That too perhaps, skyrim I know considering I kind of tested it. Weirdly enough Lineage II has some diferences as well xD specially giran, aden ans starting town.
no skyrim is bad example due to fact engine is main blocker. It's terrible at utilizing system resources. Reason your getting a boost is due to fact that has a tiny ram usage. Basically your providing very fast swap since its not using large amount of single precision floating point memory. So that test is redundant since we know its fast at swap.
Cool. Exactly what I was looking for. Building a gaming rig, and now I know NVME won't make a difference. I can stick with SATA SSD. More money to throw at a graphics card.
Game data is often stored compressed on the storage device and loading times are more dependent on how fast the CPU can decompress the data and much less by how fast the compressed data can be read from the storage device.
Interesting results. I'd love to see a test for content creation apps (Adobe Suite, Cinema 4D, etc). I just bought a Samsung 960 EVO for my new 3D workstation so I hope I'll see more substantial improvements for these applications. BTW, awesome production quality on this channel - subscribed! :)
It was only $20.00 US dollars more for the Samsung Evo NVMe 250GB over the Samsung Evo 250GB SSD in addition the NVMe uses the M.2 slot on current motherboards. You save space on cable management not having to use a Sata & power cable to connect the SSD.
shitposting is my city most people only use one gpu, with any current cpu having at least 28 lanes possible, making most people unlikely to notice the 4 lanes used by a nvme ssd missing.
cazablocki oh yeah, I mean it depends on the person, if you've built your PC yourself you'll probably have more than one pci-e port but most prebuilt pcs only have one pci-e connector so depending on what they want to do with their computer they'll get one of these ssds
I run an NVMe currently, opposed to a Samsung EVO SSD Pro. I notice massive difference in current MMO's. Wildstar, Lord of the Rings Online and World of Warcraft run *EXTREMELY* smooth with the NVMe drive. Hell, I ran an old school Ultima Online and Dark Age of Camelot EMU server and they both ran flawlessly, with about a 1 second boot up time, from logging in to playing the game itself. NVMe is the way to go. With my SSD drive, it took me about 6 seconds. Maybe 5.5. But going from SSD to NVMe is a noticeable difference.
Yeah, exactly. I feel same way. I've got few NVMe's in my system, and everything is super fast. I had SSDs before, and I could definitely tell a difference when going to NVMe. My bootup of system is 2 or 3 seconds, maybe. Updates to Windows and reboots are about 2 or 3 minutes (if that). So, it is fast and worth the investment. Agreed.
Your philosophy is equivalent to buying a nicer, yet smaller, car with an expensive pricetag because it starts up real fast. Yet it operates the EXACT same as a cheaper, more spacious, car 😑 My SATA 3 1 TB Samsung EVO 950 SSD runs a WoW server and loads the whole world up in 4 seconds and ready to login. Then I also play OFF of the machine that is hosting the game server with no loss in communication internally and the game doesn't stutter or hang up whatsoever. Flawless rendering etc. But loading up your Ultima world is done once per play. So the 5.5 secs vs 1 second is a waste of an investment. I'm going to bet you bought a 256GB or 512GB. To me, that isn't worth plugging in. Too small. I went with capacity and performance and to this day, I stick by my choice as the most applicable to gamers.
To add, you guys need to be a little more logical. Your CPU and ram count for bootup as well. Plus fast bootup enabled in the bios and many more factors. My Intel 4c/8t @ 4.4GHz and 16GB ram 3200MHz bus speed CL9 with a SATA3 SSD boots up in 8 seconds flat from being off. Say I boot my system up 30 times a month. If I save 2 seconds with an NVMe eqch time that's 1 minute of my time I spare a month 😒 Yuuuuuup!! That's logic. I'm gonna spend twice as much money to save 1 whole minute a month of my life...
