Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Why does everyone recommend an SSD?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 13, 2014 10:53:51 AM

If I understand correctly, an SSD will make the PC boot up more quickly, and help the OS load what needs to be loaded. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the SSD will NOT improve game performance at all (other than, perhaps, load times). I can't justify a $100 (CAD) SSD into my build, I feel like I could put the money into a better CPU, GPU, or MOBO, or more RAM, or just save it. Is there something I'm missing about the SSD?

More about : recommend ssd

May 13, 2014 11:00:29 AM

The SSD will bost the overall responsiveness of your PC. Everything will feel a lot snappier.
m
0
l
May 13, 2014 11:03:58 AM

MrCanEHdian said:
If I understand correctly, an SSD will make the PC boot up more quickly, and help the OS load what needs to be loaded. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the SSD will NOT improve game performance at all (other than, perhaps, load times). I can't justify a $100 (CAD) SSD into my build, I feel like I could put the money into a better CPU, GPU, or MOBO, or more RAM, or just save it. Is there something I'm missing about the SSD?


A SSD on Newegg would cost you $60 for 120GB, all of the extra files go onto a regular spinner drive. True, the SSD will not improve game performance as much, but for games that autosave then yes, it will. It can slightly reduce the RAM needed, as read write speeds are blazingly fast. They also have INCREDIBLE reliability compared to the normal HDD. "Fragmenting" is not an issue, as it takes that same amount of time to reach data no matter where it is located. For these reasons, I would say loading the OS onto a 120GB SSD would be more than a nice thing to do.

EDIT: As I type, I am using PCI Flash storage, and improved SSD type. My Macbook Pro has half of the overall system performance of my gaming build, but runs most programs far quicker. It just makes the computer feel also faster, as FLOPS do not mean crap when you are opening a program.
m
0
l
Related resources
May 13, 2014 11:04:17 AM

The way I understand it, that's completely right.
BUT having windows boot up WAY faster and having everything INSTANTLY ready for use after a boot is amazing!
After having a HDD for all my life, I can safely say that it was a very good idea to upgrade to an SSD.
You could get a 120GB SSD an have windows and most used programs on that and everything else on a HDD.
m
0
l
May 13, 2014 11:04:18 AM

you are correct... for the actual playing of the game, no major improvements. just faster saves at checkpoints, faster loads between scenes, things like that.

it is much faster as an overall windows experience though. Most of us use our PCs a lot... you could look at it like this:
build a new PC, and say you keep it 3 years and use it nearly every day. say 900 days you use your PC over 3 years. It costs you only 10 cents per day to have your machine boot instantly, games load /save super fast, general windows experience is much quicker...

well worth 10 cents a day. i realize this is some fuzzy logic, as you could turn that around and say a $100 better video card would give you XX more frames per second for 10 cents a day over 3 years. :) 
m
0
l
May 13, 2014 11:06:38 AM

People recomment a SSD because when your put the os on it it make the system feel more snappy. So your right if your tight on a budget don't get a SSD.
m
0
l

Best solution

May 13, 2014 11:08:18 AM

Your logic and conclusions are sound. If your budget is limiting your GFX card selection, I would always forgo an SSD for a better card. Staring at a screen and watching something happen we can be easily impressed when a SSD boots in 15.5 seconds and a HD boots in 21.2. But who does that ? My son will walk in the door in 12 minutes, walk into his room, turn on his PC and then take a bio and / or grab a snack..... how does boot time come into play ?

An SSHD on the other hand will boot less than a second slower and only requires a minor cost bump.

Don't get me wrong ... I have two 256 GB in my main rig so I am not saying they don't have value. But that rig has twin water cooled 780s so it's not like something else got 'cut back" to accommodate the SSDs. It's just that your gaming experience will be far more affected by a GPU upgrade than it will by a SSD.

Share
May 13, 2014 11:08:58 AM

The reason why everyone recommends them is because those that have had one will never build another machine without one - it makes that much of a difference.
m
0
l
May 15, 2014 2:46:33 AM

The problem of the ssd is the size. I can't install my collection on that nor I can install bf4 with all the dlc. This mean the ssd are pretty useless for now. I must admit that installing directx and other stuff similar to that is awesome at this speed. Also the os when it boot and the rest of the stuff that I have on my ssd. SSD will be great with the size will be at least 500gig. Not worth the 100$ for now.
m
0
l
May 15, 2014 4:53:03 AM

ss202sl pretty much summed it up perfectly. Once you have one you will never want a system without one.

Also you may not be able to install your entire library on it, but your most played games (for me that's BF4 and NS2) can go on it for drastically improved load times.. Both games went from taking around 1-2 minutes down to about 10-15 seconds to load into a game.
m
0
l
May 15, 2014 5:34:35 AM

Let's see...cooler, no performance loss due to fragmentation, no moving parts, smaller size, faster i/o, quiet, far better experience with updates and software maintenance.

Coming from rotational storage, I can say the SSD was the right choice for me.
m
0
l
May 15, 2014 5:00:32 PM

Hello man said:
MrCanEHdian said:
If I understand correctly, an SSD will make the PC boot up more quickly, and help the OS load what needs to be loaded. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the SSD will NOT improve game performance at all (other than, perhaps, load times). I can't justify a $100 (CAD) SSD into my build, I feel like I could put the money into a better CPU, GPU, or MOBO, or more RAM, or just save it. Is there something I'm missing about the SSD?


