very large files. This test didn't show that but for example transferring a 100GB folder to another would be much faster than a standard SATA SSD. But for regular everyday computing/gaming, SATA SSD makes more sense for the money.
SATA and NVMe are almost the same in price (SATA's go on larger sales more often though), but the performance gain is not shown here because Windows is not built to utilize NVMe speeds. Watch a comparison on Linux and then tell me what you think.
I got a Kingston NV2 PCIe 4.0 NVME M.2 1TB SSD from amazon, and the speeds done well on my Windows 11. Besides, i try with Police Simulator Patrol Officers, and starting the game has work well without issue.
My jump was from old HDD that took pc 2-3min to be fully responsive, to a nvme ssd that boots up in a few seconds and is responsive immediately. Actually lifechanging
Nice comparison! When I upgraded from a Corsair Neuron XTI SSD to a Samsung 960 Pro I didn't notice any differences in performance. The benchmark numbers are certainly impressive, but we all know that synthetic benchmarks aren't indicative of real world performance.
@@Victor-kh5rh That's true but hard drives are becoming old technology. Why don't use only analog equipment now that digital equipment has become efficient and cheap. The goal shouldn't be to make a hard drive with a built in ssd good, it should be to make ssds better and cheaper. Hard drives are good for cheap mass storage, but ssds are the future.
Im weirdly nostalgic about hdd speeds. Waking up, turning on my computer then making breakfast and watching an episode of some random anime was such a ritual. Now i get pissed when it takes more than 8 seconds to boot up a 150gb game.
I remember back when I power up my PC after coming home from work during the single-core era. I hit the power button, take a quick shower and when I sat down, my rig just finished booting. Good times.
Remember the SSHD is a HDD with often a 8 GB Solid State caching function, so the first time it will behave exactly like a HDD. Only if you use certain loads more frequently, you start to see an advantage for the SSHD compared to the HDD. If you boot smaller OSes (e.g. Linux) frequently, after a while its boot time will be almost the same as that from a SSD. The whole performance strongly depends on how you use the system and thus how you measure the SSHD performance. You can only test the HDD in real life situations, where you use it for a longer period with the programs you normally use. It takes time for the cache to determine its optimal content! Afterwards you can compare those times with those of HDD or SSD. I did buy an off-lease laptop in 2017 and I also bought a 1TB SSHD. For me it was a good solution. I use Ubuntu (Linux) on the super modern ZFS file system. Everything is lz4 compressed (ratio = ~1.8), so the 8 GB SSD cache would contain 1.8 x 8 = ~14 GB of stuff if decompressed. So the whole OS (1 GB uncompressed after boot) and almost all programs would be stored on the SSD cache, so soon after installation I had close to SSD speeds and 1 TB of storage. For Windows and especially for AAA gaming, that SSHD is not very good, the cache is too small for a much larger Windows without compression. Around 2019 the prices of SSDs became so low, that HDDs nor SSHDs could compete on price/performance in the 250GB to 1TB price range. I will buy another new off-lease laptop in 2021/22, I probably will look for one with a 1TB SSD, but I would be perfectly happy to reuse my 1TB SSHD, if the occasion contained a HDD.
Glad someone mention this. I’m using a 1tb SSHD as boot drive, too. For me it’s excellent consider it’s boot time is almost the same as SSD, but with only half the price or lower.
My advise would be to buy a Sata SSD and save your NVMe slot for the future. Wait a couple years and when games and apps finally fully utilize all that speed, then buy an NVMe SSD which will be faster and much cheaper than the ones today
my advice: - M.2 NVMe: for OS installation, frequently used applications, possibly for online gaming if you want the fastest go - SSD: most likely for games or video editing - SSHD: (no idea at all) - HDD: for long term storage and backups, regular stuffs like heavy documents etc etc, offline campaign games something
3 years ago I upgrade HDD to SSHD, and then this year upgraded to SSD and then to NVME, wanted even more speed. now system boots so fast, it has to wait for the USB ports to respond before booting.
So glad I spec'd a 2tb nvme ssd into my new PC build. Not only is it fast, it also is super clean. It plugs right into the motherboard so no sata cables or power cables for the drive.
Going from sata to an nvme ssd felt a lot more substantial that it looks here. It probably has more to do with the whole system change since I went from a 4 to 12 thread CPU.
That difference is definitively from the CPU upgrade. I upgraded from an SATA SSD to an NVME on my 2700X system and day to day tasks really don't feel much different. However, when it comes to editing in Photoshop and Premiere, it's a different story.
