No RAID 0 Array? My 2x 1TB WD Blacks load almost as fast as my SSD. Would be nice if you put that comparison in. For $120 I get 2TB of near SSD like speeds. It's still the best bang for your buck for mass game storage. My RAID 0 array from 6 years ago is still going strong and performs only slightly slower than my SSD.
@@Adiounys To pass the time the majority of video games will offer game tips during loading screens. And according to this video only HDD owners have time to read them.
This is honestly the most clean hardware comparison I've seen. And you did it with a 4-way split screen, good work. PS - thanks for not talking for 5 minutes beforehand.
SgtSwagger only thing I’d say is I believe SSHD get better over time because they learn what you use most often so it won’t ever be at SSD speeds but may gain a bigger lead over the regular HDD
@@CryoseGaming i recommend using an ssd optimization tool. Windows 10 has a great one as default that is enabled automatically i believe, and many aftermarket options. This is the effectively the same thing.
I normally wouldnt care but having 480 gb ssd and running out of space after installing loads of games from gamepass ultimate i had to buy a 2 tb hdd lol
@@hoodman420 A good m.2 is pretty expensive compated to a SSD. FE Samsung 970 Evo 1TB, as SSD 120€ as m.2 180€... For pretty much the same speed... If you dont work with that 8 hours per day, it is pretty much wasted money.
My time is worthless: HDD I've bought my gaming rig at Walmart: SSHD I have no money: Sata SSD I have some money: NVMe SSD Every second counts: PCIe-4 NVMe SSD
@@joedollarbiden9823 Actually there is no time at all. Time is just artificial abstract concept created by human brains and it exist only within our brains.
@@angelite143 EVO still a top tier NVME, PRO is much more marketing than real quality / performance increments for the extra cost. The EVO 970 is a LOT faster than any SSD today, more than 4x times faster in sequential speeds. A good benchmark analisys with lots of users result can be found here: ssd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/494033/Samsung-SSD-970-EVO-250GB. The fact is that the speed costs the double in price/gb but the load speed boost in games is not proportional, in real, is far away from that, its barely faster than a budget tier SSD because in this territory there are several other factors like ram speed, video card memory speed, processing capacity of the CPU to allocate and transfer data, the way the engine of the game proceed to load data... all of that can be a potential bottleneck. In general a good Sata 3 SSD still by far the best storage you can get to put your games for your money this days.
I didnt really ever notice it. Played the open beta on a hdd and it seemed alright. Definitely not nearly as long as destiny 2. That shit felt like a good 3-5m loading time
Biosman86 , I don't have exact numbers but i don't think PS4 HDD is that much slower than regular one. It has 5400rpm sata2 laptop disk. Sure, it isn't anything to be proud at, but comparing to PC, the problem is that PS4 has over 10 years older other internal components like processor and memory. Yes, PS4 was released 2013, but in terms of quality and speed, it's components were then already lagging behind or obsolete comparing to medium to high end gaming pc at the time. To put things in perspective, pc gamers had first 120hz 1440p IPS gaming monitors around 2013. They have had 1080p 120hz and 3D monitors even before PS4. So yeah, PS4 with 30fps and medium detail wasn't really anything spectacular.
@@jaybee0507 The PS4 has 3 problems when it comes to loading. 1. The CPU is slow 2. The HDD is connected with basicly Sata2 3. And yes infact the Baracuda is probably much faster then this HDD. The Baracuda is the fastest consumer SSD you can buy and the PS4 uses a cheap low profile 5400rpm Sata.
The "Pro" should have come with an SSD at the very least. - Very stupid it didn't, because it would've been the perfect upgrade and way to market it. I get that a few years ago it would've still been more/too expensive to throw in a 1TB SSD, but then perhaps they could've just upped the price a little too. I've only just gotten a PS4 Pro (haven't even booted it yet), but I'll still get an SSD for it... I'm not gonna pay too much, though. - But HDDs are a no-no after like 2010.
So, in coclusion; nvme ssd good, but not that much comparing to regular ssd. And shdd is good but not that much comparing to regular hdd. Thanks for clean and simlple comparison. Thats how this shit must be done.
@@hoodman420 dude, the higher storage capacity the longer it takes to read and write. Lower capacity of same model is theoretically faster than high capacity. Besides, howcome storage capacity has anything to do with performance on itself? (ignoring search time)
@@joedollarbiden9823 Not really on ssd there is no searching as hdd in fact (no disk mechanbical) the fact is the more capacity the ssd have..the more cache memory you will have so... And indeed in can confirm that (i have 3 ssd NVMe from Samsung on my build each of them 500go) With some pci-e 4.0 it will raise too in logical..the same than pci-e 4.0 is very useful for graphics card with low vram capacity (mean 4go see 6go maybe.Not useful for 8go and up) Some engine use that very well i think Unreal engine 4 (load textures and others MUCH faster than ssd standard and much more hdd yet to add). And some émulators as CEMU (when you set your game sin pagefile..THERE is the thing). Some applications or games use very well the pci-e interface..But not all of them sadly. Only problem is the price (the heat you can resolve that easily honestly with a heatsink). And of course vry good for transfert data between NVMe.... some 4/6go to trasnfert ? not problem ! In a blink of a eay..some second need and you are good to go. You won't ev en notice.
@Steven Enno No not exactly in fat Skyrim will depend on what your load in.... By example on the standard version in 4K/60 fps (the game is lock and engine as well so..)..it will take exactly 5sec/6sec no more... When your mod...Be prepared you are going to suffer....Not rare in big areas it will take some ..well 25/30sec.... I think the SE Edition will not take more than ..10 sec on M.2 (see less).
@@noobhacker101 Cause RE map is as big as few buildings in AC Odyssey. Open world games have a lot more objects and geometry to load compared to game with small linear path. RE is well optimized, that is for sure, but there is a big difference between open world game and linear game when it comes to load time.
