Solid State Dives?

[Pepere]

Do SSD help the FPS in FSX?

Newegg has a specal today on a Corsair 128GB SATA II Internal Solid State Drive for $295.00 USD.. With Promo code: EMCYSZS23

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-051510-Index-_-SolidStateDisk-_-20233087-L0C

David

 

[stansdds]

In theory they should, but you need to look at your whole computer system as a really fast drive will have no benefit if the motherboard or operating system cannot support the higher speeds. Windows XP supposedly supports SATA 2.0 and a 3 GB/s transfer rate, but SATA implementation in Win XP is a pain to activate and gives minimal improvement over the older ATA 133 interface. I actually did jump through the hoops to get my Win XP 32 machine to recognize and use SATA, but I was very disappointed at the improvement in transfer rates in my SATA 2.0 drives.

Someone with Windows 7 needs to jump in here and let us know the real world transfer rates under Windows 7.

 

[kilo delta]

I've a couple of first gen SSD's in my sim pc. They do not help with fps (that's up to the cpu...an overclocked Intel QX9770 in my situation). I've one dedicated to housing photoscenery in order to reduce blurries......but have not seen a huge performance increase over fast mechanical drives eg. WD's Velociraptor.
Where the SSD excels is in the case where the operating system is installed on it......the pc boots quicker and programs are much faster to open and feel zippier.

 

[txnetcop]

Yep what KD said...Sata 3.0 transfer speed has been a better improvement than SSDs so far.
Ted
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Pepere]

Thanks for the infor - I think I'll just keep what I have for now.... Hope to get a new computer next year.


David

 

[Bjoern]

I actually did jump through the hoops to get my Win XP 32 machine to recognize and use SATA, but I was very disappointed at the improvement in transfer rates in my SATA 2.0 drives.

If my mind doesn't fail me it wasn't all that hard. Install SATA drivers, reboot, change the HDD connection mode to SATA in the BIOS (unless you wanted a BSOD upon loading Windows) and done.

Or just copy them onto a floppy and install them during the next installation of a fresh XP.

Someone with Windows 7 needs to jump in here and let us know the real world transfer rates under Windows 7.

Not faster than XP with SATA.

Although I seem to recall a slight improvement going from ATA133 to SATA II.

 

[TeaSea]

Not an expert but we used SSD's in about 50 clients on my enterprise network at work. They were a royal pain. Hard to image, hard to troubleshoot, no faster than magnetic drives, and their failure rate was twice that of magnetic drives.

When you buy computers in bulk you expect a certain number to not work out of the box. I bought 130 normal HDD's, and 50 SDD's in one purchase.....The out of the box death rate on the SDD's also vastly exceeded the normal HDD's.


Sorry, I've not been impressed.

 

[Skittles]

FSX performance is limited by bottlenecks, whether that be the CPU, graphics card, RAM etc.

I can absolutely guarantee that unless your hard drive is broken or pre-1999 it will have 0% effect on your performance.

As an example, if you have a 2.6ghz processor, 4gb Ram, and a mediocre video card, adding the very best hard drive in the world won't do anything.

 

[TeaSea]

True 'dat.

 

[Bjoern]

As an example, if you have a 2.6ghz processor, 4gb Ram, and a mediocre video card, adding the very best hard drive in the world won't do anything.

Loading times?

I've seen an improvement going from a 2006 SpinPoint to a 2008 SpinPoint F1 (~60 Mbytes/Sec Read/Write vs ~100 Mbytes/Sec Read/Write).

 

[Skittles]

Loading times?

I've seen an improvement going from a 2006 SpinPoint to a 2008 SpinPoint F1 (~60 Mbytes/Sec Read/Write vs ~100 Mbytes/Sec Read/Write).

Perhaps, but I don't include load times in my definition of 'performance.'

 

[Bjoern]

Perhaps, but I don't include load times in my definition of 'performance.'

No, of course not. Because it's perfectly feasible to wait half an hour for everything to load as long as you'll get your 60 FPS after.


Every developer (at least me) would be thankful for extremely short loading times.

 

[Ark]

I thought this was a thread about where to meet cheap women.

 

[Skittles]

No, of course not. Because it's perfectly feasible to wait half an hour for everything to load as long as you'll get your 60 FPS after.


Every developer (at least me) would be thankful for extremely short loading times.

Well if it's taking half an hour for everything to load, getting the best hard drive ever made wouldn't help you. And anyway, the hard drive has barely any impact on load times whatsoever. Even with high end PC's you wouldn't really notice the difference between a standard hard drive and the best money can buy in terms of load times. A second perhaps.

Everyone says performance is 75% CPU, which I would agree with, then perhaps 14% GPU, 10% RAM, and the 1% is spilit between everything else. This is assuming your Mobo is good enough to let things function as they should.

 

[Pepere]

I thought this was a thread about where to meet cheap women.

David

 

[Bjoern]

Well if it's taking half an hour for everything to load, getting the best hard drive ever made wouldn't help you. And anyway, the hard drive has barely any impact on load times whatsoever. Even with high end PC's you wouldn't really notice the difference between a standard hard drive and the best money can buy in terms of load times. A second perhaps.

Everyone says performance is 75% CPU, which I would agree with, then perhaps 14% GPU, 10% RAM, and the 1% is spilit between everything else. This is assuming your Mobo is good enough to let things function as they should.

CPU > Ram > GPU > HDD.

Ram is more important than it seems. Clock speed timings are not to be underestimated.

Yet still...what good is a fast CPU and top notch Ram and a high end GPU if a slow HDD chockes everything?