SSD for gaming?

I'm narrowing down the options for my np8662, and i'm now debating this: I know that SSDs are insanely fast for writes and reads, but how do they handle gaming? Has the technology matured enough to allow gaming without performance faults, or should I simply stick to a 500GB 7200rpm HD (when that comes out) in the np8662?

I'm looking at an SLC drive, cost-be-damned if i do take the SSD route... I'm not sure what benefits for gaming though SLC will have though over MLC, as well as in day to day (read; note-taking, presentation making) use.

Just curious, any wisened views would be greatly appreciated.

Jason

 

Although hard disks will improve overall performance to the system, it will not improve gameplay framerates. What it will do for games is load the game faster and reduce any lag if your system is being accessed simultaneously from background processes.

 

it'll run cooler and save batt. life though? and what are the differences of MLC and SLC? (and why is SLC so much more $$ and less space)

 

Right, it will run slightly cooler and save some batteries, but nobody does gaming when running on batteries. Even with the most battery efficient systems, your only able to do about 45mins - 1 hour tops as the system would require the highest performance.

SSDs don't run that much cooler compared to current 7200 drives. It's a few degrees cooler, but SSDs do heat up and it's a common misconception that they don't. Secondly, the battery draw, although lower, isn't significantly lower. For example my Samsung draws about 2.3V, whereas my previous Scorpio drew about 2.9V. That voltage although lower, accumatively your only looking at a couple minutes difference even at the most aggressive power saving settings.

So in other words, SSDs won't improve your gaming experience by much, however if your looking to reduce boot times, do a lot of hard drive intensive applications (video encoding, graphic programs, 3d rendering, virtualization etc) you're going to see a huge difference.

 

MLC stores double the data in the same space (Instead of having an on/off electron bit switch [ Single Layer Cell], it has 4 states [ Multi Layer Cell]). SLC will hold data longer and run faster, but MLC is still faster and longer lasting than consumer grade mechanical drives.

I wouldn't quite say cost-be-damned when you can get a 256GB Corsair (Samsung controller) MLC SSD for $100 less than a 64GB Intel SLC. Yes, the X-25E is a monster, but a 256GB Corsair/Samsung will be far more beneficial to you than a 64GB Intel SLC.

 

and the solidata 256GB SLC? (this will run the entire system on w7)

 

You say your battery life is increased? How many hours do you get out of vista?

 

While this is true overall, I have noticed much smoother gameplay when using an SSD hard drive vs the originial 200gb 7200rpm drive it replaced. I would always get stuttering whenever a game would load textures into the scene (Bioshock used to have massive stuttering issues on my machine) but now, it's problem free and levels load at least twice as fast.

 

so what do you think of SLC or MLC for an SSD?

 

It depends on the brand and product performance. There is only one consumer level SLC in the market right now, and that's the Intel 64GB (which is not nearly enough for most users) costing an arm and a leg for the capacity and a slew of MLC; and even in the MLCs there are good and bad ones. For example, I opted to get a Samsung based on it's performance vs OCZ Vertex vs. Intel X25-E. Price wise the Samsung was cheapest yet the performance was somewhere in between them(which are pretty high).

 

That's exactly what I meant

Of course, if you were to pin down and eliminate those background processes, it would be more ideal solution. Using an SSD is only hiding them, back in the days of desktops(at least for me) you would need to optimize your system for gaming by running very little background applications and processes to ensure smooth gameplay.

I haven't played Bioshock, so I don't know, but it could be bad texture engine implementation altogether.

 

Don't do it. I have two SSDs (SLC) and I really do not thing they give you any performace in gaming it AT ALL. Maybe even slower. Don't spend the $$$$, trust me.

One thing I like to do is put laptop hard drives or SSDs into my desktop computers. Not only does this allow me to fit a ton of hard drives into my HTPC which has limited space, but the laptop hard drives use much much less energy and emit less noise than a desktop drive. I currently have a Phenom Black edition 9950 at 2.66ghz that I undervolted, with 8gb DDR2-1066. I undervolted the GPU as well, and added 4 terabytes of storage. My plan in doing this was to have a low power server type computer that would serve well in my gigabit home network of 6 computers. GO GREEN -UNDERVOLT and use low power components!! This is espeically important to me since in Baltimore, our utility rates are ridiculously high and one of the (if not the highest in the nation). This is why I use laptops most of the time (which are also undervolted CPU and GPU). Cheers!

 

High capacity SSD's are not really worth it at the moment;. Your better off getting a 7,200rpm HDD or RAID-0 setup if possible.

 

It depends. For me, having an SSD surpasses the speeds of having RAID-0(heck even desktop drives) with 0.4ms access time and having the peace of mind security that there are no moving parts or any chances of corrupted data. This allows me to run my applications and virtual machines at optimal speed . For me to do that in a laptop with HDDs would be impossible since I would then need 2x 7200 RPM drive in RAID-0 format increases the chance of data loss. For work, it's more than worth my money.

However, if it's strictly for gaming, then I agree with your stance of being not worth it. I'd rather spend the same amount of money on a dual interleave card based systems (ie; Alienware or Asus G70 etc) with 2 harddrive bays.