Nah, its all fair. Giving one disk a cache and not doing the same to others - not objective testing. Nvme/ssds also have advantage when they have a cache, windows in my pc opens in a bit more than 3 secs.
This is what I'm talking about , people kept testing SSD's with loading times/boot times when they have little to no difference , what we want to see is if you throw a lot of shit in startup programs once bootup see which one finishes loading everything first.
None of that will make NVME much faster than SATA SSD. Only big difference is in large file transfers and read/copy. Launching programs or loading games there's barely any difference. For consumers going to NVME is completely pointless. Only reason for it is that it saves space in case and no need for cables. And because NVME and SATA SSD are so close in price now.
@@teemuvesala9575 Not if someone's living in a place like mine, where a NVME ssd is just like THREE USD more expensive than a SATA ssd, & hell, sometimes you could even find a NVME ssd being CHEAPER than a SATA one! that three bucks are well worth it considering that systems in the future would be built around NVME & SATA is getting phased out.
@@FalconWindblader If you've already used all of your NVME slots you gotta get SATA SSD. The only difference is in max read and write speeds... In normal use you'll never noticed any difference.
@@teemuvesala9575 Again, my point here is on 'FUTURE'. everyone who pays attention at all knows that NVME ain't gonna be all that much faster than a SATA in most use case NOW, but like how it had been with IDE nearly 2 decades ago, it's only a matter of time for developers of whatever kind to truly build their systems around NVME & take advantage of that extra speed NVME offers, & it's already happening as we speak. With price difference being so negligible in some parts of the world, the choice is bloody damn obvious for those people. i for one ain't gonna go back to SATA given prices of NVME ones are so similar to that of SATA ones at my place. like it or not, SATA would only get increasingly irrelevant in the next 10 years, & no one in their right mind would buy SSDs only to dump them within 10 years if they can help it... & please, there's no such thing as 'if you've used up all of your NVME slots'. regular users wouldn't need to use more than 2TB of storage after all, & most motherboards come with 2 NVME slots anyway.
@@metalvideos1961 oh, I do know what Memory is, but it seems you are the one who does not know. Fun fact, I have a Bachelor's degree in Electronics. Please feel free to educate yourself www.tutorialsmate.com/2020/04/types-of-computer-memory.html?m=1
SSHD need "training" to know what to cache. The first run or two of anything is no faster than a HDD. Then it know what to cache for fastest times. Ie: Boot 3 times and measure, now as fast as an SSD.
Nvme will be even more useful now when consoles started usiing it and game developers could work their games around Nvme drivers and make games more optimised for them.
I dont consider windows "booted" until all the starting programs have finishes starting. With a HDD in the past the PC would be unresponsive until this so I wouldn't really call it "booted" until you can actually use it.
Games will run smoothly only when they are launched on SSD drive. Why you have kept your games on HDD? I have 250 gb samsung sata ssd. I install one game at a time on SSD, complete it from start to finish then uninstall it. Then 2nd game and the same process continues.
@@alexj7406 I was trying to say that if you have a 250 gb SSD drive than play one game at a time, complete it then install another game because the more space SSD will have, smoother the applications will run which are installed over SSD. It's necessary to leave atleast 30% to 40% space on SSD drive. Otherwise If you have more than 250 gb space on SSD then it's your choice whether you want to install multiple games over it or not.
@@FarhanAli-gd2qv Loading time is the only drawback of games on a HDD, but if it loaded then everything is in RAM, which dwarfs even the best NVMe's speeds. Source: Running games on HDD, booting from SSD, with quite beefy rig
Depending on the NVMe drive, PCIe 3.0 is about 1/2 that of PCIe 4.0. I use NVMe for my system (C:) and often used programs/games. Before that SSD's were used. Videos/pics/other storage is fine for HDD Now, our stories will be "Back in the day, I ONLY had HDD's to boot from and store things...you kids with your new fangled SSD's and NVMe's...."
Do bear in mind that hard drives (when running an OS) take a long time to 'warm up' after getting to the desktop. Everything (I repeat, everything) is slow to load -- whether that be programs or icons. Task Manager shows that disk usage is capped at 100% for often over a minute. This is all from personal experience.
As someone who used to use HDDS a decade ago, this is quite correct. I remember when I first switched to SSDS. It's the single biggest change i've ever made.