@@vasilije94 well i dont know how games do it, but basically you can load only needed things and then load more when you need, but that causes stuttering. so basically longer load time at beginning means that game should run smoother after that, but ofc there is optimizing too. balancing between preload and on-demand loading is kind of tricky. less there is to load better. you could maybe generate list of elements you will need and load them in full, then generate second list of objects you need sooner or later and load lets say low quality versions of them and use time between draw distance for high quality versions to be used to load higher quality... but then again this depends on render distances and so on. many games end up having something important missing for while if they hurry up to let you in. i rather let my pc show me some static screen for 30 seconds than have random stuttering from time to time. sadly not all games let me do 'full' preload
I'm old enough to remember just how much quicker a floppy disk was compared to tape. To see such differences between spangly new flash storage and mechanical disks is astonishing. I'm living in the future! Great vid, I now know I need NVMe in my life.
I’m glad you post this video. I just read a reddit where they said load times aren’t affected from NVMe to traditional hdd. I literally tested myself and it’s like half the time with an NVMe.
An NVME disk being faster or not depends entirely on what you're doing with it. Game loading times are limited not just by how fast the disk can supply the data, but also how fast the game engine can process it to do what it needs to do with it. Most games are not optimized to take advantage of data read speeds higher than a SATA6 interface ("normal" SSD) can supply. This is likely to change with the next console generation, as the PS5 will be using a PCIe 4.0 NVME disk or something equivalent and Xbox will probably not want to get left behind. If playing games is the most demanding thing you're doing, wait a year or two and get a bigger and faster NVME disk then, they will keep getting better price/performance/capacity ratios. Right now the faster speeds of NVME drives are mostly useful for video editing, running multiple virtual machines and various server stuff.
I got an NVME M.2 (250gb 970 evo) for my OS drive and I usually have room for one or two big games on it as well. My games drive is 1TB M.2 860 evo. No point in anything more expensive than that for games right now. I wish I had gotten 2TB though as it is always full.
@@ChallengerV8 you'd definitely see a nice improvement with an SSD for other games, even if it's just a SATA. Prices are all over the place on them but you see big sales now and then. Newegg currently has 1TB SSDs for just over $100CAD which is more like $75-80USD. I think 1TB is the sweet spot right now. 2TB SSDs just aren't worth it since they're $300CAD plus. If you have the cash I suggest picking up a cheap but decent 1TB drive like an ADATA 2.5". Sometimes Crucial has good sales on m.2 drives if you have a slot for those.
@A. S. B It's because it has an built in ssd that only has a few GB. They are designed to save more often used data inside the ssd. So that more often used data will be loaded faster. But it won't be nearly as fast as the ssd because of the small size of the ssd.
you can get a 1TB!!!! 860 evo for waaaay cheaper than is listed in his description too www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078DPCY3T/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&th=1 regularly goes down to 129.99. ps if you shop on amazon alot install the app keepa, it adds a graph of the price history of items so you can see if they go on sale for less and wait, super useful for buying new pc parts because you can get one part at a time at the lowest price. edit: didnt mention that the 129$ was for a freaking 1tb drive its actually amazing having all my data on an ssd and then cloning it onto a 1tb hdd for a backup
and also i want to use my data storage for at least 5 years and not get a bad surprise when my hdd begin to have problem and all the files been corrupted after 2 or 3 years 😊
*Dota 2 intensfies* *Warface intensfies* Also I got 3000 rpm old HDD from 2001. 80 gigs is still running, I'm using these for my old games that doesn't need HDD ( except NFS run)
I can not even imagine playing the Witcher 3 with those extremely fast load times O.o honestly that was the only thing i absolutely hated when i played it on the PS4
Honestly this is one of the things I’m most excited about the ps5, if there ssd is as fast as they say it is it’s going to be interesting seeing how that changes the ssd market space and forcing company’s to start developing ssd’s that can reach those speeds.
So you ordered on internet? Yup that's how Google algorithm works, I see ADs and recommend videos related to my cookies. I just take a look at the prices of GPUs about a 3 days ago. Since then I see ADs and related videos. No coincidence. A good but not perfect algorithm.
No we won't. One of the major reasons the NVME SSD didn't pull far ahead of the SATA SSD is because there was a ton of decompression and initialization logic happening in the backend. The only reason most games aren't loading up in 5 seconds like the Witcher 3 is that we are dedicating development time more heavily on more detailed assets rather than faster loads. And I think that will likely stay much the same as we keep prioritizing higher quality content and smaller install sizes. Not much will change in 5 years, not much changed in the last 5 years since fallout 4. The games industry is at a very mature point right now. At least for console and PC games. VR is still getting its shit together, and I hope that it can before investor interest drys up.
I use a SSHD as my tertiary storage drive (NVMe Boot and M.2 SATA secondary, all 3 drives are 2TB), and it actually gets better when you're playing the same game for awhile on it since many games load redundant assets. But it won't be long before 4TB SATA SSD's will be much more affordable. Heck QLC already cut them down from $1,400 to $500.
PrimoCache definitely doesn't get enough love. The single biggest problem they have is that you need to set the size of your storage up beforehand and it doesn't resize automatically, so it's not a drop in replacement to the Windows default caching method.. and it won't help for loading games unless you've already preloaded the level once.
M.2 is not the problem here. The sequential read/write speed of an M.2 drive is around 10+ times faster than the random access speed. haven't looked into it, but even with that we probably have way more bandwidth left on the bus for even higher speeds. Not to mention that PCIe 4.0 and 5.0 is right around the corner, which will boost the bandwidth of M.2 with idk, 4 times? They just need to improve the random access speed on their drives, which connection/protocol to use is irrelevant.
Firecuda SSHD only reaches its full potential when you load the same files (like a game level in the tests shown in the video) more than once. Usually, it's third-time-is-the-charm at which point the SSHD approaches, but never quite catches, regular SSD loading times. So, if you get killed and reload the same level a couple of times then you'll see the SSHD working at its best. Based on the results in the video it looks like either the levels were NOT loaded a couple of times on the SSHD before testing, OR the game level was so massive that the SSHD's 8GB cache is not big enough to accomodate that game level. I could never figure out why Seagate didn't increase the SSD cache to at least 16GB on the recent versions of the drive, especially when you consider the low, low cost of HDD capacity and NAND Flash chips. Bet they'd have a bigger market share if they did that!