What are the transfer speeds of your SSD? Almost all NVME drives are going to be blisteringly fast because putting slow storage on the NVME platform is just stupid. Plenty of SATA SSDs are slow because SATA is cheap and prevalent, a d sometimes all people want is a dirt cheap SSD. if you arent comparing a top of the line SATA SSD to an NVME SSD then it's not a true comparison at all. By definition all NVME drives will have top tier transfer rates, but your SSD could be a total shitbox. I could pick the slowest SSD i could find and pair it off against a high speed HDD and come to the conclusion that hard drives are faster than solid state, following your logic.
the 960 Evos (M.2 Nvme ) are about the same price of Sata SSD ... get one of them. 850 Pro SATA III 512gb Read 550 / Write 520 $238.95 (Amazon) ( this drive Has A 10 year Warranty btw ) 960 Evo M.2 NVME 500gb Read 3200 / Wire 1800 $249.99 (Amazon) ( olny 5 year ) ( I looked on NCIXUS , but yall did not have 960 evos)
You can get the 850 evo $170.00 .. its about 8% slower and only has A 3year (vs 5 year warrnty) .. I have used MANY SSD alot of Brands ... Bought some of the first retail consumer level ones from OCZ back in the day. Have owned OCZ, mushkin, crucial,plextor , intel, Samsung, Kingston , even have 2x HP SAS SSDs right now. My first SSDs were 2x OCZ soild 60gb Read 155 / Write 90 $140.00 Ea (LOLOLO) What I can say for sure. Never buy Mushkin SSDs I have owned 3x ( 1x 120gb and 2x 240gb ) ... all 3x were replaced by them with new ones that I ebay after replacement. Kingston, crucial and plextor were all what I thought were good values (sales on newegg ect) however they just did not get what they ever claimed. Even the Plextor M6e PCIe sucked Intel 730 was epic in 2014 and was going to get 750 NVMe .. but then samsung 950pro came out... OCZ the O G for consumer level SSD ... well Back in the day that OCZ soild was Crushing WD ratptor 10k drives ( had A few of them too ) and later had A OCZ revo drive ( the first one) .. it was fun and was A huge deal at the time. But I would not buy from them now... they were sold and thing they are being shut down ... might be wrong. Only ever RMAed A PSU to them... but SSDs die and you need A warranty Samsung , Own 2x 850 evos and A 950pro m.2 nvme. The evos I did not need, but was epic sale on newegg. And I love them, they are way faster then some of the others high teir. 950 is my main drive for now... However planing on Switch to 2x 960 evos soon-ish ... .. depending if I go zen. As of today, the only SSD brand to buy is Samsung.
I've bought (or more correctly advised people to buy, that I then installed) 2 different 850 Evo's in the last month, one was a 250GB the other a 500GB, both had 5 Year Warranty stickers on the packaging, I'm wondering if they increased the warranty on them since they brought in the 750 Evo's as the new budget option. i'm running an256GB 850 Pro for boot and a 500GB 750 Evo for storage (that I bought a month or 2 ago for $140) in my Laptop and a 840 Pro in my dads laptop and a 950 Pro NVME in my desktop, only HDD I'm still rocking is my 4TB mass storage Western Digital external drive connected to my router to function as NAS storage.
TrueDesireHD I was scrolling through the comments looking for this one and in case it wasn't here yet I'd post it! Glad to see I'm not the only one who caught that.
she said less than one so put any number that's less than one in front of the >. so effectively it's 0.5>1 which is wrong. google less than sign and greater than sign to see for yourself.
non of those games are effected by load times at that level. a game like Civ V or any easily modded game like Minecraft, Skyrim, or even just regular old GTA V see noticeable improvements. I went from a 500GB Samsung 840EVO to a 512GB Samsung 950PRO using Samsung's migration tool and tested back to back after updating the 950PRO with Samsung's NVMe drivers. Also in game loads times aren't the best measure of this either. load times from desktop to in game is a far better measure.
This is part of the computer parts reviewing community like Linus, Pauls' Hardware, Jay2cents, etc..and marketing fault. Look at the dumbasses that buy new CPU and GPU that come out every year and reviewer sells them like you must have it. Especially true for those morons that pursue must have 60+ fps gaming. There will be a new game coming out dropping your gpu frames, trying to catch up with it is just dumping money on a gpu every year.
If you want to make sure Windows cache doesnt' factor into it, you can download a program called "RAMMap" from microsoft technet. Running the program, and then selecting "Empty - > Empty Standby List" from the menu bar will flush the windows file cache, and will ensure your test run isn't influenced by caches from previous runs. Not saying your current methodology was flawed, but perhaps a usefull little tool in future tests like these.