A SSD on Newegg would cost you $60 for 120GB, all of the extra files go onto a regular spinner drive. True, the SSD will not improve game performance as much, but for games that autosave then yes, it will. It can slightly reduce the RAM needed, as read write speeds are blazingly fast. They also have INCREDIBLE reliability compared to the normal HDD. "Fragmenting" is not an issue, as it takes that same amount of time to reach data no matter where it is located. For these reasons, I would say loading the OS onto a 120GB SSD would be more than a nice thing to do.

EDIT: As I type, I am using PCI Flash storage, and improved SSD type. My Macbook Pro has half of the overall system performance of my gaming build, but runs most programs far quicker. It just makes the computer feel also faster, as FLOPS do not mean crap when you are opening a program.


You're right, I was able to find several for $70-$100 in the 120gb-128gb range. The quick load times are very tempting... I will have to look into them and see if I can fit them into my budget. Thank you for the feedback!
m
0
l
May 15, 2014 5:01:46 PM

lowriderflow said:
you are correct... for the actual playing of the game, no major improvements. just faster saves at checkpoints, faster loads between scenes, things like that.

it is much faster as an overall windows experience though. Most of us use our PCs a lot... you could look at it like this:
build a new PC, and say you keep it 3 years and use it nearly every day. say 900 days you use your PC over 3 years. It costs you only 10 cents per day to have your machine boot instantly, games load /save super fast, general windows experience is much quicker...

well worth 10 cents a day. i realize this is some fuzzy logic, as you could turn that around and say a $100 better video card would give you XX more frames per second for 10 cents a day over 3 years. :) 


Faster auto-saves, faster loads, and faster loading between cutscenes would be very nice. I will definitely be putting more thought into it, even if it can't improve real world performance, it can still make using the PC a much more pleasant experience.
m
0
l
May 15, 2014 5:09:33 PM

GMAK24 said:
The problem of the ssd is the size. I can't install my collection on that nor I can install bf4 with all the dlc. This mean the ssd are pretty useless for now. I must admit that installing directx and other stuff similar to that is awesome at this speed. Also the os when it boot and the rest of the stuff that I have on my ssd. SSD will be great with the size will be at least 500gig. Not worth the 100$ for now.


Interesting way of putting it, that's how I originally saw it, as not worth it now, but people really push and promote it. I will have to see, I'd like to save the money, but I don't want to regret it in the long run. Thanks for the help!
m
0
l
May 15, 2014 5:10:57 PM

James Mason said:
The 770 is the best price to performance of the 3.

And when people talk about load times, "regular" load times are around 10-15 seconds, and "SSD" load times are like 3-5 seconds.


Yes, the 770 does seem like it has the best value now, but can it run any game maxed at 720p? What about maxed at 1080p?
I can live with 10-15 seconds, it's really no biggie for me. I think I will pass, thank you :) .
m
0
l
May 15, 2014 5:05:18 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
Your logic and conclusions are sound. If your budget is limiting your GFX card selection, I would always forgo an SSD for a better card. Staring at a screen and watching something happen we can be easily impressed when a SSD boots in 15.5 seconds and a HD boots in 21.2. But who does that ? My son will walk in the door in 12 minutes, walk into his room, turn on his PC and then take a bio and / or grab a snack..... how does boot time come into play ?

An SSHD on the other hand will boot less than a second slower and only requires a minor cost bump.

Don't get me wrong ... I have two 256 GB in my main rig so I am not saying they don't have value. But that rig has twin water cooled 780s so it's not like something else got 'cut back" to accommodate the SSDs. It's just that your gaming experience will be far more affected by a GPU upgrade than it will by a SSD.



Well... If I forgo the SSD, I could get a GTX 770 or 780. I haven't decided between the 760, 770, and 780. The SSD or Hybrid drive would be very, very nice, but I could put the $100 or so dollars into something else. Quick load times are very nice, but I'm not overly concerned about super quick load times, I can handle slow ones. I'm all for efficiency and time saved, but not sure $60-$100 is worth it for me. Thank you for the feedback.
m
0
l
May 15, 2014 5:07:40 PM

James Mason said:
A 10k RPM HDD also makes your computer more responsive, but without the ridiculous cost per GB.
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/internal-hard-drive/#t=10...





Hmm, that is a compelling argument, those prices are also nice. $150 for 500Gbs. I'm guessing the performance difference between an SSD and 10,000 RPMs isn't huge?
m
0
l
May 15, 2014 5:09:07 PM

The 770 is the best price to performance of the 3.

And when people talk about load times, "regular" load times are around 15-30 seconds, and "SSD" load times are like 3-5 seconds.

Right, 10k is fast enough where you won't have time to worry about it loading But not so fast you miss the loading screen. Also since WD is the ONLY one making consumer grade 10k hard drives, they also come with the amazing WD 5-year warranty, if it dies on you, WD will get you a replacement within a week basically.
m
0
l
!