-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
FSX on SSD drive
- Thread starter DaveKDEN
- Start date
An odd thing that I'm not sure what to make of yet is that supposedly it's not recommened to use any sort of defrag utility on an SSD drive as it further shortens the life span.
I can understand the principle behind that notion, but does it really mean anything?
Does an SSD left to sort and organize files as it pleases lead to a degradation of overall performance as times goes by?
If there is any, does the overall performance of an SSD override the loss?
It makes SSD still just an interesting new direction that I'm not sure about following when I build my new system in a few months.
FAC
I can understand the principle behind that notion, but does it really mean anything?
Does an SSD left to sort and organize files as it pleases lead to a degradation of overall performance as times goes by?
If there is any, does the overall performance of an SSD override the loss?
It makes SSD still just an interesting new direction that I'm not sure about following when I build my new system in a few months.
FAC
Naismith
Charter Member
Here's a very good article about SSD's http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=1
The main advantage of SSD is that there's no delay when accessing data scattered across the disk. In conventional drives it takes time to put the head in correct place and start reading, while in SSD you just ask and get what you want. It's not several times faster, it's orders of magnitude faster. Writing performance is not as good due to some SSD mechanics, but it's still on par with conventional drives. Defragmenting is not needed, because data is accessed immediately no matter where it is. And it only wears hard drive because of unneeded moving and writing data to another place.
This makes SSD very good drive for system and frequently used programs. Applications start much faster, you can launch several programs at once without delays even immediately after system boot.
Another advantage is grater sequential read speed, which is about 2 times faster than conventional drives, actually peaking the bandwith of SATA II connection. This makes loading large files into memory faster and decreases loading times of games, which have to load large amounts of data (mainly textures) into memory.
Except shortened loading times, games don't benefit much from SSD, because they don't use data directly from hard disk in general, and are designed to work well with conventional drives. Everything needed immediately is first loaded into RAM when the game starts, and then extra chunks of data are loaded in the background, so that possible delays don't affect gameplay.
I also plan to buy SSD in the future, probably something from Intel X25-M G2 line, but I don't expect miracles in FSX. When FSX loads, it uses CPU more than hard disk, (unless we have very big photoscenery) so I wouldn't expect very big improvements in loading times unless we have at least quad core CPU. But it should make aircraft selection list to show up almost immediately, and help with loading textures lag when switching views.
The main advantage of SSD is that there's no delay when accessing data scattered across the disk. In conventional drives it takes time to put the head in correct place and start reading, while in SSD you just ask and get what you want. It's not several times faster, it's orders of magnitude faster. Writing performance is not as good due to some SSD mechanics, but it's still on par with conventional drives. Defragmenting is not needed, because data is accessed immediately no matter where it is. And it only wears hard drive because of unneeded moving and writing data to another place.
This makes SSD very good drive for system and frequently used programs. Applications start much faster, you can launch several programs at once without delays even immediately after system boot.
Another advantage is grater sequential read speed, which is about 2 times faster than conventional drives, actually peaking the bandwith of SATA II connection. This makes loading large files into memory faster and decreases loading times of games, which have to load large amounts of data (mainly textures) into memory.
Except shortened loading times, games don't benefit much from SSD, because they don't use data directly from hard disk in general, and are designed to work well with conventional drives. Everything needed immediately is first loaded into RAM when the game starts, and then extra chunks of data are loaded in the background, so that possible delays don't affect gameplay.
I also plan to buy SSD in the future, probably something from Intel X25-M G2 line, but I don't expect miracles in FSX. When FSX loads, it uses CPU more than hard disk, (unless we have very big photoscenery) so I wouldn't expect very big improvements in loading times unless we have at least quad core CPU. But it should make aircraft selection list to show up almost immediately, and help with loading textures lag when switching views.
IanHenry
Charter Member
Paul and his team at Alpine built my system and I respect his views, however, if defragging these HD's is a big no no, I do wonder why he's performed this as a benchmark test?
GrinningJester
Viking
I guess it gives a good indication of an intense read/write operation.
Nick, genuine question...what are Alpine like ? I'm in the market for a new high-end PC once Windows 7 is released and they are on the list of potential suppliers.
Are they easy to contact ? For example, I'd like to get more details on the dimensions of the case they use.
Any info gratefully received.
DennyA
SOH-CM-2023
I'm running FSX on an SSD. (Intel X-25M, which is by far the best option out there.) Load times are fantastic. I never had the micro-stutter problem, so I can't comment there.
Defragging isn't an issue because fragmentation slowdown comes from the read head having to physically move around the spinning drive -- doesn't factor in with an SSD. Locations in memory are just numeric links, so it doesn't take any longer to read a chunk of data somewhere distant in the SSD's memory than it does to read a sequential chunk of data.
Defragging isn't an issue because fragmentation slowdown comes from the read head having to physically move around the spinning drive -- doesn't factor in with an SSD. Locations in memory are just numeric links, so it doesn't take any longer to read a chunk of data somewhere distant in the SSD's memory than it does to read a sequential chunk of data.
M
MCDesigns
Guest
So how's performance coming from a normal HD?
Gregory Paul
Charter Member
I'll get my new SSD drive in on tuesday but i'm going to use it for the OS.
I have a SSD drive on my Asus laptop and so far I haven't seen no real advantage to it.As far as if running any faster it might but I for sure haven't noticed it....I still feel ya have to have fast memory and a fast processor to get the true advantage on any pooter no matter what type of HD you are using...Mike
H
harleyman
Guest
I second that......
FSX struggels at the CPU (bottleneck)..not reading or seeking info.....
