SSD vs HDD Impact

[maurr]

I have a standard laptop that runs the game fairly well on decent settings with a 5400rpm 1TB HDD. If I were to buy a 128gb external SSD with ~400MB/s speeds (exact one http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-128GB-External-Solid-TS128GESD400K/dp/B00K75U6G6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456185905&sr=8-1&keywords=128gb+external+ssd) and just put SWTOR on it, would I notice a significant increase in load times for Ops and other instances. Right now if I am on a planet and use a H2 travel to a diff heroic on the same planet I can get there in a few seconds, but it takes close to a minute or more for OPs. Will I be getting $70 worth of decreased load times out of this or not? Thanks.

[ZanyaCross]

Thinking of getting an SSD for my desktop, so am curious about the gains myself.

[DataBeaver]

SSD has a huge impact on load times. My computer loads most operations and other small zones in 10-20 seconds, with larger planets taking a bit longer.

[evinced]

If your thinking of adding an SSD you are better off replacing your internal HDD rather than trying to run anything externally via USB 3.0. You will not maximize the performance of the SSD using the USB connection. Despite published stats that suggest that you can get 5GB/s using USB and 6GB/s from Sata-3 USB 3.0 rarely if ever gets close to that numbers in actual use. Look at some online comparisons and you will see that you are missing out on alot of potential speed using a USB 3.0 connection. Probably still faster than your 5400RPM mechanical drive but you would benefit more from swapping out your internal HDD for an SSD.

[Exokill]

External SSD isnt a great idea , the overhead on external USB SSD for example pretty much negates the benefit of SSD in the 1st place

 

 

Internal SSD , go for it , its like a night and day difference

[FluxAC]

Getting an SSD was the biggest performance boost for this game I've had. This was before the optimization to loading, but it should still have a substantial difference with all the loading and writing to the swap file this game does.

[TX_Angel]

If your thinking of adding an SSD you are better off replacing your internal HDD rather than trying to run anything externally via USB 3.0. You will not maximize the performance of the SSD using the USB connection. Despite published stats that suggest that you can get 5GB/s using USB and 6GB/s from Sata-3 USB 3.0 rarely if ever gets close to that numbers in actual use. Look at some online comparisons and you will see that you are missing out on alot of potential speed using a USB 3.0 connection. Probably still faster than your 5400RPM mechanical drive but you would benefit more from swapping out your internal HDD for an SSD.

 

^ This, quoted for truth...

 

Almost every SSD these days comes with free drive cloning software, you can "image" your existing hard drive to the SSD and make it your boot drive. EVERYTHING becomes MUCH faster then.

[TX_Angel]

I have a standard laptop that runs the game fairly well on decent settings with a 5400rpm 1TB HDD. If I were to buy a 128gb external SSD with ~400MB/s speeds (exact one http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-128GB-External-Solid-TS128GESD400K/dp/B00K75U6G6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456185905&sr=8-1&keywords=128gb+external+ssd) and just put SWTOR on it, would I notice a significant increase in load times for Ops and other instances. Right now if I am on a planet and use a H2 travel to a diff heroic on the same planet I can get there in a few seconds, but it takes close to a minute or more for OPs. Will I be getting $70 worth of decreased load times out of this or not? Thanks.

 

I would not buy that drive, that is really expensive for 128GB of storage, and it will be slower than an internal drive and you can't boot Windows from it (not easily anyway, you could, but I wouldn't).

 

Crucial BX200 240GB SSD ($65)

http://amzn.to/1QuXhFB

 

This drive is actually less expensive than the one you linked to, it is twice the size, and it is intenal, so it will be really, really fast.

 

Crucial provides free drive cloning software that will image your existing drive to this one and allow you to install it as your main C boot drive:

 

http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Crucial-SSDs/Cloning-using-Acronis-True-Image-HD/ta-p/125596

[KLGChaos]

I love my SSD. Have my operating system on it for quick boots. The problem is, if you have a lot of games like I do, space is gone quickly. Most of my games are assigned to my 2TB HDD instead. I think SWTOR is as wel, but my PC moves fast enough that I don't have long load times anyway, especially compared to some I've seen. Edited February 23, 2016 by KLGChaos

[Max_Killjoy]

1 TB SSDs have come down to around $300.

 

I just installed a Samsung 850, and so far, awesome. (Knock on wood.)

