I think it’s a chicken-or-egg dilemma for PC gaming. Game devs don’t want to lose the big market of legacy hardwares, so core gamers can’t maximize their top notch PC’s potentials.
According to their video, I think Ratchet and Clank is still playable on a PC with SATA SSD, but the waiting time when jumping between the worlds is definitely longer than NVMe
You can achieve, and beat, PS5 read speeds on PCIe 5.0. No game will really take advantage of it though. They don’t even really take advantage of it on the consoles
The Gothic 3 community made a extensive study about stutter and optimization steps for HDD vs. SSD (no stutter) in ca. 2010ish for a game from 2006. So, generally for 3D games, yes, except if you compress textures in a trade for higher CPU usage.
Btw, this game looks surprisingly good with the right tweaks atop the community fixes.
Yes. Texture and asset streaming is affected pretty significantly by the speed of your storage. Load times are a large part of where SSDs of different classes can help, but the better your SSD performs for I/O operations, the better for overall visual performance.
The video even shows it makes a difference, although it only touches on that part, with no in-depth analysis. Some modern games don’t work properly on HDDs and you get tons of glitches and pop-in.
In older games it probably won’t affect much more than load times though.
Cusp of unplayable? I have a Linux system on a PCIe 4.0 drive and a Windows install on a SATA SSD. I wouldn’t notice any difference if I wouldn’t know or measure the performance difference.
SATA SSDs are perfectly fine for gaming.
This is not about specific SSDs, but a general comparison between SSD types (and some basic HDDs). It shows that some modern games actually take advantage of the increased speed, but once you’re using PCIe SSDs, it basically doesn’t matter if it’s 3.0 or 5.0, so just get the cheapest drive you find.
As I said, the video is about general types of SSDs, not specific games. It’s also mixed between first load after launch, reload of a save and sometimes fast travel, no real methodology.
When the game uses DirectStorage, a PCIe SSD will be a lot faster than SATA or HDDs. Games like Last of Us Part 2, Spider-Man 2 or Ratchet & Clank were shown. Indiana Jones doesn’t use DirectStorage, but still shows this kind of behavior.
Without DirectStorage, it mostly doesn’t matter, as long as it’s an SSD, although PCIe drives were almost always faster. If you reload a save, a lot of time, it often also doesn’t matter if you use an HDD, although you might still get the glitches and pop-ins from slow asset streaming.
Here’s a list of Steam games, that use DirectStorage. It’s not a lot right now, so you definitely don’t need to switch right this second, especially if you already have a SATA SSD, and you’re not playing the latest AAA games constantly. It is something to keep in mind, when you’re upgrading though.
I got a small PCIe 4.0 nvme for my os drives but realized that except for loading screens being longer my games don’t really mind living on a 2x16TB HDD RAID1 Array. It worked so well that I moved my /home to the raid1 array.
Now I don’t play many AAA fps games and some games got silly long loading times (bg3 comes to mind) but after the startup it behaved properly.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
I wonder how the PC market compares to the PlayStation 5’s speeds.
I think it’s a chicken-or-egg dilemma for PC gaming. Game devs don’t want to lose the big market of legacy hardwares, so core gamers can’t maximize their top notch PC’s potentials.
I wonder how the new Ratchet and Clank runs on pcs.
Mostly fine. The loading screens (rifts) just take a bit longer on slower hardware.
Good question. I found a comparison video by GamerInVoid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VODSVVkKRD4
According to their video, I think Ratchet and Clank is still playable on a PC with SATA SSD, but the waiting time when jumping between the worlds is definitely longer than NVMe
Akin to volume 10 and 11 on an amp. Would you really notice if it only said 10?
Well it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not 10.
You can achieve, and beat, PS5 read speeds on PCIe 5.0. No game will really take advantage of it though. They don’t even really take advantage of it on the consoles
Does it make a difference beyond level loading time?
The Gothic 3 community made a extensive study about stutter and optimization steps for HDD vs. SSD (no stutter) in ca. 2010ish for a game from 2006. So, generally for 3D games, yes, except if you compress textures in a trade for higher CPU usage.
Btw, this game looks surprisingly good with the right tweaks atop the community fixes.
Yes. Texture and asset streaming is affected pretty significantly by the speed of your storage. Load times are a large part of where SSDs of different classes can help, but the better your SSD performs for I/O operations, the better for overall visual performance.
If the game is genuinely fun, no, it’s all wank. I still use an HDD and the load times are long but not long enough to justify buying more stuff.
The video even shows it makes a difference, although it only touches on that part, with no in-depth analysis. Some modern games don’t work properly on HDDs and you get tons of glitches and pop-in.
In older games it probably won’t affect much more than load times though.
Doesn’t even make a difference for that, for the most part. Most game loading is still CPU bound once you go past spinning rust.
Cusp of unplayable? I have a Linux system on a PCIe 4.0 drive and a Windows install on a SATA SSD. I wouldn’t notice any difference if I wouldn’t know or measure the performance difference. SATA SSDs are perfectly fine for gaming.
Gatekeeping, pixel peeping, number wank. Play on hardware you can afford, don’t let some guy with affiliate links tell you that you are gaming wrong.
Watch the video instead of talking nonsense.
This is not about specific SSDs, but a general comparison between SSD types (and some basic HDDs). It shows that some modern games actually take advantage of the increased speed, but once you’re using PCIe SSDs, it basically doesn’t matter if it’s 3.0 or 5.0, so just get the cheapest drive you find.
To save us all watching 25 minutes of algorithm-swill, which games actually take advantage?
As I said, the video is about general types of SSDs, not specific games. It’s also mixed between first load after launch, reload of a save and sometimes fast travel, no real methodology.
When the game uses DirectStorage, a PCIe SSD will be a lot faster than SATA or HDDs. Games like Last of Us Part 2, Spider-Man 2 or Ratchet & Clank were shown. Indiana Jones doesn’t use DirectStorage, but still shows this kind of behavior.
Without DirectStorage, it mostly doesn’t matter, as long as it’s an SSD, although PCIe drives were almost always faster. If you reload a save, a lot of time, it often also doesn’t matter if you use an HDD, although you might still get the glitches and pop-ins from slow asset streaming.
Here’s a list of Steam games, that use DirectStorage. It’s not a lot right now, so you definitely don’t need to switch right this second, especially if you already have a SATA SSD, and you’re not playing the latest AAA games constantly. It is something to keep in mind, when you’re upgrading though.
I got a small PCIe 4.0 nvme for my os drives but realized that except for loading screens being longer my games don’t really mind living on a 2x16TB HDD RAID1 Array. It worked so well that I moved my /home to the raid1 array.
Now I don’t play many AAA fps games and some games got silly long loading times (bg3 comes to mind) but after the startup it behaved properly.
I really haven’t noticed a difference between my sata/nvme installs, but I can’t say I was really paying attention either.
Gotta spend that money on something 💀
They never said that. Just said you need an SSD, preferably NVMe.