Gameplay In World Of Warcraft: Cataclysm
|Overall Statistics||World of Warcraft: Cataclysm: Gameplay|
|Data Read||2.86 MB|
|Data Written||31.42 MB|
|Disk Busy Time||0.12 s|
|Average Data Rate||276.91 MB/s|
World of Warcraft: Catalysm looks more similar to Crysis 2 when it comes to gameplay. The majority of operations are sequential writes. The key difference from Crysis 2 is transfer size, as there’s a greater variety in WoW due to the game’s file structure.
This workload, however, reflects a very specific style of play: mainly, running around a single zone running quests and interacting with the environment. Just bear in mind that it might not be as representative of end-game raiding or flying around between zones, loading new textures on-demand.
- 82% of all operations are sequential
- 70% of all operations occur at a queue depth of one
- 38% 4 KB, 28% 128 KB, 9% 16 KB, 8% 8 KB
Current page: Gameplay In World Of Warcraft: CataclysmPrev Page Loading A Realm In World Of Warcraft: Cataclysm Next Page Launching Sid Meier's Civilization V
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
If it doesn't improve FPS I don't see competitive gamers adding SSD's to their rigs for nothing but main OS drive.Reply
Longer loading times are not crucial when all you want is to frag your enemies!
This just confirmed what I knew already. I will probably upgrade to a SSD with my next build, but they are still so bloody expensive for the storage they offer. Plus, SSD are supposed to have better reliability compared to magnetic drives.Reply
If only SDDs were a few cents a GB...Reply
Gameplay: Nearly all writes.Reply
Doesn't this reduce the life of a SSD?
I took WoW off my SSD for 2 reasons: space and performance. WoW is just way too big of a folder with addons and everything else it was around 35GB and like this article states the start and initial load is really the only benefit. Once you are in the world (of warcraft) it's not used.Reply
I'd like to see how the witcher stacks up with SSD. You are constantly having to load different areas the entire game so I made sure to have that on the SSD while playing it hoping to reduce the load times. Would like to see if that really paid off or not.
It's all about the bottleneck, which isn't storage for actually playing a game. That said, SSDs are definitely cool, and I have one.Reply
a comparison with a 7200rpm hdd for example will be great.Reply
So it looks to me like game loading and level loading is not significantly hard-disk bound, if the disk is busy for such a short period of time. For example, loading a Crysis 2 level taking 58s, of which the disk is busy for 2.Reply
Does that mean if you had an infinitely fast disk, the level loading would take 56s? In which case, where is the bottleneck for level loading? Is it CPU bound? (if so, why isn't CPU usage at 100% when loading a level?) Memory? Graphics card?
There was supposed to be a comparison with a 1TB Barracuda, but nothing made it into the article itself. How hard could it be to display two adjacent bars on every graph instead of 1? E.g. red for the SSD and blue for the HDD.Reply
Why don't we see how long are those loading times with HDD drive? Maybe we find out 2x faster loading is not worth 30x times more money per GB.Reply