Yep you got the idea, more like cramped. Games that have a larger download file tend to be less compressed and faster to load. Games like assassin's creed that have high detailed textures and choose to compress their game way too much, and result in all the seagates get a really sad time trying to pry em open.
Excellent(!!!) presentation. Kudos for the obvious hard work and respect for the polish!. I've watched my share of hardware benchmark videos, but refreshingly, you just cut straight to the meat of the comparison. And without speaking a word, somehow you still imparted more useful information than channels that prattle on and on with filler. Liked. Subscribed. Both heartily earned!
The SSHD results don't really mean much unless we also know if this was the first time loading a game, or if the game was just loaded or installed right before the test.
SSHDs are kinda finicky in that it sometimes takes them longer to put certain things into the ssd memory. You can even see in the video that sometimes it was clearly loading off of the hard drive, while in tests like Kingdom Come, it was loading off of the ssd portion.
Lol you really think it's only 1 or 2 seconds? Think again, do the test on top series NVME PCI express M.2 that read up to 5000MB and write up to 4400MB, that mean this kind of SSD faster 10 times then SATA SSD so it's not only 1 or 2 seconds..... It's more likely 10 seconds and above and during many progress running its a huge different by time.....
@@מוטיאהרן You just saw the results. The difference is basically non-existent. Just cause you are salty, cause you wasted a lot of money on a M.2 you don't have to try to force it on other people. It's no difference for gaming. Maybe for video editing but 10x reading speed doesn't equal 1/10th of loading time.
TL;DW: you get the most benefit going from an HDD to an SSD. Going from a HDD to a SSHD, or from a SATA SSD to a M.2 SSD, gives you minimal benefit. Thanks for the video! Very good information, presentation, and editing.
SSHD drives are adaptive, I'm so glad you understood them unlike half the RUclipsrs out there. Also test out Primocache SSD caching - you can use a small section of your boot SSD or whatever SSD to cache a HDD like a SSHD, free trial available for your benchmarking needs.
This was a great little video! So interesting, well done and actually useful to someone building a computer, or even buying a prebuilt. Shows how a little extra money put into one area can me a big difference.
Decided HDDs suck and that I would go get a SSD instead for my future build. **Has a mini heart attack** Price of two 1TB SSDs = one 10TB HDD **Goes back to reading loading screen tips and treating my wallet for PTSD**
I love SSHD for games like Skyrim & Fallout. Going in and out of doors in a town really does speed up after the first couple of efforts. First time opening a door isn't much faster though.
Thank you so much for the work to make the video. I now don’t need to waste money on an m.2 drive since the difference to an SSD is so small here that I rather just get the fastest SSD available and I’m sure it will be negligible.
It may be due to taking advantage of a ton of memory on the system. It may be preloading all the content into the video memory and/or system memory while the game menus are loading up and/or while the game menus are open, rather than once a save game is loaded
Thank you so much! I was almost about to get a super modern system, and then get a 7200RPM HDD with no SSD. I did put an SSD in afterwards, but was about to take it off before I saw this video. Thank you for making me not make a stupid decision and hate my PC for the next few months as I get an SSD.
1987: loading tape games on c64 5-7 minutes only to get to the title screen. Add another 5-7 minutes to load level 1. I wasn't complaining. 2020: Looking at this video, still doesn't understand what's the fuss about. "first world problems"
It depends on the usage and the price. Even today NVMEs are getting cheaper. I bought one because it was on sale. So why not? My motherboard supports it anyways so I tried it. I am not disappointed with the performance at all.
I went to SSD many years ago when they were SO expensive and the drive sizes were relatively small for the price, but the advantage was SO obvious that early on. I really can't imagine going back to HDD now. Any new laptop I get, I always get rid of the shitty SSHD and replace it with a 1TB SSD straight away, cloning my previous drive. The Crucial MX500 is an absolute workhorse for the price that no-one apart from tech review sites crunching numbers will notice any performance issues from.
Nvme is mainly for large data transfers. Video editors, file transfers, etc. And when getting an SSD, it's not always price to gb, always get an SSD that has a dram cache. If not it could perform even worse than a hard drive.
Check data transfer rates. While you write at max 600MB per second, I'll smash through with 3.5 GB per second using an nvme ssd. If you work / install / copy / extract large files, then you will be 5 times slower with a normal ssd.
The intel 660p is about the same price as a Samsung 860. Should definitely consider that if you don’t have the money. But yes the speed difference between a portable SSD and a NVMe M.2 is negligible for most games.
The SSD nvme PCI express M.2 it's what going to be for hardcore gamers even on the next generation consoles, you talking nonsense..... The old generation of SSD are history while the SSD nvme PCI express M.2 by their top series are faster 10 times then the SSD sata M.2/2.5"......
Just purchased a new computer where I used Samsung 860, my buddy suggested Seagate Barracuda because it was cheaper. I stuck with Samsung 860. Thanks for clearing that out :D
many forget it's all depend on read and write speeds of any particular drive.. no comments on SSHD and HDD though for they are and the Father are One! :P
Guys, don't forget to like, share or comment if you found the video useful👍👍👍
Keep it up Dude 👍👍👍
ty
I can't remember the name of this one but it's from RUclips library I think.
No RAID 0 Array? My 2x 1TB WD Blacks load almost as fast as my SSD. Would be nice if you put that comparison in. For $120 I get 2TB of near SSD like speeds. It's still the best bang for your buck for mass game storage. My RAID 0 array from 6 years ago is still going strong and performs only slightly slower than my SSD.
Name of the music pls
HDD owners are better, *cause we read all them tips bruh!*
underrated post
@@pfreece1495 can you explain it?
@@Adiounys To pass the time the majority of video games will offer game tips during loading screens. And according to this video only HDD owners have time to read them.
@@andrewscott7728 You save our life lmao
😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
This is honestly the most clean hardware comparison I've seen. And you did it with a 4-way split screen, good work. PS - thanks for not talking for 5 minutes beforehand.