Just when we think we have FSX figured out, it still throws us for a 'wobbly'...
It seems to have some mysterious requirements at times. The best theorm or formula of hardware I have seen yet is HarleyMan's. N2056 duplicated it and it worked perfect for him, so there are times when exact components will give you repeated success in running X smoothly...
Bill
I have to agree with the comments of the others so far about SSD's it is a bit of a catch 22, on the lifespan, overall any SSD should have a shorter life than a convential drive, but if you consider the failure rates for those high speed drives it's a toss up, my gut feeling is "ya pays your money ya takes your chances".
I did have a chance to test a 128GB SSD side by side with a 160GB convential dive in the spring, we purchased some Lenovo's at work, what I found was a much improved load time for most applications, and anything that required frequent or extended disk access was much faster -we use a CRM application that loves to reindex the database every time you do a search and it was almost a 10X improvement in performance. I found apps like our Office Suite loaded slightly faster but no change in running the apps as they resided almost totally in memory. I did also get a chance to compare FSX (I downloaded the demo and gave it a spin) on the 2 computers as well, I know it was not a full blown test, but it basically told me what the others have said here load times are much improved, but no noticable difference once the sim was running. If I recall correctly the FSX Demo loaded in under 30 seconds on the Lenovo, and the load time was 2 minutes plus on the Dell I was using, BTW the other system specs on the two units were almost identical, Dual Core CPU, 1 GB DDR2 Ram built in video. These were laptops and it was just a test for my own curosity, but it told me that SSD technology for gaming is not really worth any extra cost - at least the games that I play.
I have no doubt that sooner or later SDD drives will become the norm and the cost will drop to what we are paying for conventional drives now, so I am going to wait until that happens to switch for my home systems.
I did have a chance to test a 128GB SSD side by side with a 160GB convential dive in the spring, we purchased some Lenovo's at work, what I found was a much improved load time for most applications, and anything that required frequent or extended disk access was much faster -we use a CRM application that loves to reindex the database every time you do a search and it was almost a 10X improvement in performance. I found apps like our Office Suite loaded slightly faster but no change in running the apps as they resided almost totally in memory. I did also get a chance to compare FSX (I downloaded the demo and gave it a spin) on the 2 computers as well, I know it was not a full blown test, but it basically told me what the others have said here load times are much improved, but no noticable difference once the sim was running. If I recall correctly the FSX Demo loaded in under 30 seconds on the Lenovo, and the load time was 2 minutes plus on the Dell I was using, BTW the other system specs on the two units were almost identical, Dual Core CPU, 1 GB DDR2 Ram built in video. These were laptops and it was just a test for my own curosity, but it told me that SSD technology for gaming is not really worth any extra cost - at least the games that I play.
I have no doubt that sooner or later SDD drives will become the norm and the cost will drop to what we are paying for conventional drives now, so I am going to wait until that happens to switch for my home systems.
kilo delta
Charter Member 2015
Sorry for the late reply...I've been to a wedding over the weekend and muuuuuch partying was had 
Anyhow...I've 2x Samsung 64GB SSD in my main PC for over a year now. I installed the operating system on one of them and the other is used for my FSX photoscenery....which performs flawlessly. I'm running Vista Ultimate 64bit and boot up time is ~20 seconds ... a huge increase on any of the raptor series hard drives that I'm running in my other computers (74gb,150gb,160gb and 300gb models).In use the compter feels much zippier than using the mechanical hdds
I have O&O Defrag installed on this system but have disabled automatic defrag and use it only on my mechanical hard drives (2x Seagate 1tb...one of which is my main FSX drive). As regards life expectancy on SSD drives....I believe that this may be superior to mechanical drives (I've experience of ssd's in both customer and personal systems since the first gen drives were launched and have yet to have one fail!).
Would I recommend an SSD drive solely for use with FSX?...............No.
Personally I'd prefer to run it as an OS drive with a large capacity mechanical drive eg. WD 300gb Velociraptor,Seagate 32mb cache 7,200rpm hdd or similar, as my main FSX drive. Thankfully SSD drive technology has massively dropped in price since I bought my hard drives ( ~€800 each at the beginning of 2008!) and they are becoming more common in OEM systems ....so if you're considering building/upgrading a computer I'd give them serious consideration as the main operating system drive.
Anyhow...I've 2x Samsung 64GB SSD in my main PC for over a year now. I installed the operating system on one of them and the other is used for my FSX photoscenery....which performs flawlessly. I'm running Vista Ultimate 64bit and boot up time is ~20 seconds ... a huge increase on any of the raptor series hard drives that I'm running in my other computers (74gb,150gb,160gb and 300gb models).In use the compter feels much zippier than using the mechanical hdds
I have O&O Defrag installed on this system but have disabled automatic defrag and use it only on my mechanical hard drives (2x Seagate 1tb...one of which is my main FSX drive). As regards life expectancy on SSD drives....I believe that this may be superior to mechanical drives (I've experience of ssd's in both customer and personal systems since the first gen drives were launched and have yet to have one fail!).
Would I recommend an SSD drive solely for use with FSX?...............No.
Personally I'd prefer to run it as an OS drive with a large capacity mechanical drive eg. WD 300gb Velociraptor,Seagate 32mb cache 7,200rpm hdd or similar, as my main FSX drive. Thankfully SSD drive technology has massively dropped in price since I bought my hard drives ( ~€800 each at the beginning of 2008!) and they are becoming more common in OEM systems ....so if you're considering building/upgrading a computer I'd give them serious consideration as the main operating system drive.