in the SSD department the best performance gains were made from SATA3 600MB to Nvme pcie gen3 X4 4000MB, and only if pc games had direct storage enable a pce gen4 X4 will be enough.
I was surprised by the results so I added Forza Motorsport to my tests to see if Direct Storage would have an impact, but since both drives can use it there was no difference. Unfortunately there is a perception out there that since the read speeds double the performance in games will improve but it’s simply not true (other than a small benefit to load times).
for gaming yes I don't think we see any performance improvements kinda like 10Gig port at at home you'll never need or use it. But what about productivity folks? say video/photo editing folks that transfer large data back and forth I can see this being a big improvement for these guys!
The problem is they target gamers with their advertising … I fell for it and purchased multiple drives so I was genuinely curious when I started testing them.
yep, I'm a 3D artist usinga a Threadripper cpu (32cores/64threads) and building a new rig and for me its totally worth it. Houdini and Cinema 4D generate huge caches with a lot of read/write to disk, plus rendering image sequences and then accessing them with After Effects, Nuke etc. TOTALLY worth the speed inprovements especially when you look at the 3D Mark benchmarks in this video....and I believe it will be way bigger difference with a threadripper than this gaming cpu
That’s the point of the video, to show that Gen 5 SSD’s provide no performance benefit in games. Furthermore, I did test load times, but the difference between gen 4 and gen 5 is so small that the only way to accurately measure it is with benchmark software.
If the game needs to load large texture files from the storage media into the GPU, the transfer speed will matter, a slow drive (especially a conventional HDD) will hit the FPS.
@@janoskiss8040 yes, that was the point of the video ... I wanted to test if it makes a difference to average FPS or 1% lows for Gen 4 vs Gen 5 and it didn't. If you test a HDD vs a Gen 4 SSD then it likely would as you state, but at this point I think most people have realized that moving to an SSD is beneficial across the board.
I do think its relevant because of heat throttling of videocards. The slightly slower speeds he demonstrated could possibly be due to the +24 degrees of the 5.0 drive. 78 degrees is HOT, and these components heat the entire system not just the individual chips/modules. In terms of airflow, the amount of air a system needs is determined by the entire system not just the CPU and videocard. Heat pipes get that heat dispersed into aluminum/copper fins so that air can cool it down, but that air still needs to move through the system. I bet if he did another video but with a thermal camera on the entire system, we could see how the 5.0 drive without a heatpipe is probably heating up the entire system not just the NVMe drive.
Great video, tyvm! I didn't even know there was a difference between M.2 and NVMe! The M.2 being the physical interface such as a USB-C refers to the physical interface and not the underlying protocol. And NVMe referring to the high performance protocol over PCI-e such as how Thunderbolt is a higher performance connection through cables (usually through a USB-C interface)
@ From memory, I have seen another RUclips creator state that pcie 3 is all you need for games. The direct storage technology does it appear to help games at all. For me storage space is the issue. Larger capacity at lower pcie work fastest for that generation... but in comparison, I have noticed that 4th gen 5 devices are slower than the 2tb version. All this and they are releasing the protocols for pcie gen 7 this year. What is going on with the engineering and manufacturing of devices these days ?
I was looking for a way to turn gen 5 on for my system, since the manual does not really tell you and options dont turn up on the obvious etc, but after watching this I wont bother. That said on a high end system going above 4800mhz on ram to 6400mhz can actually give you up to 10fps more in some tests I have seen. So enabling XMP or similar is actually worth it.
You should definitely turn EXPO/XMP on ... here is a good video if you want to learn more about AM5 Ryzen based CPU memory and how it all works: ruclips.net/video/JuUhnQaGG_I/видео.html
The dramatic heat disparity would actually be a performance impacting difference, that might explain the performance. The heat of these modules heat up the entire system not just their local components, and the hotter the SSD the more air needed to cool the same system. +24 degrees, and having a component at 78 honestly is unacceptable for something that isn't providing a tangible benefit. With access times only being 18 microseconds faster, I cannot imagine the loading times between 4.0 and 5.0 being noticeable. Prices on new stuff is always higher, but those temperatures, honestly even if they cost the same I think I'd stick with a 4.0 drive. 78 degrees is on the verge of needing it's own heatpipe and fan.
I agree, this is the issue with first gen Gen 5 SSDs ... the newer controllers should run much more efficiently. There are actually a lot of aftermarket cooling solutions for Gen 5 SSDs as a result of the higher temps. That said, it really doesn't make any sense for a gamer to buy a Gen 5 drive ... there is no meaningful benefit at this time.
My Corsair Rog Strix Hero IIIV Wifi x570 remains at full PCIE x16 with 2x M.2 SN850X NVME installed. NewHail M.2 coolers. Component Longevity is important in terms of investment. PrimoCache 4.3 gives me the ultimate piece of mind about my M.2 investment.
@@blackbirdpctech - In my 64GB ROG X570 system I get best results with 16GB allocated for cache using 16kb cluster size with overhead of around 500mb I set cache split 50/50 read write. Asus RAMCACHE III can achieve a similar score yet not as robust as PrimoCache 4.3 pro. It's the best $30.00 I've ever spent. It's the vitamins an M.2 needs. I use NewHail brand M.2 coolers. Latest Version. 3x heat pipes. Switched to 40mm Noctua fans. My Corsair Rog Strix Hero IIIV x570 BIOS contains L1 and L2 caching feature in the BIOS, Yet that's all I know about it at the moment.
Interesting, I didnt know the difference between the SATA and NVME, thanks for the lesson! It is a shame that there was no real performance boost but at least now I am more aware that I should save money on my drives and put it towards something else. Normally I just buy as much storage as possible and don't really think about speed (hence why I am yet to upgrade to an SSD for my other non-C drives) 😅Was there any significant differences in the boot times? Great video btw!
Thanks and yes, there was a 25% reduction in load time for games (it's on the 3DMark Storage Benchmark chart labeled Access Time) ... I was genuinely surprised by the results and regret buying all of the Gen 5 M.2 SSDs that I have.
@blackbirdpctech oh wow, I'm sure most people will not want to spend double the price for even 25% less load times. At least you did the test now rather than later, now you know not to fall for the marketing scams and this shows us viewers to be weary of these marketing tricks used by these companies to make a quick bag!