Graphics comparison? What video did you see
this is not a graphics comparison tho
@@Ignacio.Romero oops
SgtSwagger only thing I’d say is I believe SSHD get better over time because they learn what you use most often so it won’t ever be at SSD speeds but may gain a bigger lead over the regular HDD
@@CryoseGaming i recommend using an ssd optimization tool. Windows 10 has a great one as default that is enabled automatically i believe, and many aftermarket options. This is the effectively the same thing.
Me in 2012: I hate loading screens
Me at the end of 2019: *watches 7 minute video of loading screens*
"Sweet"
Hahahahaaha
LMAO
'doh
😂😂😂
i watched it on 2X hehehehe
When you go SSD, there's no turning back... ;-)
Modern Retro Tech Gaming truth 🙌
i had an HDD and now an M2 it is like i was a caveman and now im traveling in stars
I normally wouldnt care but having 480 gb ssd and running out of space after installing loads of games from gamepass ultimate i had to buy a 2 tb hdd lol
@@Mr.E.us.69 2x 1TB WD Black in RAID 0 are just about as fast as an SSD. Always RAID 0 your game drives for the best price/performance.
I did. It even boosted my 10 (!) years old Centrino Duo to an acceptable office notebook.
I've no money: HDD
I've some money: SSHD
I need performance: SSD
I need bragging rights: M.2 NVME
At today's cost it is cheeper to buy a NVMe over SSD. Same price per Tb but speeds are 5x faster.
@@hoodman420 A good m.2 is pretty expensive compated to a SSD.
FE Samsung 970 Evo 1TB, as SSD 120€ as m.2 180€... For pretty much the same speed...
If you dont work with that 8 hours per day, it is pretty much wasted money.
My time is worthless: HDD
I've bought my gaming rig at Walmart: SSHD
I have no money: Sata SSD
I have some money: NVMe SSD
Every second counts: PCIe-4 NVMe SSD
@@neplatnyudaj110 "I have no money: SATA SSD" yup you're delusional
well for 100$ you can buy 1 TB ssd, m2 😊
Someone said , " Money can't buy you time"
It can't, how you gonna buy a time if don't even know what time is? It's The fourth dimension.
Shit, people still don't know what time actually is.
Holy shit that was amazing dude
@@joedollarbiden9823 Actually there is no time at all. Time is just artificial abstract concept created by human brains and it exist only within our brains.
Shadow of the tomb raider 00:00
Far cry 5 00:49
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 01:33
The Witcher 3 02:24
Kingdom Come Deliverance 03:06
Battlefield 5 03:40
Ghost Recon Wildlands 04:49
GTA 5 05:42
Resident Evil 2 Remake 06:45
thank you friendo ;)
thanks dude
Its in the description lul
@@FillMyFridge yo dude
GTA 5 online: loading two hours and still getting kicked back in singleplayer
Resident Evil: What is loading time??
Good one. Strange you haven't got any likes yet
@@user-st5ir8mg3q He has 209 likes
@@hisokamorow3611 You replied to something a moth old
BABY YES! BABY YES!
Cause bigger open world 😉
I remember when I first installed an SSD on my PC with Windows 7, my jaw dropped when it booted in 15 secs
I can't waste 1-2 second differences.
Waste 2 minutes by 4200 rpm HDD is my preference.
No, nvme speed varies, low quality nvme read at speed comparable to ssd while expensive nvme can be 10 times faster
@Ferry Gunadi it's EVO not EVO PRO and it's significantly slower and par with some SATA ssds
Will not load much game faster because game is not built for SSD. Also PS4 has Sata3 connector which is slow
@@mrmrjims3865 I think NVME speeds are at least a couple times better no matter what, M.2 SSD can be a SATA as opposed to NVME, tho
@@angelite143 EVO still a top tier NVME, PRO is much more marketing than real quality / performance increments for the extra cost. The EVO 970 is a LOT faster than any SSD today, more than 4x times faster in sequential speeds. A good benchmark analisys with lots of users result can be found here: ssd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/494033/Samsung-SSD-970-EVO-250GB.
The fact is that the speed costs the double in price/gb but the load speed boost in games is not proportional, in real, is far away from that, its barely faster than a budget tier SSD because in this territory there are several other factors like ram speed, video card memory speed, processing capacity of the CPU to allocate and transfer data, the way the engine of the game proceed to load data... all of that can be a potential bottleneck. In general a good Sata 3 SSD still by far the best storage you can get to put your games for your money this days.
i just watched 7 mins of loading screens... bruh
All in the name of science bruh
Ocealot P 🤣 Omg I just realized that
Kkkkkkkkkkk 😂
But your are watching more than that everytime you start a game so way more than 7min 😂
And I watched them too! 🤔 D'oh! 😳
Tests The Drives on Anthem:
M.2: 20 minutes
SATA SSD: 25 Minutes
SATA SSHD: 1Hour
SATA HDD: You will literally be dead by the time the game loads.
Rip HDD😂😂😂
Try it on sniper ghost warrior 3.
I didnt really ever notice it. Played the open beta on a hdd and it seemed alright. Definitely not nearly as long as destiny 2. That shit felt like a good 3-5m loading time
Try rust
Not m.2 but nvme because there is existing m.2 sata
So now HDD is the internet explorer of hard drives 😂
Nah, they're more like Netscape
Does anyone remember Netscape?
@@radomiami yes
....
@@radomiami you using netscape if you have Mozilla Firefox
I resent that!
ps4 uses a hdd
hdd load times give me a nice break to go fetch another beer, I like 'em.
ok boomer
SnOwOkie Ok Mr Zoomer
@@SnOwOkie Stfu you memey ass bitch nigga
@@salambard Ok doomer
@@captainoblivious_yt Ima cuumer :(
And the PS4 HDD is muuuuuuch more slower than the Barracuda.