The thing with SSHDs is that they're designed to be faster on subsequent loads, but on the first load they'll be as slow as a normal HDD. A great example of this is when I put a 2TB SSHD in my PS4 and playing Bloodborne, loading the hunter's dream hub area the first time took about 40 seconds, but for the rest of my session, it loaded in 10-15 seconds. They really shine in games like that where you repeatedly load into hub areas or re-use frequently accessed data.
My computer in the 90's did 5MB per second off the hard drive, but transfer speed was not the problem back then. My first hard drive in 1993 was 80MB storage. It was fine until I started loading it up with games. I ended up keeping my school files on floppies just so I can have more space for games.
When Microsoft incorporates DX12 DirectStorage into the operating system, is when we'll see NVMe not be bottlenecked. Which will happen sometime next year in 2021.
It's not about time it's about frustration, my pc went from 3min booting time to 30 seconds. Which just makes me want to use pc. Suggestion is always get a faster and large capacity ssd. If possible go with NVMe. They both cost same at this point😅. (I just found gen3 500GB NVMe for around 25-30usd.)
Actually i would say other wise, but what i am about to say is coming from my personal experience. There is actually a slight difference between between a sata and an Nvme though it could be different for everyone. When i used an nvme to boot up windows, it was slightly faster by 5 seconds(ish). I know it isn't much, but it could be a deal breaker for some people.
The 7200 rpm of my laptop, once it's ready for use, can get 170 MB/s read if the program is optimised enough. For paging, it goes up to 60 write while still reading. Haven't seen real full write speed, but heh, it's fast for a HDD
@@-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-ucq well, depends on what you transfering on. USB keys aren't sueperfast. Also, maybe you have fragmentation on the drive ? HDDs are terrible at random reads and writes and prefer sequential work. I get my fastest speeds when loading Cities:Skylines savegame, and when doing other stuff it's mostly 10 to 60 - 70 MB/s. Lack of software optimisation hurts
@@Spido68_the_spectator no, I'm trying to copy a file on my hdd, not the USB drive. And no, I'm not talking about external HDD, I'm talking about the main Operating system drive where I need to make a duplicate of a file or extract a zip file
@@Spido68_the_spectator and what's even worse is when my 10 year old laptop tries to copy/move/extract multiple individual files, the data transfer speed is absolute shit (1 Mbps)
I love this channel. You did lots of Hardwork . Hardwork is the key to sucess . You diserve it . Keep it up👍👍💯❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️😍😍🥰🥰. Love from Chandigarh.
I work for consumer IT and let me tell you man I constantly recommend customers get an SSD. SO many people don't even realize the serious difference of an SSD upgrade and it costs literally 80$ for the geek squad to install it. 30$ for the SSD and 40$ for the installation. The speed increase is up to 16x. The most seriously worth it upgrade and an SSD doesn't just speed up storage speeds, it also speeds up the CPU by reducing the workload needed to read from a physically moving disk and distribute information. The speedup for the CPU is around 20-30%. Absolutely MASSIVE.
I've especially noticed this in games when it comes to visiting a previously loaded map. It loads much faster the second time. That's the flash memory working!
@@woooweee Ya it's a trade off. For me it was the best option since I wanted 2TB storage, but couldn't afford SSD of that size or on top of an HDD. So I get some benefit at a decent price.
Yesterday I get my new nvme Western digital SN770 and its unbelievable difference to my broken sshd. Windows 11 installation takes ~12 minutes and a windows start ~10 Seconds
I understand it is because of the random data speed. NVME SSDs take advantage of their high read/write speeds in sequential data like working with a huge video file. That's why these expensive SSD are more valuable for Editors and content creators than the average gamer or casual user.
No it's just because he did a full start (not just shutdown Windows and saving the core's state, here the shutdown just completely shutdown the computer). With NVMe PCIe 3.0, there isn't the 5 balls of loading at startup with a simple shutdown, so PCIe 4.0 should be same
@@MrRexszazados the micro stutter. You might have high avg. Fps. But sometimes it drops so you feel a lag/stutter. The higher the 0.1 and 1% is, the more smooth
This video is helpful. I have a 2TB SATA SSD that I was very close to replacing with a 2 TB NVMe M.2 thinking there would be a significant improvement to level load and boot times. Glad I did a bit of research first. Results are so similar that I'd be better off spending the money elswhere.
@@vexx5955 NVMe M.2 vs Sata SSD. You actually thought I was comparing to HDD? Lmao. It was even in my original comment. I know reading is hard, but jeez man.