From my understanding, right now it doesn't matter if you have a Gen 4 or Gen 5 if you have an Intel Motherboard, because "if you have your Gen 5 SSD installed in the first M.2 slot, the bandwidth of your graphics card slot will be halved and my RTX 4090 will operate at PCIe 4.0 x8 link speeds instead, thereby impacting your graphics card's performance." So basically until Intel boards come out with designated slots for the Gen , like the AMD boards already have, it is not worth it. Pretty annoying when trying to build right now but held up by a stupid slot in a board. It's like do you buy a Gen 5 and just put it in the 2nd slot etc this way when you go to upgrade later you have it already or just buy Gen 4 and buy Gen 5 or 6 by the time you want to upgrade your Mobo again.
That is only part of the story, which I covered in the video, but that is not why it doesn't matter. I conducted the testing for this video on an AMD X670e board with full bandwidth available to the SSD and GPU ... Gen 5 M.2 SSD's simply don't provide any performance benefit in games except for slightly lower load times. I think in this situation Intel made the right move ... even if you enable the Gen 5 SSD slot and halve your GPU bandwidth on an Intel Z790 board (which I wouldn't recommend) it will only make a very small difference to game performance.
The problem with comparing load times is that I couldn't find an accurate way to do it. If you look at the access time that is measured in the 3DMark Storage Benchmark you can see that it's measured in micro seconds. A human can't measure micro seconds accurately, so when you see tech RUclipsrs use a stop watch the data is complete nonsense. So I was more interested in seeing if there was any FPS difference ... data I couldn't find anywhere else online. At least now with this data I don't feel like I need to buy Gen 5 SSD's for gaming.
What do you mean by "messing it up?" There is nothing that you can really mess up, the only issue is that Gen 5 drives are much more expensive and offer no performance benefit in games.
13 дней назад
I was definitely about to plunk down serious money for a gen 5 but this video stopped me lol. I have an unrelated question; maybe u published a video that addresses it. Im building on a Gigabyte X870 AORUS Elite ICE motherboard; looks are important for me, especially on an all white build. Can I fill all four ram slots; it looks ridiculous (IMO) with 2 sticks when 4 are available.
You can fill all of the DIMMS however it will likely impact your stability if you try to run them at EXPO/XMP. I have a good video on AM5 memory that you can check out to understand more: ruclips.net/video/JuUhnQaGG_I/видео.html
They are backwards compatible, so if you put a gen 5 SSD in a gen 4 slot then it will be limited by gen 4 speeds. That said it will not have any impact on gaming performance. But I would highly recommend just getting a high speed Gen 4 SSD because the temps will be lower.
Thanks the explanation, I think I'll stick to my Crucial P3 Plus SSD choice for my new build for now! A bit of an off topic question, but given the Asus controversy, can you recommend a non Asus motherboard for a Ryzen 7 3800X3D?
No problem ... I really like the motherboard that I use in my test bench, it's the Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master (link is in the description to this video). MSI also has some great boards ... depends on how much you are looking to spend.
@@blackbirdpctech I should have specified, this will be a small form factor mitx build so my choices there would be the Gigabyte A620I AX, the Aorus Ultra or MSI's MPG B650I Edge WiFi from the looks of things. Sadly my budget is a bit too low for the Aorus Ultra at a max of £250 for the mobo.
I know this video is almost 5months but i got a question, I am rebuilding my system from scratch and didnt know enough about the types of ssds and i ended up purchasing a mp44q teamgroup nvme and after read that using this type being QLC it would not be optimal. I am using my system for light to medium gaming, browsing and storage nothing too strenuous. My question is since black friday is still close and my motherboard which is a PG riptide should i look to get a gen 5 1tb for my OS etc and use the 4th gen for extra storage, or just use what i have? Thanks for any advice rendered i really appreciate it.
I wouldn't recommend getting a Gen 5 SSD ... there are great deals on top quality Gen 4 SSD's, such as the WD Black and Samsung 990's, so I would just get one of those.
Yes however the difference in load times was so small that I didn't really notice in the games I play. The second chart shows "Access Time" results from the 3DMark Storage Benchmark which measures load time across multiple games such as Battlefield V, COD: Black Ops 4, Overwatch, Counter-Strike, etc. Games load so fast on Gen 4 and Gen 5 SSDs that physically measuring load times with a stop watch is extremely inaccurate, so using a benchmark that is repeatable is a much better way to do it.
That statement alone could have saved me from even testing it ... but it's probably balanced by the other 50 statements telling me that I did something wrong because clearly a Gen 5 SSD will be better in games. If only opinions held as much weight as data.
Slower performance with Gen 5 could be heat related? I see the cpu ran much hotter when paired with the gen 5 drive, so maybe cpu thermals were causing the lower framerate on modern warfare.
I thought the exact same thing so I tested it … temps were well within spec and the performance in crystaldiskmark was the same after and before. It was super strange.
@@blackbirdpctech very strange indeed. Must just be game optimization related. At any rate, thanks for the video. I just got the 2TB T500 for my laptop on prime day sale this morning for $138.
why do they have to make pc terms so confusing and unintuitive? samsung makes a gen 5 SSD 2 tb for about 160 on amazon right now. it says its 5,000 mp/bs as opposed to crucial being 12,000 for over $200. i wonder if those advertised speeds are accurate. Also wonder if the samsung gen 5 SSD is truly gen 5 or amazon is mislabeling it.
To make it even more confusing the Samsung drive, which I think is the 990 EVO, is a hybrid Gen 4 / Gen 5 drive ... it only offers Gen 5 at half the lanes or bandwidth (i.e. Gen 5x2), which is why the speeds are about half that of Gen 5x4 drives. So yes, the advertised speeds would be accurate. It actually looks like a great drive to pickup.
I did test load times ... the second chart shows "Access Time" results from the 3DMark Storage Benchmark which measures load time across multiple games such as Battlefield V, COD: Black Ops 4, Overwatch, Counter-Strike, etc. Games load so fast on Gen 4 and Gen 5 SSDs that physically measuring load times with a stop watch is extremely inaccurate, so using a benchmark that is repeatable is a much better way to do it.
Yeah sorry but the question is not only if its worth for gaming which sure it isn't but how about multitasking ? I want to use it on a developer machine. Lots of programs, servers etc. running at the same time with massive storage interactions. How would they compare in that situation ? I know this problem isn't for everyone but try not to target gamers only.
I understand that's your question and it's valid, but it wasn't the question I was trying to answer. I targeted gaming because SSD manufacturers target gamers with their Gen 5 SSD marketing.
It can run Gen 5 PCIe and an M.2 SSD at the same time but I think what you mean is that it can’t run the GPU at full bandwidth while running a Gen 5 SSD … I cover this in the video.
Agreed, at the moment the performance impact is relatively small but that may change. Intel needs to get their new platform out beforehand to make sure they are positioned well to avoid bandwidth issues.