Biosman86
, I don't have exact numbers but i don't think PS4 HDD is that much slower than regular one. It has 5400rpm sata2 laptop disk. Sure, it isn't anything to be proud at, but comparing to PC, the problem is that PS4 has over 10 years older other internal components like processor and memory. Yes, PS4 was released 2013, but in terms of quality and speed, it's components were then already lagging behind or obsolete comparing to medium to high end gaming pc at the time. To put things in perspective, pc gamers had first 120hz 1440p IPS gaming monitors around 2013. They have had 1080p 120hz and 3D monitors even before PS4. So yeah, PS4 with 30fps and medium detail wasn't really anything spectacular.
@@jaybee0507 The PS4 has 3 problems when it comes to loading.
1. The CPU is slow
2. The HDD is connected with basicly Sata2
3. And yes infact the Baracuda is probably much faster then this HDD.
The Baracuda is the fastest consumer SSD you can buy and the PS4 uses a cheap low profile 5400rpm Sata.
@@FrogsterLP I HAVE PS4 PRO Lol Sata 3.
You can easily upgrade PS4 HDD to a SATA SSD for improved loading times.
The "Pro" should have come with an SSD at the very least. - Very stupid it didn't, because it would've been the perfect upgrade and way to market it.
I get that a few years ago it would've still been more/too expensive to throw in a 1TB SSD, but then perhaps they could've just upped the price a little too.
I've only just gotten a PS4 Pro (haven't even booted it yet), but I'll still get an SSD for it... I'm not gonna pay too much, though. - But HDDs are a no-no after like 2010.
Thank you for taking the time to do this. Useful information :)
So, in coclusion; nvme ssd good, but not that much comparing to regular ssd. And shdd is good but not that much comparing to regular hdd.
Thanks for clean and simlple comparison. Thats how this shit must be done.
If you get 1Tb NVMe they run about 1700mbs faster then this NVMe he used as 500gb NVMe are always around 2200mbs and 1tb hit 3800 mbs
@@hoodman420 dude, the higher storage capacity the longer it takes to read and write.
Lower capacity of same model is theoretically faster than high capacity.
Besides, howcome storage capacity has anything to do with performance on itself? (ignoring search time)
SSD performance actually increases with drive size. Linus made a video about it couple of years ago in Techquickie
/watch?v=2GvRL5dcinQ
Nvme has the potential to load far quicker than the standard Sata3 ssd...when games are optimized for them.
@@joedollarbiden9823 Not really on ssd there is no searching as hdd in fact (no disk mechanbical) the fact is the more capacity the ssd have..the more cache memory you will have so...
And indeed in can confirm that (i have 3 ssd NVMe from Samsung on my build each of them 500go)
With some pci-e 4.0 it will raise too in logical..the same than pci-e 4.0 is very useful for graphics card with low vram capacity (mean 4go see 6go maybe.Not useful for 8go and up)
Some engine use that very well i think Unreal engine 4 (load textures and others MUCH faster than ssd standard and much more hdd yet to add). And some émulators as CEMU (when you set your game sin pagefile..THERE is the thing).
Some applications or games use very well the pci-e interface..But not all of them sadly.
Only problem is the price (the heat you can resolve that easily honestly with a heatsink).
And of course vry good for transfert data between NVMe.... some 4/6go to trasnfert ? not problem ! In a blink of a eay..some second need and you are good to go.
You won't ev en notice.
Spend more money to save more time. Use that time to make more money. Win WIn!
Commando Master if you’d care for time in the first place you wouldn’t play games because they’re a waste of time
more like use that time for another round
pretty impressive by the re2 devs to have such efficient loading
Of course, but there are way more things to load in an open world like Odyssey or The witcher 3
@@TheCrushiii yes but if you compare the load times between the TW3 and Odyssey, Odyssey has really bad load times.
I don’t see Skyrim in this list, I remember when I was younger and waiting like 5 mins at those loading screen to be honest.
And Skyrim can be more heavy for performance than many of those games from this video.
@@professionalhater3348 Skyrim loading screens at max settings for me are about 6 seconds at most usually more like 2-4
@Steven Enno No not exactly in fat Skyrim will depend on what your load in....
By example on the standard version in 4K/60 fps (the game is lock and engine as well so..)..it will take exactly 5sec/6sec no more...
When your mod...Be prepared you are going to suffer....Not rare in big areas it will take some ..well 25/30sec....
I think the SE Edition will not take more than ..10 sec on M.2 (see less).
Loading a game in over 30 seconds on a pc with an ssd is a nightmare come true. Developers really need to start doing their jobs.
Yea, If RE can load in 3 seconds y cant the rest?
По этому видео видно, кто из разработчиков получает деньги за работу, а кто просто по жизни криворукий.
@@noobhacker101 Cause RE map is as big as few buildings in AC Odyssey. Open world games have a lot more objects and geometry to load compared to game with small linear path. RE is well optimized, that is for sure, but there is a big difference between open world game and linear game when it comes to load time.
@@vasilije94 yeah, can't agree with you more.
@@vasilije94 well i dont know how games do it, but basically you can load only needed things and then load more when you need, but that causes stuttering. so basically longer load time at beginning means that game should run smoother after that, but ofc there is optimizing too. balancing between preload and on-demand loading is kind of tricky. less there is to load better. you could maybe generate list of elements you will need and load them in full, then generate second list of objects you need sooner or later and load lets say low quality versions of them and use time between draw distance for high quality versions to be used to load higher quality... but then again this depends on render distances and so on. many games end up having something important missing for while if they hurry up to let you in. i rather let my pc show me some static screen for 30 seconds than have random stuttering from time to time. sadly not all games let me do 'full' preload
I'm old enough to remember just how much quicker a floppy disk was compared to tape. To see such differences between spangly new flash storage and mechanical disks is astonishing. I'm living in the future!
Great vid, I now know I need NVMe in my life.
The HDD is the only reason why I'm still healthy.
I’m glad you post this video. I just read a reddit where they said load times aren’t affected from NVMe to traditional hdd. I literally tested myself and it’s like half the time with an NVMe.
Back in my days, loading times were long enough to grab a quick snack.