I got an M.2, two SSD Sata drives and a HDD in my System. In my experience I saw that my Sata SSD drives were not "fast" enough to keep up with my download speed (1Gbit/s). At first I thought it was my processor (Ryzen 5 1600), but it wasn't (maybe partially), because after I upgraded to a Ryzen 5 3600 my Steam downloads still went from 70mb/s to 0mb/s for a few seconds. Installing a M.2 Drive was the best decision I made so far whilst upgrading my machine.
The test is a little skewed. The SSHD times will go down after a few dozen reboots. The most loaded files get put into the SSD cache. So you will end up seeing times closer to the SSD SATA drive. This also does show the pointlessness of a PCIe gen 4 SSD if you're average joe.
Depends. If you're doing one reboot after another, the reboot might even become faster. If you do boot the pc once and then launch a game 100 times without rebooting, the game loading times might become faster, but the next system reboot will take longer. BECAUSE the "most used" files will be put into SSD cache. But these caches are usually relative small and the system will change what's in the cache.
@@IIGrayfoxII Hmm, yeah, most people are incapable of using a (windows) computer. Don't know what those guys are doing all day to mess their system up like this. My Windows rebootes only like every 2-4 weeks, after it installed a bigger update.
Yeah but, thats kinda unfair. SSDs like nvme and satassd also can cache files, you know. So booting times can also be like halved, so not letting it have a cache is a fair and objective comparison imo.
2 to 10 times higher speeds at any section, but still in real life is more like 0.1 oly the advantage of NVMe PCIe vs SSD. What could be the explanation? Motherboards bottleneck between storage and RAM?
We need to take into consideration that the way these work is based on OS specifications, which are way older than ssd and nvme tech. The way the OS handles data is just way too old to handle these high speed drives. If we want to fully utilize them, devs need to make a whole new data managing software like ps5 and new Xbox did to reduce loading times like these consoles do. If I remember correctly, MS is currently working on a similar solution.
@@kuksio92 Yes, it is going to be part of Windows/DirectX/Vulkan?(maybe), they are working on it with Nvidia and AMD. The hardware for it already exists in RTX cards, maybe the new 6000 AMD cards too, I am not really sure about that one. But it is still tied only to games, because it speeds up only the textures and models loading, that wont help with general applications.
You have options. Go to start button and type in msconfig. Put all cores to max. Then put ram to max. Last step I forget what it's called. You disable the windows loading screen. It skips that part every time you turn it on. Now for internet only, change the "DNS" 1 and 2 to 1.1.1.1 and the second 1.0.0.1 Your browser will feel like you got a new pc. Now for programs, you can use ram disk to get maximum speed. Better then ssd. I recommend going on steam and paying for the program called "Dimmdrive" This is cheaper than paying for a SSD. The way ram disk works.....It stores the data directly on the ram. "Dimmdrive" ram disk works differently. If you can put the whole file on the ram. You can store small portions of the file. Whatevers left over it will all be synced making the computer think the whole file is on the ram. Say you have a 70GB game like Cyberpunk. But you only got 8GB ram. All you have to do check on the exe. Portion ...... everything else will get linked up. "Dimmdrive" is a really under graded program. I use it for everything.
@@rpgmafia8363 Don't over look ram disk. Very useful tool. If you don't wanna pay for Dimmdrive right away you can test out AMDs ram disk. They let you get the 4GB version for free. Dimmdrive is better investment though because it has that sync feature if you can't put the complete file on the ram.
@@rpgmafia8363 Here's the link for amd ram disk until you have the money for Dimmdrive. Test this with your browser. Just create a ram disk. Then place all the browser files inside the disk. Click the EXE. Inside the disk. Top speed web browsing. www.radeonramdisk.com/software_downloads.php
this test was probably only done with one load of the game etc, if you did it 2 times in a row you would find the SSHD was a lot quicker on the consecutive loads as it has to load the cache into the small SSD portion of the drive first. I have 3 SSHD and I find that the games that I play most often load a fair bit quicker when I constantly play them, but still a bit slower than if they are on SSD.
@@ozmobozo you don't understand mate, once it is loaded into the cache it will always be quicker. so if you play a game 5 days in a row , day 2,3,4,5 loads will be almost as fast as a proper SSD. hopefully you can understand how it works. you don't need to load it twice every day.. it just takes one time for it to cache the data before it gets to its full speed potential.
Hmm, good thing I did not get a M.2 over Sata SSD then. Still, its a slight difference, so in a long running installation process it might mean more, but atm its not really worth it, it seems.