No, your GPU is only running in x4 mode, which will significantly impact the bandwidth. What else do you have installed in the PCIe lanes on your motherboard?
@@blackbirdpctech I have installed a riser so that the graphics card stands vertically. I can't insert the link to the product because the comment gets deleted. I ordered this white riser from China through eBay. PCIe 5.0 with a bandwidth of 128 Gbit/s. You must have come across it; it's cheaper than branded manufacturers.
@@ugolxxx2934 it could be the riser, but it could also be populating the wrong SSD slots ... have you looked at your manual to see which slots share bandwidth with your GPU PCIe lanes?
@@blackbirdpctech I haven't checked. I have one M.2 Gen4 Samsung 990 Pro 2TB in the third slot (which is the second slot for Gen4 SSD) on my Gigabyte B650E AORUS ELITE X ICE motherboard. The first slot for Gen5 SSD is free. Where in the manual is this information, and how can I find it?
First, Gigabyte manuals really suck. That said, download the manual and go to page 5 where you will see the motherboard block diagram. It looks like the M2A_CPU SSD slot shares bandwidth with the primary GPU slot, so don't install an SSD in that slot. I would recommend installing an SSD in either slots M2B_CPU or M2C_SB. You can find which slots they are on page 4 under Motherboard Layout.
Thanks this video was very informative. I checked GPU- Z to see what mode my GPU was running in and it says PCIe x16 4.0 @ x16 3.0. Do you know what might cause it to not be running in x16 4.0 mode? My motherboard is a Strix x570e gaming, cpu is 5800x, and gpu is 3080ti
@@blackbirdpctech looks like the PCie slot where my gpu is what set to gen 3 in bios. Not sure why it defaulted to that but I switched it to gen 4 and left the m.2 slots as auto. GPU z shows this running as x16 4.0 now
Yeah, I bought into the hype and purchased a bunch of Gen 5 drives before running the benchmarks … this explains why Samsung has not rushed out a Gen 5 drive.
gen 5 drives are like what ssd originally where to the regular 7200rpm drives ahead of there time and it took developers a while to get full use of those drives 7000 read is plenty and write at 6000 is plenty. maybe when the ps6 comes out gen 5 drives will be worth it. once sony and microsoft get there heads out of there rear end and start to push there tech like what sony did for ratchet and clank thus far is a start but cant help feeling the ssd in consoles arent being fully tapped since pc version says on ssd is required which i say to sony and developers which one ?. so far newer games don't seem to be pushing that boundary as hard yet. the issue i have with tests for load times is great but texture pop in is less for nvme at least from what ive observed in hogwarts legacy. will have to test with 4.0 and see if loading into different zones is more seamless. ( castle seems to be split into 4 areas.
I didn’t expect to see a huge difference but I did expect to see something … I was a little surprised with the results … and I still can’t explain the COD MW3 result. I think you are correct wrt game developers not leveraging the technology … which is why I added Forza Motorsport because it uses DirectStorage … but it had no impact on the results because the Gen 4 drive also used it.
@@blackbirdpctech as long as there developing for ps4 and older consoles that used standard drives. transition is going to be slow its improving with adopting it granted developers may leverage it more in long run once they have tapped everything else out i believe it could be that the game engine doesn't have the support built in for anything faster then the ps5 and xbox one ssd. i think what you may see more is less texture pop in that just isn't shown in the data. This is my own personal view of where i think developers are focusing on is in the mid market gpus like a 3060 12gb. A thing to try would be using a older 3500/3000 drive on cod mw3 vs m.2 4. and see if it preforms more poorly. if you look at iw game engine it may give you some insight. wikipedia has a good list of its features. i get the feeling the cod mw3 was in development before the ps5 and xbox one which may also explain its behaviour kind of like they hobbled it in at the end lol. other thing to consider both games where probly developed around 2017. which would be nvme 1.3 speed.
I am curious if the Gen5 drive "feels" more snappy in day to day usage compared to the Gen4 drive. Some things can't be seen in a regular benchmark. For instance, Intel Optane drives would lose in all of those benchmarks, but they actually have the best latency input.
I didn't notice any real difference ... even with load times, the Gen 5 drive is faster but the Gen 4 drive is already so fast that it wasn't really meaningful. Perhaps that will change with newer motherboards and CPU architectures.
The SSD running cooler is definitely a good thing, but it's unlikely to run less stable with a gen 5 SSD ... the SSD will simply reduce its speed if it gets too warm.
a gen5 ssd costs at least x2 more than a gen4 with the same space, so for me is not worth it. Unless you use a 10gig lan or internet conection is not even worth to think of.
You are going to need a CPU PCIE 5.0 is AMD RYZEN 7 9700X or RYZEN 9 9900X A MOTHERBOAD X870 that got only MVME PCIE 5.0 SLOT the rest of the NVME SSD SLOTS IS PCIE 4.0 THAT SSSSSSUCKS
X670 boards have PCIe 5.0 SSD slots too and Ryzen 7000 series chips can leverage them ... so do Z790 and Z890 boards ... so I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say?
I did measure load times through the 3DMark storage benchmark, however the entire point of the video was to see if a Gen 5 SSD will impact gaming performance. When load or access times are measured in micro seconds, it's pointless to measure those times manually with a stop watch because humans can't react fast enough for it to be accurate. That's why you need software to measure these times accurately.
@@blackbirdpctech I was refering to initial loading of a game form storage device to ram where speed is measured in seconds. Does a game loads 2x faster on a gen5 SSD vs a gen4 SSD given the 2x speed per pin of gen5 vs gen 4 ?
@@abcabc371 that's the point ... the difference between Gen 4 and Gen 5 M.2 SSD's is so small that you can't accurately measure it with a stop watch. It made sense when we were comparing HDD's to SSD's, but now we are talking about micro seconds of difference.
It seems pointless to have measure ssd performance via game FPS. The continous asset streaming of these games by absolutely no means require that fast ssds. The limiting factor (if there would be any) would be the fact that there is not even a pcie5 gpu that could handle such data speeds coming from the ssd. FPS numbers on a SSD comparison are pointless. At most you would see a difference in loading speed of the entire game... but that was not tested here.
The entire point of the video was to show that there is no value in buying Gen 5 SSD's for gaming. Gen 5 SSD's are targeted at gamers, but they provide absolutely no performance improvement. And yes, I did show access time, it was part of the 3DMark Storage Benchmark that measures load times across multiple titles. The challenge is that you can't measure load times manually to any degree of accuracy for a Gen 4 or Gen 5 drive because of the small timescales involved (micro seconds). It's easy to point out that something is obvious after you have just watched a video on it, but I couldn't find this data anywhere else, and based on some of the negative comments claiming that my data is wrong, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people out there that believe a Gen 5 SSD will improve their gaming performance.
