SSD Performance In Crysis 2, World Of Warcraft, And Civilization V
Test Setup
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Test Hardware | |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge), 32 nm, 3.3 GHz, LGA 1155, 6 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled |
Motherboard | ASRock Z68 Extreme4, BIOS v1.4 |
Memory | Kingston Hyper-X 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1333 @ DDR3-1333, 1.5 V |
System Drive | OCZ Vertex 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.06 |
Graphics | Palit GeForce GTX 460 1 GB |
Power Supply | Seasonic 760 W, 80 PLUS |
System Software and Drivers | |
Operating System | Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit |
DirectX | DirectX 11 |
Driver | Graphics: Nvidia 270.61 RST: 10.5.0.1022Virtu: 1.1.101 |
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Benchmarks | |
---|---|
Intel Trace-Based Tool | v5.2 |
Iometer | v1.1.0 |
Games | |
Crysis 2 | Patches: DX11 with high res texturesv1.091680x1050, DX11, high quality |
Civilization V | Steam Version1680x1050, DX10/DX11, high quality |
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm | v4.21680x1050, DX9, high quality |
Installation Notes:
- Crysis 2 was installed with retail CD
- Civilization V was installed from Steam
- World of Warcraft: Cataclysm was installed from scratch using Blizzard's Downloader
Current page: Test Setup
Prev Page A Gamer's Guide To SSD Performance Next Page Understanding Storage PerformanceStay 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.
More about ssds
97 Comments
Comment from the forums
-
the_krasno 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! -
Soma42 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 -
crewton 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. -
Nnymrod 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 -
AlexIsAlex 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? -
agnickolov 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 -
celuloid 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