I've got 860 EVO, wanted to upgrade to NVME, looks like I don't need :) Thank you.
An NVME disk being faster or not depends entirely on what you're doing with it. Game loading times are limited not just by how fast the disk can supply the data, but also how fast the game engine can process it to do what it needs to do with it. Most games are not optimized to take advantage of data read speeds higher than a SATA6 interface ("normal" SSD) can supply.
This is likely to change with the next console generation, as the PS5 will be using a PCIe 4.0 NVME disk or something equivalent and Xbox will probably not want to get left behind.
If playing games is the most demanding thing you're doing, wait a year or two and get a bigger and faster NVME disk then, they will keep getting better price/performance/capacity ratios. Right now the faster speeds of NVME drives are mostly useful for video editing, running multiple virtual machines and various server stuff.
I got an NVME M.2 (250gb 970 evo) for my OS drive and I usually have room for one or two big games on it as well. My games drive is 1TB M.2 860 evo. No point in anything more expensive than that for games right now. I wish I had gotten 2TB though as it is always full.
@@devinology7 I've got 860 EVO for Windows, all the programs and World of Tanks only. I keep all other games on 4TB HDD anyway (1TB left ;p)
@@ChallengerV8 you'd definitely see a nice improvement with an SSD for other games, even if it's just a SATA. Prices are all over the place on them but you see big sales now and then. Newegg currently has 1TB SSDs for just over $100CAD which is more like $75-80USD. I think 1TB is the sweet spot right now. 2TB SSDs just aren't worth it since they're $300CAD plus. If you have the cash I suggest picking up a cheap but decent 1TB drive like an ADATA 2.5". Sometimes Crucial has good sales on m.2 drives if you have a slot for those.
@@devinology7 I just picked up a good 2TB NVME SSD for $210 USD on sale. Normally it's still only around $250 USD.
Really, Shadow of the Tomb Raider is all you'd need to show because of how divisive the results were.
SSHD is abit misleading tho, with time it becomes faster and faster. At some point it would only have a load time same as the 2.5" ssd
@@copiouscoos For reals? I don't think so.
@A. S. B It's because it has an built in ssd that only has a few GB. They are designed to save more often used data inside the ssd. So that more often used data will be loaded faster. But it won't be nearly as fast as the ssd because of the small size of the ssd.
The thumbnail really shows the difference in graphics between the drives
"The problem with being faster than light is that you always live in darkness"
Well if your main goals is gaming a normal decent SSD will do the job very well.
you can get a 1TB!!!! 860 evo for waaaay cheaper than is listed in his description too www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078DPCY3T/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&th=1
regularly goes down to 129.99.
ps if you shop on amazon alot install the app keepa, it adds a graph of the price history of items so you can see if they go on sale for less and wait, super useful for buying new pc parts because you can get one part at a time at the lowest price.
edit: didnt mention that the 129$ was for a freaking 1tb drive its actually amazing having all my data on an ssd and then cloning it onto a 1tb hdd for a backup
and also i want to use my data storage for at least 5 years and not get a bad surprise when my hdd begin to have problem and all the files been corrupted after 2 or 3 years 😊
you forgot the 5th one called "Russain Teammate" where it takes around 6-23 minutes to load in R6S.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
*Dota 2 intensfies*
*Warface intensfies*
Also I got 3000 rpm old HDD from 2001. 80 gigs is still running, I'm using these for my old games that doesn't need HDD ( except NFS run)
I can not even imagine playing the Witcher 3 with those extremely fast load times O.o honestly that was the only thing i absolutely hated when i played it on the PS4
I'd hate the low fps more.
Honestly this is one of the things I’m most excited about the ps5, if there ssd is as fast as they say it is it’s going to be interesting seeing how that changes the ssd market space and forcing company’s to start developing ssd’s that can reach those speeds.
It will most likely just be an NVME ssd or slower
NVMe has about 3,5 gigs of read speed per second. I doubt PS5 can have anything better than that, since NVMe is really expensive on console standards.
You can install a SSD in the PS4 with no problems. You know that right?
Thank you for your illustrative effort and patience to show us loading times.
Funny, I just ordered an SSD yesterday evening and this video pops up. No coincidence here
Archangel coincidence? I THINK NOT
@@sho5a5_fera5 Incredibles reference?
So you ordered on internet?
Yup that's how Google algorithm works, I see ADs and recommend videos related to my cookies.
I just take a look at the prices of GPUs about a 3 days ago.
Since then I see ADs and related videos.
No coincidence. A good but not perfect algorithm.
Talked about going to disneyland JUST TALKED and started seeing ads for Disneyland and Travel companies all over the place
No coincidence here
In 5 years we're gonna laugh at this. 10 seconds so freaking slow.
No we won't. One of the major reasons the NVME SSD didn't pull far ahead of the SATA SSD is because there was a ton of decompression and initialization logic happening in the backend. The only reason most games aren't loading up in 5 seconds like the Witcher 3 is that we are dedicating development time more heavily on more detailed assets rather than faster loads. And I think that will likely stay much the same as we keep prioritizing higher quality content and smaller install sizes.
Not much will change in 5 years, not much changed in the last 5 years since fallout 4. The games industry is at a very mature point right now. At least for console and PC games. VR is still getting its shit together, and I hope that it can before investor interest drys up.
@@joshuacook2 in 5 years I will laugh at you
@@joshuacook2 Not much changed until now. VRs been coming and its gonna change video games forever my friend
I use a SSHD as my tertiary storage drive (NVMe Boot and M.2 SATA secondary, all 3 drives are 2TB), and it actually gets better when you're playing the same game for awhile on it since many games load redundant assets. But it won't be long before 4TB SATA SSD's will be much more affordable. Heck QLC already cut them down from $1,400 to $500.
Use PrimoCache for your HDD to decrease the loading time in games. It's so useful.
PrimoCache definitely doesn't get enough love. The single biggest problem they have is that you need to set the size of your storage up beforehand and it doesn't resize automatically, so it's not a drop in replacement to the Windows default caching method.. and it won't help for loading games unless you've already preloaded the level once.