SSD manufacturers target gamers with Gen 5 SSDs and I think it's strange for gamers to buy one based on an 18 micro second improvement in load time (as displayed in the benchmarks). So I decided to see if there was any benefit at all for gamers because I have never seen anyone do this and there is a widely held belief within the broader community that these increased SSD speeds help with gaming. You can see this from some of the earlier comments slamming me because they thought my results had to be wrong. It's also weird when other content creators try measuring the load times with a stop watch when it's physically impossible for a human to make accurate measurements at the micro second scale.
How do you measure load times accurately when the difference between a Gen 4 and Gen 5 SSD is measured in micro seconds? The reason I included the 3DMark Storage Benchmark results is that it measures access time accurately across multiple games and applications. The objective of this video was to see if there was a difference in gaming performance. In the future it's probably a good idea to think through what you are saying before calling something stupid and laughing.
@@Andruuid that's easy to say once you've seen the data. It's also precisely how companies market Gen 5 SSD's. I had many negative comments on this video when I first posted it telling me the data was BS because they believed there should be a boost in performance.
@@blackbirdpctech really, ok its super simple and embarassing for someone with a tech channel to not understand frame time is the latency from when a frame is generated opposed to the time it takes to display literally in its name pal
Frame time is NOT "the latency from when a frame is generated" ... that makes no sense ... Frame time is the time it takes for one frame to be generated. Framerate is the amount of frames that can be generated in 1 second or it's equal to 1 second divided by the frame time. So looking at frame time differences will yield the exact same results as looking at framerate, that's why your comment doesn't make sense. I'm also not sure why you think the SSD Gen will impact latency.
I was genuinely surprised by the results too which is why testing is valuable, it provides evidence to make a sound assessment versus using emotion. Just because you think something should be a particular way doesn't mean it is. My data is accurate, so please feel free to provide data to support your thoughts that you expressed so eloquently 😉
@blackbirdpctech mw3 has recently forced a setting called on demand texture streaming, it requires 64gb free of ssd space, could this be the cause for difference in fps, there is 2 options for this setting, is it possible to retest this game, I haven't seen anyone test the performance on this based on ssd speed and could become more common with future games, thanks
Gen 5 SSDs are marketed to gamers, so I thought it would be helpful to show that they offer no performance benefit, even when games support features like DirectStorage. I got a lot of comments early on this video stating that I am lying and that my results are not accurate because people didn't believe that there was no performance benefit.
@blackbirdpctech Fair enough. All I ever wondered is how gen5 compares to gen4 when it comes OS boot and some longest loading scenes in games, but I think gen4 already maxed out all of that, and it's up to developers to actually code their stuff in a way to be able to utilize fast storage effectively. And unfortunately we're not there yet.
I show access time on the 3DMark Storage Benchmark chart ... it benchmark tests a number of different games to come up with an average access time ... there is a difference but we are talking about micro seconds, so there is no way anyone would notice it in a meaningful way.
very nice video, informative and concise, thank you.
Glad to hear that you liked it!
in the SSD department the best performance gains were made from SATA3 600MB to Nvme pcie gen3 X4 4000MB, and only if pc games had direct storage enable a pce gen4 X4 will be enough.
I was surprised by the results so I added Forza Motorsport to my tests to see if Direct Storage would have an impact, but since both drives can use it there was no difference. Unfortunately there is a perception out there that since the read speeds double the performance in games will improve but it’s simply not true (other than a small benefit to load times).
Ditto. Why fix something that works well.
for gaming yes I don't think we see any performance improvements kinda like 10Gig port at at home you'll never need or use it. But what about productivity folks? say video/photo editing folks that transfer large data back and forth I can see this being a big improvement for these guys!
The problem is they target gamers with their advertising … I fell for it and purchased multiple drives so I was genuinely curious when I started testing them.
@@Widowmaker28A 🫵all facts 👍
yep, I'm a 3D artist usinga a Threadripper cpu (32cores/64threads) and building a new rig and for me its totally worth it. Houdini and Cinema 4D generate huge caches with a lot of read/write to disk, plus rendering image sequences and then accessing them with After Effects, Nuke etc. TOTALLY worth the speed inprovements especially when you look at the 3D Mark benchmarks in this video....and I believe it will be way bigger difference with a threadripper than this gaming cpu
@@SilverSurfer9000 You should be using Intel Optane P5800X as your Windows OS drive for productivity.
Thank me later.
OMG - was not expecting this! Thank you so much!
Glad you liked it!
Just bumped into this. In what world does the speed of your SSD have to do with frame rate. Better off testing load times
That’s the point of the video, to show that Gen 5 SSD’s provide no performance benefit in games. Furthermore, I did test load times, but the difference between gen 4 and gen 5 is so small that the only way to accurately measure it is with benchmark software.
If the game needs to load large texture files from the storage media into the GPU, the transfer speed will matter, a slow drive (especially a conventional HDD) will hit the FPS.
@@janoskiss8040 yes, that was the point of the video ... I wanted to test if it makes a difference to average FPS or 1% lows for Gen 4 vs Gen 5 and it didn't. If you test a HDD vs a Gen 4 SSD then it likely would as you state, but at this point I think most people have realized that moving to an SSD is beneficial across the board.
@@blackbirdpctech
yes, I understood your intention. The original commentator did not, my reply was for him 😄
I do think its relevant because of heat throttling of videocards. The slightly slower speeds he demonstrated could possibly be due to the +24 degrees of the 5.0 drive. 78 degrees is HOT, and these components heat the entire system not just the individual chips/modules. In terms of airflow, the amount of air a system needs is determined by the entire system not just the CPU and videocard. Heat pipes get that heat dispersed into aluminum/copper fins so that air can cool it down, but that air still needs to move through the system.
I bet if he did another video but with a thermal camera on the entire system, we could see how the 5.0 drive without a heatpipe is probably heating up the entire system not just the NVMe drive.
You said FOMO in a tech review. Legend!
That was the only reason I could think of to buy a gen 5 ssd given these results … and I purchased a bunch of them 😉
@@blackbirdpctech LOL!!!
Yep ... wish I had done this testing before buying.
@@blackbirdpctech Well, it could have been worse. You could have said FML instead of FOMO.
Ha ha … that would have been more appropriate with the last video 😉
Very informative video. Thanks a lot.
Glad you liked it, appreciate the feedback.
Great video, tyvm! I didn't even know there was a difference between M.2 and NVMe!