I built my Hackintosh almost a year ago-first time that Mac OS supported NVME out of the box-and I do NOT game. I find the NVME more beneficial for productivity rather than gaming. I do freelance photographer and video editing and the larger file rendering, transferring, etc. is what I feel NVME is made for.
the summary is pretty much that SATA is recommended for the average gamer and most of the loading time for games are relatively the same. NVME has tonnes of potential except you need to do something that requires that much read speed to unlock the SSD's potential.
And virtually nothing out there utilizes NVMe PCIe speeds. Just like virtually nothing using 8 cores of a CPU and all 16 threads... It's a total overkill sales gimmick. Yes, it performs when applied properly, but in practical settings (except for the most demanding professionals in video or graphic rendering professions) it is a total waste. It's like buying a Ferrari. You'll never experience it's potential except for a momentary half-a-second on the on ramp. Boom you're at 90 and you're slowing down for the truck in front of you...
I think you need to update your knowledge. 8 cores are being used in gaming. Especially if you are streaming while gaming. While nvme rw speeds won't really be noticeable in gaming, it is useful if you are doing professional work like editing rendering, databases, servers etc (this is where more cpu cores come.into play too.
epiq pwnage this desu A 1080ti/2070/vega 56/64 and 8700k/7700k or ryzen 2600 with an SSD as the game drive is the maximum anyone should buy in the current market for 'great' gaming performance. If you want to spend 150% more on your system build for 5% more performance then go ahead, but the previously mentioned system will already max out most games at 4k60 or high refresh rate 1440p. If you don't have other workloads then you're just burning money for performance increases that you *literally* wouldn't notice in a double blind comparison.
Pretty much why I went for a Crucial MX300 275 GB M.2-SATA instead of something like an Intel 600p 256 GB M.2-NVMe. The actual amount you can use is always a bit lower as well.
@@Root174 Bet the more popular AAA games like GTAV and RDR2 would clog up that nvme quite easily. Is 275 really worth it, with light on a more demanding horizon?
It blows my mind that we've gotten to a point that improvements in storage speed are simply becoming negligible to consumers. Are we, like, reaching the end? Or will there be a crazy computer revolution where we have to redefine all our OS's and how we even conceptualize computers to capitalize on progress?
Am i the only one facepalming right now? The *CORRECT* test would have been how long it takes for your system to get from your desktop into the main menu of your game *NOT* from the main menu to a match. Once a game is running the main menu most of it's content needed to play is already loaded into RAM or where do you think those juicy 5 GB of used RAM (4 of which are from your game) in your task manager came from when you are in the main menu?
Even that test wouldn't have much of a difference between SATA and NVMe. The reason is because the game software isn't written in a way that utilizes SSDs at max speed. This whole SATA vs NVMe debate reminds of the multithread CPU debate of about 10 years ago. Most software, even today, does not utilize all threads of a CPU, or even all cores. People paying $700 for a quad core, 8 thread CPU when you can monitor the CPU usage during gaming and see barely two cores with 1 thread each being used, and only for short bursts. People need to understand the most factor for any system to run well is CPU clock speed and RAM. Virtually nothing is benefitted by NVMe except heavy video/image processing software and rendering software for game developers.
Nah don't bother with your test, it's the same. Most games will never reach the bottleneck of a sata ssd, regardless of starting from desktop to main menus or within the game's loading processes itself. So if I'm half as arrogant as you, then I would also choose to facepalm over your uneducated comment as well. Life's a mirror, my friend. Lol.
Nice video. Really helped me. Well presented. Beautiful presenter to look at without an annoying voice like most of people doing reviews on RU-vid. I love the fact that you look so natural and speak so clearly. Well done.
NVME are only beneficial for gaming for games that utilize a pagefile for streaming textures. Some games if I am correct actually force this. I noticed this benefit running VR in games like Lone Echo. I wondered why my very nice rig would still have occasional stutter. Checked resource monitor in Windows and noticed my hard drive was getting pegged hard (100% utilization spikes). The game was using the pagefile to load textures in games. Once I popped in the NVME drive these were reduced completely. No more stuttering. I suppose you could just disable the pagefile completely, however some programs require this. Also unless you're running a minimum of 16GB I wouldn't recommend doing that.