We will need something a lot more powerful than M.2 NVME in the future to load the next generation games
I bet CPU or memory speed already bottleneck here.
True
M.2 is not the problem here. The sequential read/write speed of an M.2 drive is around 10+ times faster than the random access speed. haven't looked into it, but even with that we probably have way more bandwidth left on the bus for even higher speeds. Not to mention that PCIe 4.0 and 5.0 is right around the corner, which will boost the bandwidth of M.2 with idk, 4 times? They just need to improve the random access speed on their drives, which connection/protocol to use is irrelevant.
Or maybe stop spending so much development and research on fucking graphics. Yknow, the reason shit costs so much now in DLCs and whatnot. Christ.
This was a great comparison. Thank you very much.
Firecuda SSHD only reaches its full potential when you load the same files (like a game level in the tests shown in the video) more than once. Usually, it's third-time-is-the-charm at which point the SSHD approaches, but never quite catches, regular SSD loading times. So, if you get killed and reload the same level a couple of times then you'll see the SSHD working at its best. Based on the results in the video it looks like either the levels were NOT loaded a couple of times on the SSHD before testing, OR the game level was so massive that the SSHD's 8GB cache is not big enough to accomodate that game level. I could never figure out why Seagate didn't increase the SSD cache to at least 16GB on the recent versions of the drive, especially when you consider the low, low cost of HDD capacity and NAND Flash chips. Bet they'd have a bigger market share if they did that!
Ssd is enough for gaming
Some games are just bloated, like that Assassin's Creed game needing 26+ seconds to load from M.2 ... that's just absurdly ridiculous.
yeah but its really pretty game tho
Yep you got the idea, more like cramped. Games that have a larger download file tend to be less compressed and faster to load. Games like assassin's creed that have high detailed textures and choose to compress their game way too much, and result in all the seagates get a really sad time trying to pry em open.
@@starcultiniser Witcher 3 is better, and that game was made in 2015. Let that sink in...
Textures take longer to load than the game itself.
SSD is the best because there are no moving parts.
@@Zennishiable is witcher 3 a better game (story and gameplay) or are you saying it actually looks better
I haven't played odyssey yet
Excellent(!!!) presentation. Kudos for the obvious hard work and respect for the polish!. I've watched my share of hardware benchmark videos, but refreshingly, you just cut straight to the meat of the comparison.
And without speaking a word, somehow you still imparted more useful information than channels that prattle on and on with filler.
Liked. Subscribed. Both heartily earned!
pretty ironic how we're watching 7 minutes of loading screens to compare how little we'll have to watch loading screens.
hol up
and isn't it ironic? Don't you think?
Gotta get the loading screens in somehow
The SSHD results don't really mean much unless we also know if this was the first time loading a game, or if the game was just loaded or installed right before the test.
Description says those tests were done on the 4th load on the SSHD :)
SSHDs are kinda finicky in that it sometimes takes them longer to put certain things into the ssd memory. You can even see in the video that sometimes it was clearly loading off of the hard drive, while in tests like Kingdom Come, it was loading off of the ssd portion.
Glad I watched this, I don't think that 1 or 2 seconds are worth the premium that you have to pay for M.2 NVMEs at this point.
Lol you really think it's only 1 or 2 seconds? Think again, do the test on top series NVME PCI express M.2 that read up to 5000MB and write up to 4400MB, that mean this kind of SSD faster 10 times then SATA SSD so it's not only 1 or 2 seconds..... It's more likely 10 seconds and above and during many progress running its a huge different by time.....
מוטי אהרן right bro
@@מוטיאהרן Listen to this guy right here, I had a 450-500 ssd before,then I got a 3200-2800 and there was really a huge, noticeable difference tbh.
Yeah, you should consider the level of M.2, there are many different speed.
@@מוטיאהרן You just saw the results. The difference is basically non-existent. Just cause you are salty, cause you wasted a lot of money on a M.2 you don't have to try to force it on other people. It's no difference for gaming. Maybe for video editing but 10x reading speed doesn't equal 1/10th of loading time.
TL;DW: you get the most benefit going from an HDD to an SSD. Going from a HDD to a SSHD, or from a SATA SSD to a M.2 SSD, gives you minimal benefit.
Thanks for the video! Very good information, presentation, and editing.
Great concept and editing. Thanks for doing this.
This is actually a great comparison thank you so much.
I know what will happend, but why i still watch this video?
@Pichkalu Pappita no u?
go watch a grammar video😉
It's honestly interesting to see SSHD swing between being closer to SSD and HDD depending on the game.
I wonder why that is.
SSHD drives are adaptive, I'm so glad you understood them unlike half the RUclipsrs out there. Also test out Primocache SSD caching - you can use a small section of your boot SSD or whatever SSD to cache a HDD like a SSHD, free trial available for your benchmarking needs.
RE2-Hold my loading time😏
Hold my ohh i am singleplayer game not like the other one 😉 and i am not open world don't forget that
This was a great little video! So interesting, well done and actually useful to someone building a computer, or even buying a prebuilt. Shows how a little extra money put into one area can me a big difference.
Decided HDDs suck and that I would go get a SSD instead for my future build.
**Has a mini heart attack**
Price of two 1TB SSDs = one 10TB HDD
**Goes back to reading loading screen tips and treating my wallet for PTSD**
3:42 Even the soldier stunned by how amazing graphic setting is
This video applies so much to my pc, since i have all 4 of them 😂
Doom 2016's bootup time from windows to main menu (but also the map loads of course) the HDD vs SSD Difference was completely INSANE.
NVME SSDs are going to be implemented into the Xbox Series X. Sweet.
I love SSHD for games like Skyrim & Fallout. Going in and out of doors in a town really does speed up after the first couple of efforts. First time opening a door isn't much faster though.
Get an ssd ?
Very well done video.
Should have shown Total War: Warhammer 2. Loading onto that huge map takes something like 5 minutes from a normal hard drive =/
what a time it is to be alive. games open up so fast. I love it.
My computer: "Sorry best I can do is 758 minutes."