The M.2 being the physical interface such as a USB-C refers to the physical interface and not the underlying protocol.
And NVMe referring to the high performance protocol over PCI-e such as how Thunderbolt is a higher performance connection through cables (usually through a USB-C interface)
You're welcome! Glad it was helpful.
Such an insightful video. Thank you for all the value you provide that makes sense even to newbies like me.
Thanks for watching and the feedback!
Pricing has gotten more competitive recently.
Yes it has ... the value prop for gen 5 SSDs is tough, so it was inevitable that the price would come down, especially as the technology matures
Your videos are very straight forward an really do help thanks for all you do🔥🔥🔥🔥
Glad you like them!
Thanks for honest opinion
Thank you, this video was so helpful to me!
You are welcome, glad you liked it!
Could you apply the same game benching to pcie gen 3? The crucial P3 comes in very appealing for storage with the 4TB model.
It would be interesting to see ... might do that in a future video.
@ From memory, I have seen another RUclips creator state that pcie 3 is all you need for games. The direct storage technology does it appear to help games at all.
For me storage space is the issue. Larger capacity at lower pcie work fastest for that generation... but in comparison, I have noticed that 4th gen 5 devices are slower than the 2tb version.
All this and they are releasing the protocols for pcie gen 7 this year. What is going on with the engineering and manufacturing of devices these days ?
I was looking for a way to turn gen 5 on for my system, since the manual does not really tell you and options dont turn up on the obvious etc, but after watching this I wont bother. That said on a high end system going above 4800mhz on ram to 6400mhz can actually give you up to 10fps more in some tests I have seen. So enabling XMP or similar is actually worth it.
You should definitely turn EXPO/XMP on ... here is a good video if you want to learn more about AM5 Ryzen based CPU memory and how it all works: ruclips.net/video/JuUhnQaGG_I/видео.html
The dramatic heat disparity would actually be a performance impacting difference, that might explain the performance.
The heat of these modules heat up the entire system not just their local components, and the hotter the SSD the more air needed to cool the same system. +24 degrees, and having a component at 78 honestly is unacceptable for something that isn't providing a tangible benefit.
With access times only being 18 microseconds faster, I cannot imagine the loading times between 4.0 and 5.0 being noticeable. Prices on new stuff is always higher, but those temperatures, honestly even if they cost the same I think I'd stick with a 4.0 drive. 78 degrees is on the verge of needing it's own heatpipe and fan.
I agree, this is the issue with first gen Gen 5 SSDs ... the newer controllers should run much more efficiently. There are actually a lot of aftermarket cooling solutions for Gen 5 SSDs as a result of the higher temps. That said, it really doesn't make any sense for a gamer to buy a Gen 5 drive ... there is no meaningful benefit at this time.
My Corsair Rog Strix Hero IIIV Wifi x570 remains at full PCIE x16 with 2x M.2 SN850X NVME installed.
NewHail M.2 coolers.
Component Longevity is important in terms of investment.
PrimoCache 4.3 gives me the ultimate piece of mind about my M.2 investment.
I haven’t used primocache … do you have to allocate part of your RAM to use it?
@@blackbirdpctech - In my 64GB ROG X570 system I get best results with 16GB allocated for cache using 16kb cluster size with overhead of around 500mb
I set cache split 50/50 read write. Asus RAMCACHE III can achieve a similar score yet not as robust as PrimoCache 4.3 pro.
It's the best $30.00 I've ever spent. It's the vitamins an M.2 needs. I use NewHail brand M.2 coolers. Latest Version. 3x heat pipes. Switched to 40mm Noctua fans.
My Corsair Rog Strix Hero IIIV x570 BIOS contains L1 and L2 caching feature in the BIOS, Yet that's all I know about it at the moment.
Interesting, I didnt know the difference between the SATA and NVME, thanks for the lesson! It is a shame that there was no real performance boost but at least now I am more aware that I should save money on my drives and put it towards something else. Normally I just buy as much storage as possible and don't really think about speed (hence why I am yet to upgrade to an SSD for my other non-C drives) 😅Was there any significant differences in the boot times? Great video btw!
Thanks and yes, there was a 25% reduction in load time for games (it's on the 3DMark Storage Benchmark chart labeled Access Time) ... I was genuinely surprised by the results and regret buying all of the Gen 5 M.2 SSDs that I have.
@blackbirdpctech oh wow, I'm sure most people will not want to spend double the price for even 25% less load times. At least you did the test now rather than later, now you know not to fall for the marketing scams and this shows us viewers to be weary of these marketing tricks used by these companies to make a quick bag!
I already purchased a bunch of Gen 5 SSD’s, so it’s too late for me but at least I can help the broader community save some money 😉
@@blackbirdpctech our saviour 🙌🏼
From my understanding, right now it doesn't matter if you have a Gen 4 or Gen 5 if you have an Intel Motherboard, because "if you have your Gen 5 SSD installed in the first M.2 slot, the bandwidth of your graphics card slot will be halved and my RTX 4090 will operate at PCIe 4.0 x8 link speeds instead, thereby impacting your graphics card's performance." So basically until Intel boards come out with designated slots for the Gen , like the AMD boards already have, it is not worth it. Pretty annoying when trying to build right now but held up by a stupid slot in a board. It's like do you buy a Gen 5 and just put it in the 2nd slot etc this way when you go to upgrade later you have it already or just buy Gen 4 and buy Gen 5 or 6 by the time you want to upgrade your Mobo again.
That is only part of the story, which I covered in the video, but that is not why it doesn't matter. I conducted the testing for this video on an AMD X670e board with full bandwidth available to the SSD and GPU ... Gen 5 M.2 SSD's simply don't provide any performance benefit in games except for slightly lower load times. I think in this situation Intel made the right move ... even if you enable the Gen 5 SSD slot and halve your GPU bandwidth on an Intel Z790 board (which I wouldn't recommend) it will only make a very small difference to game performance.
PC Express 500 18 slot is equivalent of 4.0 16 slot
The focus of the video should have been loading times in my eyes. I would not expect a difference in FPS between gen4 and gen5. Interesting though.
The problem with comparing load times is that I couldn't find an accurate way to do it. If you look at the access time that is measured in the 3DMark Storage Benchmark you can see that it's measured in micro seconds. A human can't measure micro seconds accurately, so when you see tech RUclipsrs use a stop watch the data is complete nonsense. So I was more interested in seeing if there was any FPS difference ... data I couldn't find anywhere else online. At least now with this data I don't feel like I need to buy Gen 5 SSD's for gaming.