[TX_Angel]

1 TB SSDs have come down to around $300.

 

I just installed a Samsung 850, and so far, awesome. (Knock on wood.)

 

They have, and the Samsung 850 EVO drive is one of the best on the market, I own several of them, love it...

 

That being said, if price/perofmrance, then this is the drive to buy:

 

SanDisk Ultra II - 960GB - $239

http://amzn.to/1RYiJIm

 

Ok, so it is 40GB short of 1TB, but for the price, it is hard to beat. I have 2 of them and can attest to this drive being darn close to the Samsung in terms of performance. Price being equal (or closer), I'd buy the Samsung every day of the week, but for $60 less, I'll take the Ultra II.

[DataBeaver]

I'm currently considering getting this one: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Series-512GB-PCIe-NVMe/dp/B01639694M. It's a bit expensive for its size, but performance is measured in gigabytes per second. It's three to four times as fast as a traditional SATA SSD. Requires a fairly recent mainboard with an M.2 connector though (which I have).

[Jedi_riches]

I think any benefit of a SSD would be throttled to the speed of USB3 connection, loosing much of the advantage you would receive.

[tummiswtor]

I got SSD - system and swtor

HDD - others

 

I must say there's difference becouse i had swtor on HDD before. Faster loading times

[Jedi_riches]

I have rather a overkill PC for this game and between my I7 4770, 16gb ram and a SSD drive, I can load into any area quicker than all my guild mates by a fair margin I love it, I am not sure which part makes the game load in super speed though

[TX_Angel]

I'm currently considering getting this one: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Series-512GB-PCIe-NVMe/dp/B01639694M. It's a bit expensive for its size, but performance is measured in gigabytes per second. It's three to four times as fast as a traditional SATA SSD. Requires a fairly recent mainboard with an M.2 connector though (which I have).

 

Make sure that your motherboard provides a real x4 32 gb/s slot, and not a 6 gb/s slot, which some of the first ones did.

 

Beyond that, yes, it is a faster drive in all respects over the SATA drives. The question is, does that really matter? Will you notice the difference?

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9702/samsung-950-pro-ssd-review-256gb-512gb/7

 

Look at the random read and write speeds. The sequential bandwidth indeed crushes "normal" SSDs, but it is the random read/write speed that matters more for desktop computers.

 

---

 

If you have no serious budget limits, if you have the cash and just want the best, then by all means, go ahead, enjoy. But I suspect if you put it side by side with a 850 EVO, it won't be THAT much faster.

 

Disclaimer: I haven't personally tested the 950 Pro, so I am going from my experience in testing various hardware and my trust in the results of Anandtech's technical review.

[DataBeaver]

Make sure that your motherboard provides a real x4 32 gb/s slot, and not a 6 gb/s slot, which some of the first ones did.

It's an Asus Z170 Pro Gaming, and according to this Anandtech article the M.2 slot is x4.

 

A review I found notes M.2 speed to be lackluster, but cites driver issues as a probable cause. Also the SSD they used for testing is an old model and apparently only x2.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9702/samsung-950-pro-ssd-review-256gb-512gb/7

 

Look at the random read and write speeds. The sequential bandwidth indeed crushes "normal" SSDs, but it is the random read/write speed that matters more for desktop computers.

They seem to do fairly well in random reads, it's just the writes that are a problem. I would imagine loading sequences in SW:TOR and other games to be biased towards sequential reads.

 

If you have no serious budget limits, if you have the cash and just want the best, then by all means, go ahead, enjoy. But I suspect if you put it side by side with a 850 EVO, it won't be THAT much faster.