I was wondering as well. I remember an old title called Rage used real time streaming of texture. But the game itself is not that demanding anymore so it's really not a point to use NVMe over SSD either.
Having a pagefile/swap partition on solid state (especially NVME) is also a superb way to *destroy* its sectors in record time. NVME doesn't experience degredation from read cycles at all, but the write endurance of some NVME drives is abysmal. Some of the higher end samsung evo drives (the higher capacity models especially) have very good lifespans, but small, cheap NVME drives could easily die within a few years under that use case. Windows also puts a lot of write cycles on whatever storage it's installed on, but linux is much better about that. I had an 860 evo die after less than 2 years because I had windows 10 on it and the pagefile for windows was on the drive as well. I know that's an anecdote but it's a common story with a lot of people. Drives like the 9xx pro series will be a lot better with petabytes of write cycle capacity, but man those early NVME drives would die fast.
Ultra high res graphics and tons of map loading games are required to test a bit better. Fo4 or Skyrim SE with the right mods can be a bit more demanding. Also be aware that most games load data async on purpose to lazy load as needed. Very few games try to load everything all at once into memory before letting a player continue. But in general, there won't be a huge difference in gaming between a SATA SSD and a NVMe SSD.
Most games are actually bottlenecked by CPUs, at least in the High-end-spectrum. Most games can't utilise more than 4 cores, so increasing the clock speed/efficiency of every single core is the only way to improve CPU performance in games, while GPUs are not limited by a fixed core count. And if you compare the performance increases in CPUs and GPUs, you will notice that the CPU market didn't have as many huge leaps as the GPU market had. RAM isn't a factor whatsoever, as long as you have enough RAM for the game you are playing you won't see any obvious performance difference when swapping to more/better RAM.
I think NCIX needs to do a video on this. i also found one from gameranx, and there is clearly a lot more to it than just getting data into the ram. watch?v=lHrK1kw7ZMw
I imagine a lot of games are storing their assets in a compressed format, to get a better average load-time. (Especially considering people will still play on regular and laptop HDDs). The CPU time required to decompress the assets for storage isn't insignificant, and along with compiling shaders on game load, etc on map loads.. If everyone was using an SSD and lots of RAM, I'm sure they could instead load it all into memory and process it after loading. It wouldn't be any faster. (Perhaps a little slower even)
SSD for OS and application. HDD (or at least SSHD) for games. because faster storage doesn't mean "better FPS", you rather have "many games" because you got a huge storage than "few games with faster loading time" just because you install your games on SSD.
Why does everyone touch the connectors!!! Human oil effects the connectors yet everyone touches them; then they wonder why it doesnt connect properly The technology of today cant be measured on a single application. You need to stress the system! Why not run Witcher 3, Fallout 4, 3 pages of internet exploder all playing RU-vid, burn a DVD in the background, and do a security scan all at the same time. Most basic systems would fail just running 2 high end games together. Realistically someone who would buy a NVMe PCIe SSD would be someone who runs 1 high performance game that has many polygons/entities (Witcher 3), usually would have a wiki open in the background while having a RU-vid video on pause with music playing in the background; and sometimes burning/downloading large files. This would prompt your system to offload much of this memory from your ram onto your NVMe. The true test is when you downsize Witcher 3 and launch Fallout4, then again when you bring back up Witcher 3 after not touching it for 30mins and see how fast the game becomes responsive again as your system switches the two games from your ram to your NVMe drive. When I conducted this test twice between a 760 NVMe compared to a normal SSD and HDD (You have to change where your system offloads memory from ram to do this). Witcher 3 became responsive: NVMe = Instantly SSD = 3 seconds HDD = 15 seconds Eventually I met another limiting factor which stopped the progression of my experiment as my processer and ram became the limiting factors In conclusion NVMe and SSD are quite similar in speed but I found the more things I added to the experiment and switched to the greater the time became between the two drives. The last measured speed was 12 seconds between the two running 5 games and switching to 3 all at once. HDD on the other hand was too slow to measure and froze a lot.