@@blackbirdpctech appreciate your work
Would a Satechi M.2 SSD enclosure be ok with the Crucial T705 1TB for light/heavy gaming? Paired with Base M4 Mac Mini?
I wouldn't get a Gen 5 M.2 SSD for that because you will limit it's speed ... I would think a Gen 4 or even Gen 3 drive should be sufficient.
So just use Gen 4 and then you don't have to worry about messing it up???
What do you mean by "messing it up?" There is nothing that you can really mess up, the only issue is that Gen 5 drives are much more expensive and offer no performance benefit in games.
I was definitely about to plunk down serious money for a gen 5 but this video stopped me lol. I have an unrelated question; maybe u published a video that addresses it. Im building on a Gigabyte X870 AORUS Elite ICE motherboard; looks are important for me, especially on an all white build. Can I fill all four ram slots; it looks ridiculous (IMO) with 2 sticks when 4 are available.
You can fill all of the DIMMS however it will likely impact your stability if you try to run them at EXPO/XMP. I have a good video on AM5 memory that you can check out to understand more: ruclips.net/video/JuUhnQaGG_I/видео.html
What if u put a gen5 ssd in a gen4 pc? What will be the max speed?
They are backwards compatible, so if you put a gen 5 SSD in a gen 4 slot then it will be limited by gen 4 speeds. That said it will not have any impact on gaming performance. But I would highly recommend just getting a high speed Gen 4 SSD because the temps will be lower.
Much thanx. Gen 5 might be awesome with the new Snapdragon X Elite?
That's interesting ... I am not very familiar with these ARM processors ... can you expand on your thinking?
T500 or KC3000?
Thanks the explanation, I think I'll stick to my Crucial P3 Plus SSD choice for my new build for now! A bit of an off topic question, but given the Asus controversy, can you recommend a non Asus motherboard for a Ryzen 7 3800X3D?
Good choice … do you mean 5800X3D or 7800X3D?
@@blackbirdpctech my bad, missed the typo there, I mean the 7800 my apologies.
No problem ... I really like the motherboard that I use in my test bench, it's the Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master (link is in the description to this video). MSI also has some great boards ... depends on how much you are looking to spend.
@@blackbirdpctech I should have specified, this will be a small form factor mitx build so my choices there would be the Gigabyte A620I AX, the Aorus Ultra or MSI's MPG B650I Edge WiFi from the looks of things. Sadly my budget is a bit too low for the Aorus Ultra at a max of £250 for the mobo.
Of those options I would get the MSI board … they seem to be really good with bios updates lately and I generally like the look of their boards.
I know this video is almost 5months but i got a question, I am rebuilding my system from scratch and didnt know enough about the types of ssds and i ended up purchasing a mp44q teamgroup nvme and after read that using this type being QLC it would not be optimal. I am using my system for light to medium gaming, browsing and storage nothing too strenuous. My question is since black friday is still close and my motherboard which is a PG riptide should i look to get a gen 5 1tb for my OS etc and use the 4th gen for extra storage, or just use what i have? Thanks for any advice rendered i really appreciate it.
I wouldn't recommend getting a Gen 5 SSD ... there are great deals on top quality Gen 4 SSD's, such as the WD Black and Samsung 990's, so I would just get one of those.
@@blackbirdpctech Should get it and put in the gen 5 slot?
@@simplybs9311 yes, the M.2 SSD slots are backwards compatible ... it will simply run at gen 4 speeds.
@@blackbirdpctech Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions most appreciated.
@@simplybs9311 you are very welcome ... good luck with your build.
Did games load faster or was it even noticeable ?
Yes however the difference in load times was so small that I didn't really notice in the games I play. The second chart shows "Access Time" results from the 3DMark Storage Benchmark which measures load time across multiple games such as Battlefield V, COD: Black Ops 4, Overwatch, Counter-Strike, etc. Games load so fast on Gen 4 and Gen 5 SSDs that physically measuring load times with a stop watch is extremely inaccurate, so using a benchmark that is repeatable is a much better way to do it.
Great test. I am using an average gen3 drive in a gen 4 slot. would I get much performance boost in games from a gen 4 drive? thx
I would have to test a Gen 3 SSD to find out but based on the Gen 4 to Gen 5 testing it seems unlikely.
thanks, keep up the good work mate.
Of course it won't effect frame rates. It is load times that is the issue... and frame rates are not calculated when loading the game.
That statement alone could have saved me from even testing it ... but it's probably balanced by the other 50 statements telling me that I did something wrong because clearly a Gen 5 SSD will be better in games. If only opinions held as much weight as data.
Thank you!
You are very welcome!
Yeah.
For gaming it makes no sense paying the extra money on a Gen5 drive.
I learned this the hard way after I had already purchased multiple Gen 5 drives.
Slower performance with Gen 5 could be heat related? I see the cpu ran much hotter when paired with the gen 5 drive, so maybe cpu thermals were causing the lower framerate on modern warfare.
I thought the exact same thing so I tested it … temps were well within spec and the performance in crystaldiskmark was the same after and before. It was super strange.
@@blackbirdpctech very strange indeed. Must just be game optimization related. At any rate, thanks for the video. I just got the 2TB T500 for my laptop on prime day sale this morning for $138.
Great deal for a great drive!
why do they have to make pc terms so confusing and unintuitive? samsung makes a gen 5 SSD 2 tb for about 160 on amazon right now.
it says its 5,000 mp/bs as opposed to crucial being 12,000 for over $200. i wonder if those advertised speeds are accurate. Also wonder if the samsung gen 5 SSD is truly gen 5 or amazon is mislabeling it.
To make it even more confusing the Samsung drive, which I think is the 990 EVO, is a hybrid Gen 4 / Gen 5 drive ... it only offers Gen 5 at half the lanes or bandwidth (i.e. Gen 5x2), which is why the speeds are about half that of Gen 5x4 drives. So yes, the advertised speeds would be accurate. It actually looks like a great drive to pickup.
Well done sir...thank you.
You are very welcome, glad you liked it!
effin informative!
Thanks, glad you liked it!
Yeah, ok, you tested FPS for games, but how about *loading times* when you're testing a storage device??
I did test load times ... the second chart shows "Access Time" results from the 3DMark Storage Benchmark which measures load time across multiple games such as Battlefield V, COD: Black Ops 4, Overwatch, Counter-Strike, etc. Games load so fast on Gen 4 and Gen 5 SSDs that physically measuring load times with a stop watch is extremely inaccurate, so using a benchmark that is repeatable is a much better way to do it.
Yeah sorry but the question is not only if its worth for gaming which sure it isn't but how about multitasking ? I want to use it on a developer machine. Lots of programs, servers etc. running at the same time with massive storage interactions. How would they compare in that situation ? I know this problem isn't for everyone but try not to target gamers only.