Thank you so much for the work to make the video. I now don’t need to waste money on an m.2 drive since the difference to an SSD is so small here that I rather just get the fastest SSD available and I’m sure it will be negligible.
I love how fast Resident Evil 2 loaded!
It may be due to taking advantage of a ton of memory on the system. It may be preloading all the content into the video memory and/or system memory while the game menus are loading up and/or while the game menus are open, rather than once a save game is loaded
Thank you so much! I was almost about to get a super modern system, and then get a 7200RPM HDD with no SSD. I did put an SSD in afterwards, but was about to take it off before I saw this video. Thank you for making me not make a stupid decision and hate my PC for the next few months as I get an SSD.
Nice vid Bud. Answered my question on M.2 Vs SSD and the time differences in loading.
Awesome comparison. Lord knows I've spent days in front of load screens if I put all the time in one bucket.
nice video, here is a comment to increase the audience engagement ratings :D
What i love about the M.2 drives are that it's cable free, just the power to the motherboard, gpu and some fans wich makes it alot more neat.
1987: loading tape games on c64 5-7 minutes only to get to the title screen. Add another 5-7 minutes to load level 1. I wasn't complaining.
2020: Looking at this video, still doesn't understand what's the fuss about. "first world problems"
Nice vid!
I have x2 1TB SSD NVMe PCIe drives in a RAID0 configurstion for my games. Its amazing how fast load times are now.
One pro for hdd is more loading cutscenes that look awesome sometimes
never did i think that id be watching a video on loading screens
According to results it doesn't make any sense to spend more money on NvME. Better to go for Raid with two SSD 🤔
cpu bottleneck
Yes for gaming it makes almost no difference.
But if you use it to copy files or edit video then it makes a difference
Mrs Fazon_Checker_IX Exactly, most are just slightly more expensive
It depends on the usage and the price. Even today NVMEs are getting cheaper. I bought one because it was on sale. So why not? My motherboard supports it anyways so I tried it. I am not disappointed with the performance at all.
Very nice. I'm glad you used arguably the best performer for each as it can vary wildly between brands/models, esp for SSDs and m.2 drivers.
HDD more patient than other
I wasn't expecting that advantage. I'm looking forward to my M.2
Thanks to M2 NVME... for not making much difference in loading time than ssd. But still brought SSD price down... :D :D
Great job bud, great job, keep doin small but essentially tests like that
For the price, ssd is the most valuable /efficient stockage
👍
@@TechvsTech23 hey wanted to ask if you could do an apex legends benchmark with a 1080 ti vs 2080, would help alot!
I'm downloading it now.
@@TechvsTech23 thank you alot
I love RTS game ,and i hate their loading times, so SSD Is the best option than graphic
Catchy song bro
It was music, not a song. There were no vocals.
Really good comparison.
I went to SSD many years ago when they were SO expensive and the drive sizes were relatively small for the price, but the advantage was SO obvious that early on. I really can't imagine going back to HDD now. Any new laptop I get, I always get rid of the shitty SSHD and replace it with a 1TB SSD straight away, cloning my previous drive. The Crucial MX500 is an absolute workhorse for the price that no-one apart from tech review sites crunching numbers will notice any performance issues from.
Everyone else: We are comparing the speed of loading times between different components
Me: Hoping to find a game that my computer can run
Nvme m.2 is the fastest memory drive in the world.
Aloy Iyyanar the new m.2 wirh the 4.0 lanes is awesome
@@peppercaruso8143 yeah...mainly the new gigabyte aorus m.2 Nvme ssd which supports PCEI gen 4 is just 😍😍
How much does it cost lmao
Great and simple comparison. Currently trying to figure out which game to install on what drive so this helps a lot :D
The Witcher 3 loads in more than 5 minutes in my PC because of my HDD.
how many fps you have in game
Excelente prueba, muy completa, al grano y sin habladera de paja, muchas gracias.
So, the gains of NVME are pretty marginal. Clearly grab an SSD, but probably best to prioritize best $/GB, large capacity SSD.
Nvme is mainly for large data transfers. Video editors, file transfers, etc. And when getting an SSD, it's not always price to gb, always get an SSD that has a dram cache. If not it could perform even worse than a hard drive.
NVMe isnt even more expensive anymore really, so I might aswell grab that
Check data transfer rates. While you write at max 600MB per second, I'll smash through with 3.5 GB per second using an nvme ssd. If you work / install / copy / extract large files, then you will be 5 times slower with a normal ssd.
I almost thought that SSHD is good. Now I know. Thank you.
it's actually not even worth it lmao, soooooo no please. I would like 4TB HDD instead of 2TB SSHD and wait 10 seconds more thanks.
so from this it seems its not worth the extra money going from sata ssd to nvme m.2 for gaming. maybe for workload and booting.thank you =)
Yep
Nope i will buy nvme m.2 they are not expensive Dumb kid
Uhh.. That's written in description.
LeKelvin waste your money we’re not stopping you
The intel 660p is about the same price as a Samsung 860. Should definitely consider that if you don’t have the money. But yes the speed difference between a portable SSD and a NVMe M.2 is negligible for most games.
Thanks a lot for the summarization in the description
SSD (Sata) is all the way. Using M2 for games is silly, for OS is must.
why is silly using m.2 for games??
I feel like it's a waste to use it for your OS if your system's purpose is to play video games. I rather use the Sata for the OS and M2 for gaming.
The SSD nvme PCI express M.2 it's what going to be for hardcore gamers even on the next generation consoles, you talking nonsense..... The old generation of SSD are history while the SSD nvme PCI express M.2 by their top series are faster 10 times then the SSD sata M.2/2.5"......
Just purchased a new computer where I used Samsung 860, my buddy suggested Seagate Barracuda because it was cheaper. I stuck with Samsung 860. Thanks for clearing that out :D
many forget it's all depend on read and write speeds of any particular drive.. no comments on SSHD and HDD though for they are and the Father are One! :P
I LOVE M.2, very very minimal gains but they still brought down the prices of SSDs which are the clear value winner here.