And here comes the boomer... Nvme almost twice as expensive as sata3 ssd be it 2.5 or m.2 connected... Dont be an idiot and jump in based on pure numbers that nvme is best. For pro gaming pretty much sata3 is already good enough and that 1-5 sec but saved money is damn good deal. Better save here and buy better cpu or ram. Unless you do serious WORK where you benefit from nvme, you dont need nvme, even if it gives that one second... Ffs how often you even feel that one second lol
I have to assume that other everyday tasks like booting into Windows 10 as well as browsing and launching Apps also makes no tangible difference using NVMe PCIe drives right? So besides video content creation / editing, is it safe to assume that for the time being, operating systems and software do not really take advantage of the Gigabyte / second read / write speeds offered by NVMe?
Yup, nailed it. To be even more specific, random write and random read is still shit. Thats what 90% of everything is doing in our computing world. That last 10% is sequential read and write which would be used much more often in video/photo production, big bulky data center, some SETI@HOME kind of workload. In the end, for average joe, even average pro joe its not worth extra money unless you get epic bargain like sata3 ssd is just 10-30 bucks cheaper than nvme. Even then i would seriously consider do i realy need it or could i spend those same 30 bucks for faster memory, better cpu, better cpu cooling or even better mobo/gfx.... Even more to be specific, random read and random write for consumer applications like gaming etc, used only up yp 4 queues for ssd, ssd marketing uses hyper numbers and mostly show 32 queues for random read and write. Those numbers are usually 100k iops... Q1-4 are more of 10k iops range... Q32 is used up on server applications usually.... It comes down to 2 questions lol. Do you need it? Unless professional workloads, NO. Do you want it? Ofc, better braging rights yo.
But if we follow that logic, considering that the games never read more than about 20 MB/s (in the video's example), there's no need for an SSD either because a good old HDD reads faster than 20MB/s. So experts pass by, please enlighten me. I have a full 500GB SSD and want to by a new one to install more games. Do I by another 500GB SSD or just a normal HDD (let's say money is not an issue and just compare performance wise).
The main performance improvement of SSDs are insane IOPS and negligible latency compared to HDDs. That's where the actual improvement over classic spinning drives is coming from, not MB/s. I think you'd do better buying another 500GB SSD and RAID 0 them, or you re-selling your current drive and buying 1 TB one. Either way it's gonna cost you significantly less than a 1 TB NVME drive.
NVME also destroys everything but a ramdisk for reading lots of small files or data points e.g. video editing or crunching large datasets. However NVME isn't that great at reading large single files, and in certain cases sequential read/write operations will actually be faster on a good hard drive than on a cheap nvme. Hard drives suck liquid feces out of a hippo's ass when it comes to random read/write though.
I've always done NVME for OS install and an extra HDD for storage...never had any issues playing video games, plus you save a ton of money for the space you're getting. Most applications dont require read/write speeds anywhere near NVME in my experience. Plus, your PC will still be lightening fast since your OS is running on the NVME.
Lexius72 fallout 4's load times are tied to the framerate for some insane reason so if you are using vsync on a 60hz monitor the load times are unbearable. If you aren't using vsync then the game will load within seconds. There's a mod that turns vsync off during load screens.
Lexius72 fallout 4's load times are tied to the framerate for some insane reason so if you are using vsync on a 60hz monitor the load times are unbearable. If you aren't using vsync then the game will load within seconds. There's a mod that turns vsync off during load screens.
I have both the 2.5 SSDs and the NVME drives in my system. I think that the most noticable difference is when copying large files and not with actual games. There are a couple takeaways for NVME drives. 1) They take up much less room and 2) They consume less power than SSDs or Spinning drives. Using NVME drives for the System Drive is what many people are doing now, which just helps from an overall usage standpoint because you don't really know if you will be editing large files or playing games. I have a 980 Pro in my system which is actually an Upgraded NVME Storage and has a 7.0 GB/s transfer rate. I do have other storage options as well (The old spinning disks) that I use for Picutres and music. Since you can buy a ton of space for cheap, it makes sense to buy a large amount of storage and keep things like Pictures and Music and even Videos on it and reserve your expensive SSD storage for things that you are actively working on or playing video games. Many companies actually do the same exact thing with their storage as well. They have SSD storage for things they are working on now and then archive their stuff into Cheap Storage when they aren't actively looking at the files.