I understand that's your question and it's valid, but it wasn't the question I was trying to answer. I targeted gaming because SSD manufacturers target gamers with their Gen 5 SSD marketing.
Not with Intel's current offerings itx Intel 14th gen can't run Gen 5 PCIe and M.2 at same time.
It can run Gen 5 PCIe and an M.2 SSD at the same time but I think what you mean is that it can’t run the GPU at full bandwidth while running a Gen 5 SSD … I cover this in the video.
@@blackbirdpctech yeah I'm wondering when Gen 5 GPUs drop how's it'd react if it's drop to PCIe Gen 4 x8 then Gen 5 x4 it'll be interesting to see
Agreed, at the moment the performance impact is relatively small but that may change. Intel needs to get their new platform out beforehand to make sure they are positioned well to avoid bandwidth issues.
You just saved me $200
I wish I had done this testing before I purchased a bunch of gen 5 SSDs ... the marketing around them is very misleading.
Pcie gpu x16. 4.0 @ x4 4.0 It is ok?
Motherboard - Gigabyte B650E AORUS ELITE X ICE
Video card - Aorus GeForce RTX 3080 Xreme Waterforce 10gb
No, your GPU is only running in x4 mode, which will significantly impact the bandwidth. What else do you have installed in the PCIe lanes on your motherboard?
@@blackbirdpctech I have installed a riser so that the graphics card stands vertically. I can't insert the link to the product because the comment gets deleted. I ordered this white riser from China through eBay. PCIe 5.0 with a bandwidth of 128 Gbit/s. You must have come across it; it's cheaper than branded manufacturers.
@@ugolxxx2934 it could be the riser, but it could also be populating the wrong SSD slots ... have you looked at your manual to see which slots share bandwidth with your GPU PCIe lanes?
@@blackbirdpctech I haven't checked. I have one M.2 Gen4 Samsung 990 Pro 2TB in the third slot (which is the second slot for Gen4 SSD) on my Gigabyte B650E AORUS ELITE X ICE motherboard. The first slot for Gen5 SSD is free. Where in the manual is this information, and how can I find it?
First, Gigabyte manuals really suck. That said, download the manual and go to page 5 where you will see the motherboard block diagram. It looks like the M2A_CPU SSD slot shares bandwidth with the primary GPU slot, so don't install an SSD in that slot. I would recommend installing an SSD in either slots M2B_CPU or M2C_SB. You can find which slots they are on page 4 under Motherboard Layout.
Crucial T705 with core ultra 9 285K you will get 12500 MB/s max read and not 14500 MB/s.
Why is that?
@@blackbirdpctech good question, I hope it's only a bios/windows update problem
Arrow Lake supports PCIe 5, so there is no architectural reason why it should be slower.
@@blackbirdpctech hope will fix this ridiculous issue
Thanks this video was very informative. I checked GPU- Z to see what mode my GPU was running in and it says PCIe x16 4.0 @ x16 3.0. Do you know what might cause it to not be running in x16 4.0 mode? My motherboard is a Strix x570e gaming, cpu is 5800x, and gpu is 3080ti
It might be how you populated your m.2 SSD’s on your motherboard or it could be a bandwidth setting in bios.
@@blackbirdpctech thanks for the quick reply. I have two m.2 SSDs installed. will check bios as well
If one of the slots you installed a cpu in shares bandwidth with the gpu, then it would explain why your bandwidth is lower
@@blackbirdpctech looks like the PCie slot where my gpu is what set to gen 3 in bios. Not sure why it defaulted to that but I switched it to gen 4 and left the m.2 slots as auto. GPU z shows this running as x16 4.0 now
I was just wondering about this, I have gen5 with a gen 4x4 drive...so, no real difference.
Yeah, I bought into the hype and purchased a bunch of Gen 5 drives before running the benchmarks … this explains why Samsung has not rushed out a Gen 5 drive.
gen 5 drives are like what ssd originally where to the regular 7200rpm drives ahead of there time and it took developers a while to get full use of those drives 7000 read is plenty and write at 6000 is plenty. maybe when the ps6 comes out gen 5 drives will be worth it. once sony and microsoft get there heads out of there rear end and start to push there tech like what sony did for ratchet and clank thus far is a start but cant help feeling the ssd in consoles arent being fully tapped since pc version says on ssd is required which i say to sony and developers which one ?. so far newer games don't seem to be pushing that boundary as hard yet. the issue i have with tests for load times is great but texture pop in is less for nvme at least from what ive observed in hogwarts legacy. will have to test with 4.0 and see if loading into different zones is more seamless. ( castle seems to be split into 4 areas.
I didn’t expect to see a huge difference but I did expect to see something … I was a little surprised with the results … and I still can’t explain the COD MW3 result. I think you are correct wrt game developers not leveraging the technology … which is why I added Forza Motorsport because it uses DirectStorage … but it had no impact on the results because the Gen 4 drive also used it.
@@blackbirdpctech as long as there developing for ps4 and older consoles that used standard drives. transition is going to be slow its improving with adopting it granted developers may leverage it more in long run once they have tapped everything else out i believe it could be that the game engine doesn't have the support built in for anything faster then the ps5 and xbox one ssd. i think what you may see more is less texture pop in that just isn't shown in the data. This is my own personal view of where i think developers are focusing on is in the mid market gpus like a 3060 12gb. A thing to try would be using a older 3500/3000 drive on cod mw3 vs m.2 4. and see if it preforms more poorly. if you look at iw game engine it may give you some insight. wikipedia has a good list of its features. i get the feeling the cod mw3 was in development before the ps5 and xbox one which may also explain its behaviour kind of like they hobbled it in at the end lol. other thing to consider both games where probly developed around 2017. which would be nvme 1.3 speed.
I am curious if the Gen5 drive "feels" more snappy in day to day usage compared to the Gen4 drive.
Some things can't be seen in a regular benchmark.
For instance, Intel Optane drives would lose in all of those benchmarks, but they actually have the best latency input.
I didn't notice any real difference ... even with load times, the Gen 5 drive is faster but the Gen 4 drive is already so fast that it wasn't really meaningful. Perhaps that will change with newer motherboards and CPU architectures.
I'd prefer you were a former Brain Surgeon. lol
Sorry to disappoint 😉
If your system runs cooler with gen 4 ssd it will be more stable
The SSD running cooler is definitely a good thing, but it's unlikely to run less stable with a gen 5 SSD ... the SSD will simply reduce its speed if it gets too warm.
raid 0 gen 4 lower temps !
