Why are games not able to take advantage of faster speeds of SSD?

>load map
>Read speed between 200-450MB/s

Clear lie, even battlefield 1 peaks at 170mb/s.

FarCry5 doesn't.
And off to cross check BF1 results

You already get faster load times in some games with faster ssds, but no extra performance. In the future, games will take advantage of faster drives, but that will be maybe in 10~ years or so. By then, faster drives will be the norm already so their need won't even be discussed. In fact, some games already perform poorly with shit drives, but you need a REALLY bad drive for it to matter, and even then it's very noticeable (differently from just outright running the game at lower frame rates, you just get often massive drops).

depends on the game, kid

Many open world games will stutter or have severe texture pop-in if they aren't able to stream data to the GPU in a timely fashion. If you're short on RAM, games will dip into the page file, and with a HDD you run into problems. Particularly, if your page file and game installation are on the same physical HDD, you may encounter some really stupid shit.

GTA5 is notoriously inefficient at managing memory and loading from the disk. If your page and install files are on the same disk, it forces the HDD to perform three operations simultaneously (instead of one) for every single bit of data it requires. The engine won't continue rendering until the HDD finishes its redundant tasks, so the game freezes in the mean time. With an SSD this isn't noticeable, but some HDDs can't handle it.

because 4kb read and write is not the same as 16mb read and writes

The better question is why gpu makers won't let us plug a ssd directly to the gpu. It might not be useful on games not designed for it, but you could also say that with any multi core cpu and games made 15 years ago.

Your answer is consoles.
PC games are now mostly shitty ports, and they don't have ssds on consoles.

This does not belong on Jow Forums.

So how can access time be reduced?
SSDs are technology, leave if you want to discuss gentoo.

HDD literally need to spin to read, SSD just have to move some electrons around.

Defrag your SSD.

Games utilize random reads more than sequential reads. Random reads are always going to be slower than sequential reads even on SSD.

things don't move around at the atomic level retard thats how you get a nuclear explosion fucking moron

>So how can access time be reduced?
By structuring your data such that you read a bunch of fragments in advance sequentially. Do that, and SSDs wont matter too much vs HDD.

this

wut? electricity is literally the flow of electrons

>SSDs are technology
A lot of things that don't belong here are technology.

>things don't move at the atomic level
That's literally what heat is dum dum
You are vibrating trillions of times every second

>Not going with M.2 SSD

It's not about how much data you can read at the time but how fast you can access these files.
Since SSD's are in average 2 to 3 times faster then a regular HDD at accessing files you're getting things to load faster.

But it seems you lack the required knowledge on how moving shit around works.

I'd you carry 1 small box at a time and then trying to carry 10 small boxes inside a medium sized box so you can get the picture.

Attached: FocusedRadiantAardwolf-max-1mb.gif (240x176, 416K)

>defrag your ssd
I seriously hope you don't do that.

SSD are meme and people should acknowledge it.

fuck off fascist

SSDs are more expensive than RAM and my work laptop with 8GB and a nvme SSD is as fast as my 64GB desktop at home with a hard drive because of the thrashing that goes with having a tiny amount of RAM like 8GB. (On Windows it is.)

Those literally exist though. AMD has workstation cards with 1TB SSD on package.

You'll need a brutal SSD to make a graphics card's PCIe 16X interface the bottleneck.

Electric CHARGE. Electricity is more of a newton cradle.

Because SSDs are an order of magnitude slower than GDPR5 RAM.
The proper way to access SSDs as RAM is via a page file.

So my old ass Kingston Hyper X 3k doesn't actually go from POST to desktop in a minute or so? Refund time I guess.

>in a minute or so
Yes, literally refund time.

>4k bits are slower
>the absolute state of Jow Forums

Holy shit, how are you even allowed to post here being as retarded as you are?

Give me credit it's an 8350. And it's probably closer to around 40 seconds.

I've an athlon and it's about 20 seconds (given power->POST = POST->desktop).

>2010+
>CPU having a noticeable effect on boot speed

you moron.

Maybe not CPU but definitely mobo.

>A normal HDD has 150mb/s or less read rate
Modern 7200rpm HDDs can easily go over 200MB/s in sequential I/O. The problem is random read/write performance is still atrociously bad.

>By structuring your data such that you read a bunch of fragments in advance sequentially. Do that, and SSDs wont matter too much vs HDD.
That would benefit SSDs even more, especially on NVMe where you'd get GB/s on the high end.

Source? Can't find any data on why HDDs can do it.

>that 21 year old boomer who tries to tell me M.2 isn’t just a form factor but is actually faster then SATA

>(given power->POST = POST->desktop).
what the actual fuck are you talking about

Both my 2TB Barracuda and 3TB P300 can reach over 200MB/s, at least on the first 20% of the disk, then obviously it drops along the usual curve. In both cases, they only dip below 150MB/s at about 70% into the disk.

Pic related is the Barracuda's sequential write performance. I can show you other graphs if you want.

Attached: Performance - Write - 2018.07.11.png (1070x770, 80K)