That is a big part of it. Given the other specs of my computer - i7-6700k, 16 GB 2666 MHz DDR4 RAM, GTX 980 and dual 2560x1440 displays - I figured an M.2 NVMe SSD would be appropriate. The current drive is a Crucial MX200, which is an excellent one as far as SATA drives go, but it's still limited by the SATA link speed. SW:TOR isn't the only game I play, and I also use the computer for other things which sometimes involve heavy data processing and could benefit from a faster drive.

 

One thing I'm cautious about with the 950 Pro is that it uses TLC NAND. I still remember the performance degradation debacle with the 840 EVO, so I'm going to do some research before I trust that particular technology again.

[FlyingUsPoo]

If you have an excess of system memory (more than 16GB) and you want to "test" want a SSD might be like in your system, try using a RAM Disk.

 

Ram disk's will allow you to set aside portions of your system memory to act as a hard drive. It should be fairly comparable to a good quality SSD (~125MB/s sustained transfer rate).

[JediQuaker]

For some reason, I can't see the first page of this thread, or the original post.

 

But, for a general answer - getting an SSD for your OS will speed up your general system noticeably. Putting SWTOR (and/or other games) on the SSD will mostly just decrease load times. In SWTOR, loading times will be about half of what they were on a hard drive - only half because it still involves some network back and forth.

 

Given that you can now get a Samsung 750 EVO 250Gig for around $75 US, there's not much reason not to get an SSD.

 

Another thing to consider is how much storage you actually need. You may find that a 250 Gig or 500Gig SSD is all you need, especially if you don't keep lots of old games and large videos. If you already have an HDD though, you can add an SSD and keep the HDD for data storage.

 

P.S. I currently run a 120Gig OS SSD and a separate 500Gig SSD for games, etc. - no HDD.

Edited February 23, 2016 by JediQuaker

[Joesixxpack]

Will I be getting $70 worth of decreased load times out of this or not? Thanks.

 

That's subjective but IMO yeah. I play 1 or 2 games max at a time, and long-term so to speak, so usually each game has it's own dedicated SSD. I haven't put a game on an HDD in years and doubt I ever will again.

 

What you do ING though determines how valuable the load time deal is. For example, you might load into some instance long before others in your group do; but it doesn't benefit you much since you're just going to stand around waiting for them.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Joesixxpack

[Pagy]

ssd is likely the single largest, most noticeable upgrade you can make to your pc.

 

in games the noticeable gains are in loading times; loading maps in a fps for example, or a zones in an mmo.

in windows, the OS will boot and operate a lot quicker. any application that you can put on it will also be much faster.

 

what it will not help is your framerate or processing.

[TX_Angel]

It's an Asus Z170 Pro Gaming, and according to this Anandtech article the M.2 slot is x4.

 

Yes, with that board, you should be good to go.

 

A review I found notes M.2 speed to be lackluster, but cites driver issues as a probable cause. Also the SSD they used for testing is an old model and apparently only x2.

 

You're buying a very early technology that doesn't have a lot of choices or competition right now. Give it a year, I expect the prices will be cut in half and the performance to double.

 

They seem to do fairly well in random reads, it's just the writes that are a problem. I would imagine loading sequences in SW:TOR and other games to be biased towards sequential reads.

 

Yes, but how much faster in random reads is the 950 Pro vs. 850 EVO? Not much.

 

But again, disclaimer... I haven't tested it, I'm giving advice based on reviews and my experience of messing around with a ton of hardware.

 

Let me put this another way. Going from a HDD to a SSD is a blazing change, largely due to random read/write speed, not sequential speed. You go from a 45 second boot time to a 5 second boot time. That is all random.

 

Modern HDD transfer at about 200 MB/s, modern SSD at about 500 MB/s. The 950 Pro is about the same percentage jump in sequential transfer speeds over SATA SSDs. What is the jump in random read speeds over SATA SSDs? What is the jump in random read speeds over SATA HDDS?

 

That is where I draw my answer from.