The lower temps make a big difference
4:54 oh wow another thing windows wants me to be responsible for that should be it's responsibility
You can automate the task but yes, I think this is something Windows should do in the background
512GB M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD
Thank you.
You are welcome, glad it helped.
a gen5 ssd costs at least x2 more than a gen4 with the same space, so for me is not worth it. Unless you use a 10gig lan or internet conection is not even worth to think of.
I don’t understand the connection to 10min LAN?
@@blackbirdpctech the gen5 speeds of 10k, while gen4 speeds are like 7k
Oh ok, the ssd speeds are significantly higher than any type of download speed, so that’s not a concern.
You are going to need a CPU PCIE 5.0 is AMD RYZEN 7 9700X or RYZEN 9 9900X A MOTHERBOAD X870 that got only MVME PCIE 5.0 SLOT the rest of the NVME SSD SLOTS IS PCIE 4.0 THAT SSSSSSUCKS
X670 boards have PCIe 5.0 SSD slots too and Ryzen 7000 series chips can leverage them ... so do Z790 and Z890 boards ... so I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say?
Is not the FPS but the load times u have to measure when benchmarking SSDs
I did measure load times through the 3DMark storage benchmark, however the entire point of the video was to see if a Gen 5 SSD will impact gaming performance. When load or access times are measured in micro seconds, it's pointless to measure those times manually with a stop watch because humans can't react fast enough for it to be accurate. That's why you need software to measure these times accurately.
@@blackbirdpctech I was refering to initial loading of a game form storage device to ram where speed is measured in seconds. Does a game loads 2x faster on a gen5 SSD vs a gen4 SSD given the 2x speed per pin of gen5 vs gen 4 ?
@@abcabc371 that's the point ... the difference between Gen 4 and Gen 5 M.2 SSD's is so small that you can't accurately measure it with a stop watch. It made sense when we were comparing HDD's to SSD's, but now we are talking about micro seconds of difference.
It seems pointless to have measure ssd performance via game FPS. The continous asset streaming of these games by absolutely no means require that fast ssds. The limiting factor (if there would be any) would be the fact that there is not even a pcie5 gpu that could handle such data speeds coming from the ssd. FPS numbers on a SSD comparison are pointless.
At most you would see a difference in loading speed of the entire game... but that was not tested here.
The entire point of the video was to show that there is no value in buying Gen 5 SSD's for gaming. Gen 5 SSD's are targeted at gamers, but they provide absolutely no performance improvement. And yes, I did show access time, it was part of the 3DMark Storage Benchmark that measures load times across multiple titles. The challenge is that you can't measure load times manually to any degree of accuracy for a Gen 4 or Gen 5 drive because of the small timescales involved (micro seconds). It's easy to point out that something is obvious after you have just watched a video on it, but I couldn't find this data anywhere else, and based on some of the negative comments claiming that my data is wrong, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people out there that believe a Gen 5 SSD will improve their gaming performance.
🔥 🔥 🔥
Testing the FPS for an M.2 SSD is weird... Most people who buy these want to know the loading times...
SSD manufacturers target gamers with Gen 5 SSDs and I think it's strange for gamers to buy one based on an 18 micro second improvement in load time (as displayed in the benchmarks). So I decided to see if there was any benefit at all for gamers because I have never seen anyone do this and there is a widely held belief within the broader community that these increased SSD speeds help with gaming. You can see this from some of the earlier comments slamming me because they thought my results had to be wrong. It's also weird when other content creators try measuring the load times with a stop watch when it's physically impossible for a human to make accurate measurements at the micro second scale.
measuring FPS is just stupid lmao, why not measure game loading times??
How do you measure load times accurately when the difference between a Gen 4 and Gen 5 SSD is measured in micro seconds? The reason I included the 3DMark Storage Benchmark results is that it measures access time accurately across multiple games and applications. The objective of this video was to see if there was a difference in gaming performance. In the future it's probably a good idea to think through what you are saying before calling something stupid and laughing.
@@blackbirdpctech thinking that m2 ssd speeds might have an effect on fps is a bit ridiculous, thats all im saying
@@Andruuid that's easy to say once you've seen the data. It's also precisely how companies market Gen 5 SSD's. I had many negative comments on this video when I first posted it telling me the data was BS because they believed there should be a boost in performance.
Again looking in the wrong place like everyone
Look at latency and frame time differences
Also throw 2 or more 705s in a raid and assess again
Your comment is illogical and makes no sense ... please explain how frame time will show a different trend to framerate.
@@blackbirdpctech really, ok its super simple and embarassing for someone with a tech channel to not understand
frame time is the latency from when a frame is generated opposed to the time it takes to display
literally in its name pal
Frame time is NOT "the latency from when a frame is generated" ... that makes no sense ...
Frame time is the time it takes for one frame to be generated. Framerate is the amount of frames that can be generated in 1 second or it's equal to 1 second divided by the frame time. So looking at frame time differences will yield the exact same results as looking at framerate, that's why your comment doesn't make sense. I'm also not sure why you think the SSD Gen will impact latency.
🤣🤣
Absolute bullshit you get higher FPS with a. gen5 NVME.
Absolute bullshit🤣🤣🤣
I was genuinely surprised by the results too which is why testing is valuable, it provides evidence to make a sound assessment versus using emotion. Just because you think something should be a particular way doesn't mean it is. My data is accurate, so please feel free to provide data to support your thoughts that you expressed so eloquently 😉
@blackbirdpctech mw3 has recently forced a setting called on demand texture streaming, it requires 64gb free of ssd space, could this be the cause for difference in fps, there is 2 options for this setting, is it possible to retest this game, I haven't seen anyone test the performance on this based on ssd speed and could become more common with future games, thanks
That's interesting, will look into it ... thanks for the heads-up.
I don't get it. Why did you show us fps charts? Who in their right mind would think that storage affects fps?
Gen 5 SSDs are marketed to gamers, so I thought it would be helpful to show that they offer no performance benefit, even when games support features like DirectStorage. I got a lot of comments early on this video stating that I am lying and that my results are not accurate because people didn't believe that there was no performance benefit.
@blackbirdpctech Fair enough. All I ever wondered is how gen5 compares to gen4 when it comes OS boot and some longest loading scenes in games, but I think gen4 already maxed out all of that, and it's up to developers to actually code their stuff in a way to be able to utilize fast storage effectively. And unfortunately we're not there yet.
I show access time on the 3DMark Storage Benchmark chart ... it benchmark tests a number of different games to come up with an average access time ... there is a difference but we are talking about micro seconds, so there is no way anyone would notice it in a meaningful way.