 

Personally i cant knock ssd's at all, they are far superiour in every way other than cost/gigabyte.

I have 60gb vertex's in my desktop and my new m860tu, freaking awsome.
I then use a 300gb raptor to to install my games on(desktop).

I might have to go up to a 120gb in the notebook soon, but the performance is there, levels load much faster, smoothness all round.

If you can handle low sized o/s drive you cant go wrong.

Personal opinion.

 

I had an m1330 with an hdd of 320gb @5400 RPM and I used to game COD4 and then I upgraded to a Patriot SSD with 170 MB/S reads. For gaming it wont raise your FPS, just loading times are FAST, the overall temps decreased, also I won like around 25mins more of battery life . They are really really good but if your intention is just for gaming and not for more battery life or better system performance then just get a black scorpio WD 320gb @ 7200 RPM...

 

Can you see the temps in a SSD using let's say HW Monitor?
If I remember correctly NO software monitor can.Or is that RAID setup? I hope I'm wrong.
If anyone knows of one let me know.

 

Don't get an SLC SSD, that's not really worth the money unless you have extremely high, server-like loads on your computer. SSD technology is still evolving pretty fast, so that SSD you buy might be outdated pretty soon. There are MLC SSDs out there that are almost as good as SLC SSDs (and way better than HDD raids), like the OCZ Vertex or the Intel X25-M. These are very well suited for non-server usage, although by using an SLC SSD you could still get a tiny increase in performance.
SLC SSDs are better in doing many random writes than MLC SSDs, so if you're regularly doing things with huge amounts of random 4KB writes, SLC would be better than MLC SSDs. However, MLC SSDs are still far superior to HDDs in random writes.

The temperature of an SSD mainly depends on its controller. Some are pretty cool (like the Intel controller based ones), some can get quite hot (like the JMicron drives, if I remember that right).

For gaming, SLC SSDs will hardly get you any benefit over MLC SSDs. Actually, you will likely not notice any increase in FPS at all (but it also doesn't decrease your gaming performance, at least if you buy a modern SSD that doesn't stutter). What you will get in terms of gaming is:

• No more stuttering in games where there had been stuttering before, e.g. when textures are being loaded.
• Faster loading times in many games, mostly in newer ones and not that much in older ones.

But that game benefit wouldn't be as noticeable for as would be the overall improvement in "snappiness" of your computer. I personally wouldn't want to put the HDD that it originally came with back into my laptop as the OS drive, even though it's already a pretty fast one with low access times.

Avoid buying JMicron based SSDs.

 

I don't find games opening particularly fast. I have a Samsung.

 

That's what I meant, you don't really notice the speed improvements in games. I don't play very much, but I also experienced this. I guess it's something psychological (you're "in" the game). I measured it, and there were indeed speed improvements in level loading times. You just don't realize them as much as you realize the new snappiness of your operating system.

However, you do notice the SSD improvements you get in games once you go back to an HDD (at least that was the case for me).

 

Ive played games online where you can see who loads first. I am not the fastest still and I doubt they all have superior SSDs than mine or even SSDs at all. I also have a fast connection. Granted I am on a notebook but not a slow one either.

Even booting into windows takes a whole minute from pressing power key to seeing windows task bar.

 

Yeah, I also experienced that. On that particular game, it even sometimes took 8 seconds to load a level and sometimes 2, right after starting the game for the first time.

Hm, that takes less than half a minute for me. :/

Oh, wait a minute, are you using Vista? There are some things you should do if you're using Vista with an SSD to improve performance and lifespan of the SSD. I plan on making a simple tutorial on how to do this within the next couple of days (I had that in mind for some time now), if there won't be too much work to do for me. However, I have not yet researched to what degree not making these changes ( http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx) does decrease performance on Vista systems with fast SSDs.

 

Yes I am running vista.

I dont know, it doesnt impress me that much other than making no noise and I can use it when in transportation on bumpy rides.

 

Hm, what SSD do you have exactly?

 

A Samsung.

 

Is there just one single kind of Samsung SSD controller?

 

what do you mean?

 

No, I believe there are two generations. The first one gives around 100-120MB/s R and 70-100MB/s W, while the second gives around 220MB/s R and 150-200MB/s W (all sequential speeds).

 

Wow how do I know if I got the shaft or not?

 

What are the details for your SSD (capacity, benchmark numbers, P/N on the SSD)? Did you get it with your notebook (what notebook)?

 

In Control Panel, open "Device Manager". In the category "Disk drives", double-click your SSD. Select the tab "details", select "Hardware-IDs" from the dropdown box and post the contents of the listbox. They will help identify your SSD. You can also try pasting one of the lines of that listbox into your favorite search engine and see if it comes up with any results.

 

SSD is terrific for games. Loads missions in an instant. Defragments the drive extremely fast. It is the right choice!

 

You don't have to defragment an SSD. The main reason for this is that because modern SSDs are very good at random accessing, defragmentation is not even worth the additional amount of wear it will put on the SSD.

Windows 7 will disable scheduled defragmentation for SSDs by default.



Only some games seem to greatly benefit from running off an SSD, also depending on what particular drive you used before.

 

You shouldn't defrag the SSD, it actually does damage by using read and writes up.