Thanks for the informative info and I think your right I'll be fine for now by using a S.S.D.. Do you think in the near future with VR. gaming coming out and getting popular it would be better to use the NVME?
Thanks a lot, Julia! Very clear and well-explained video! I am looking for an SSD for my laptop to store my tons of photos. I was thinking of an NVME PCIe one, but after watching your video, I think I will buy an SSD one to save some bucks.
The way most games are designed, especially with optimization for console first, means that they avoid loading all assets needed into memory, thus you instead get a small amount of loading for a few core assets and parts of the game engine, but things like textures and additional objects are streamed in as needed. This is why you will notice a fairly consistent level of disk usage while gaming. This allows a very large same to get away with 6-8GB of system memory instead of needing 16+GB of RAM. The SSD speed does not have much of an impact because most of the data loaded, needs to be acted upon by the CPU, either that data is being decompressed, decrypted (if the DRM leverages encryption) as well as other various CPU intensive tasks that take place when preparing for gameplay.
Built my PC some months ago and I've decided I needed SSD as everyone around me had it and I needed a faster boot, as I tend to restart often. Went with the EVO 960 mainly because I work with game development here in my university and sometimes I have huge files I need to be moving around and what not, and I can say, it was a good choice for me !
If you say it's a "real world" example, it should also be noted that the NVME eats up PCIe Lanes, which might be in short supply if you run 2-4 GPU, not to mention it might be running on the MB's chipset, which would worsen the latency (quite notably on budget MB). At the same time, you could use a raid setup for your usual SSD, which servers used to bring HDD down to acceptable levels. Sure... there's also RAMdisc, but I'd say that goes well beyond "real world" example.
Good to know it doesn't effect much for gaming and simple programming. Opting for a Dell precision or a Zbook as a workstation laptop, for the time being can opt out those expensive components, to be updated later only as I require them.....
So many douchebags commenting on her looks, instead of how she is doing her job. Why don't you comment on men the same way? When ANY person is doing their job, the job is what you comment! That is sadly the "standard" these days, moviestars on the red carpet where they talk with the men about the movie and the women on what they are wearing. Amal Clooney who had a very good speach about human rights, and all the newspapers could write was that George Clooney's wife was pregnant and had a nice dress...
smart video. im trying to figure out the fastest plug and play external ssd option for my xbox 1 x. looks like the 2.5 ssd might be the goto. if money isnt a factor and i only need 256gb what would you recommend as a future proof external storage for my console games.
Hi Julia. Do you think that Nvme drives may have some benefit for highly modded titles such as Fallout 4 or Skyrim Special Edition? I think they may get more benefit out of faster storage then most games, especially when you replace default textures with all 4k or even 8k textures. Once you get to like 250+ mods, I think it may have an effect on gameplay. Is it possible for you all to test this?
So crunching data in a database is now not a REAL WORLD use case for an NVMe drive? I get it, all tech sites are 100% focused on the only thing that seems to matter, gaming performance. Because I guess that is all computers are used for. And they certainly aren't capable of multitasking or being multipurpose tools. Sounds like the same logic "techtubers" are using to review Ryzen.
Not only was it explicitly stated that the tests were performed with gaming in mind, but most high-end PC users are interested in gaming. Sorry that offended you.
I choose SM961, Similar benchmark rank with 960PRO and only cost 120$ for 256GB. The most marvelous thing is I just need to plug in the motherboard, don't need space for cable manage or SSD itself.
I would love to see a compare against 50mbps download internet speeds and different higher speeds like 200mbps. How it affects loading times into games and what’s the bottlenecks when downloading files from internet, the HDD, the SSD, or network card? Will network cards over heat after long game session and drop ping? Would a PCIe vs PCI network card make any difference. How about a usb 3.0 network adapter? Are those just as good as PCIe card? Do we need large or small heatsinks on our network cards?