 

That is a big part of it. Given the other specs of my computer - i7-6700k, 16 GB 2666 MHz DDR4 RAM, GTX 980 and dual 2560x1440 displays - I figured an M.2 NVMe SSD would be appropriate. The current drive is a Crucial MX200, which is an excellent one as far as SATA drives go, but it's still limited by the SATA link speed. SW:TOR isn't the only game I play, and I also use the computer for other things which sometimes involve heavy data processing and could benefit from a faster drive.

 

One thing I'm cautious about with the 950 Pro is that it uses TLC NAND. I still remember the performance degradation debacle with the 840 EVO, so I'm going to do some research before I trust that particular technology again.

 

The 950 Pro uses MLC, not TLC:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9702/samsung-950-pro-ssd-review-256gb-512gb

 

I had the slowdown issues on the 840 EVO (and the 840, which they never fixed). I can say the 850 EVO doesn't appear to have the problem. Samsung screwed up, sorta fixed the 840 EVO, and moved on. Such are the joys of the tech business.

 

That is one reason why the Crucial line of drives is often my go to brand, I now have more of them in the office than Samsung. But I still have a 840 EVO in my main personal desktop, and it runs just fine these days.

 

---

 

If you decide to do it, please report back with your opinions. Sometimes a subjective opinion is worth as much as objective tests are. I have found that benchmarks will say X is faster than Y, but then when just using a computer, the difference isn't really noticeable.

 

I have learned to check for the "does this bloody matter in real life" test, which too many tech reviews leave out.

[Max_Killjoy]

When it comes to benchmarks, I learned to be leery... for a while there, for example, video card makers were sometimes pushing out drivers that were optimized for high benchmark scores, instead of actual gaming results. We've since seen many tech reviewers ditch benchmarking software in favor of in-game frame rate tests and the like.

 

(My experiences as a "pro" go from back in the early 90s to 2009, so some of what I note in these discussions is, in the tech world, archaeological...)

 

 

They have, and the Samsung 850 EVO drive is one of the best on the market, I own several of them, love it...

 

That being said, if price/perofmrance, then this is the drive to buy:

 

SanDisk Ultra II - 960GB - $239

http://amzn.to/1RYiJIm

 

Ok, so it is 40GB short of 1TB, but for the price, it is hard to beat. I have 2 of them and can attest to this drive being darn close to the Samsung in terms of performance. Price being equal (or closer), I'd buy the Samsung every day of the week, but for $60 less, I'll take the Ultra II.

 

That drive was also on my short list.

 

Crucial BX200 2.5" 960GB - http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820156068

SanDisk Ultra II 2.5" 960GB - http://www.newegg.co...=9SIA1K63GA6809

SAMSUNG 850 EVO 2.5" 1TB - http://www.newegg.co...=9SIA4P02MV6462

 

 

You know, for almost 20 years, if I wanted a HDD, I went to Seagate first. They earned my trust. It's hard going off to trust another company with my data storage. Right now, it looks like Seagate's concentrating their SSD efforts on the enterprise level, not consumer / enthusiast.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Max_Killjoy

[dr_mike]

If you have an excess of system memory (more than 16GB) and you want to "test" want a SSD might be like in your system, try using a RAM Disk.

 

That's what SWTOR Unleashed used. Not sure if you want to go that route considering:

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=8404632&postcount=13

 

Someone a few months ago posted some comparison times with SSDs in this game. I didn't see it pointed out so I'll give the link:

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=775838

 

Hope this helps

 

edit: The best thing I did was go from 4 gigs of memory to 8. I believe both of the ones you link to have 8 gigs but I just wanted to mention it in case someone else comes along looking at this thread for suggestions.

Edited February 23, 2016 by dr_mike

[ATAMIANM]

Subjective opinion here: it didn't change much when I upgraded from an HDD to a Samsung SSD drive. The SWTOR loading times are similar, MAYBE slightly faster.

 

Part of the subjectivity is from my system being fairly old and the processor is likely the main impediment. (I run SWTOR on a Mac booting Windows 7, quad core Clovertown processors, and 16GB RAM, Radeon 6550? series video card). I found going from the stock Woodcrest dual core processors to Clovertown had a bigger impact on gameplay.

 

My next computer will be home built and optimized for gaming.