RS II + SSD

[Ye Olde Fahrt]

So, finally decided to splash out some cash for a 60 GB SSD (OCZ Tech).

I mainly bought it with RS II in my mind, as the load times bw Campaign map and Battle map get a bit tedious.

Ran a (very) simple test:

Loading the campaign file (UAC 618 W)

SSD: 28.7 sec
HDD: 58.4 sec

Loading the Battle map (random smallish battle):

SSD: 14.9 sec
HDD: 33.8 sec

Exiting a battle, loading the Campaign map again:

SSD: 27.5 sec
HDD: 42.1 sec


A tad disappointed, to be honest.

I was sort of hoping to buzz in and out between maps in say 5 to 10 sec per piece. I have a 2.6 MHz rig with W7 64b.

Thought I'd share this. Anyone having better luck re. load times?

[tone]

How much RAM memory have you got? That can make a big difference to load times...possibly the biggest difference

[alQamar]

How much RAM memory have you got? That can make a big difference to load times...possibly the biggest difference

RAM does certainly make not make that big difference if you have not less the 4 GB of it. Please visit my linked threads.

[karamazovmm]

I have much lower loading times, I do have i5 2315m, 8gb 1333mhz, and 120gb ssd.

the 64gb models are the slowest of them all, the 256gb is the best in terms of performance. not to mention bang for the buck as well

[Ye Olde Fahrt]

I have much lower loading times, I do have i5 2315m, 8gb 1333mhz, and 120gb ssd.

the 64gb models are the slowest of them all, the 256gb is the best in terms of performance. not to mention bang for the buck as well

So how long does it take for you to have the game displaying the Campaign map, from the moment you double click a saved file on Load Campaign page of the main menu.

Curious

[paradamed]

I have much lower loading times, I do have i5 2315m, 8gb 1333mhz, and 120gb ssd.

the 64gb models are the slowest of them all, the 256gb is the best in terms of performance. not to mention bang for the buck as well

I dont know if the same happens in your countries but here in Brazil I can find 2 240gb ssds cheaper than a single 480gb ssd. I bought a 120 gb for my os and a few games and it really made a huge difference but Im still waiting for good prices on a 480gb or 512 gb to put all my other steam and origin games. I already use all my sata in my motherboard with only one free slot. If I buy 2x 240gb I will need to buy a controller. Back on topic RSII is one of the games I put in my ssd and it really helped. It obviously wont make any miracles. Also, ssds can vary in performence. There are some ssds which are a lot faster than other branded ssds. It always helps to read some reviews before purchasing. I still believe that even the slowest ssd can be a lot better than a hd in terms of reads and writes.

[karamazovmm]

I dont know if the same happens in your countries but here in Brazil I can find 2 240gb ssds cheaper than a single 480gb ssd. I bought a 120 gb for my os and a few games and it really made a huge difference but Im still waiting for good prices on a 480gb or 512 gb to put all my other steam and origin games. I already use all my sata in my motherboard with only one free slot. If I buy 2x 240gb I will need to buy a controller. Back on topic RSII is one of the games I put in my ssd and it really helped. It obviously wont make any miracles. Also, ssds can vary in performence. There are some ssds which are a lot faster than other branded ssds. It always helps to read some reviews before purchasing. I still believe that even the slowest ssd can be a lot better than a hd in terms of reads and writes.

yes, here in brazil we also avoid buying ssds in here, and just go and buy those elsewhere

and yes even the slowest ssd will be 2-3x faster than a HDD, specially the 2.5'' models.

And as usual, never buy something saying 240gb or 480gb, those are sandforce controllers, and also never buy sandforce controllers, but you know you can avoid it just buy samsung or marvel controllers, just so that you dont buy sandforce controllers, have I mentioned not to buy sandforce controllers?

[Ye Olde Fahrt]

I've got 4 gigs of RAM. I guess it is the age of the rig as a whole that is keeping me down.

It IS a nice upgrade. Just thought the change would be even bigger.

[karamazovmm]

yeah adding a SSD makes things go quick, but sometimes it aint quick as we would/are expect/ing

As I said 64gb is the slowest of the bunch, and their price makes them one of the most expensive ones to buy in terms of dolar/gb, its usually around a 1/1 ratio, while a 256gb can be found for 0.5/1 ratio or even less, hell I saw a toshiba 512gb ssd for 0.35/1 ratio some days ago, it was a sata2 ssd sure, but its still one hell of a price

Also one thing to keep in mind, its always a good measure to leave 20% free of the SSD, so around 12-15gb for you should be left unused. Also dont use win xp, use vista or later on it

[carmir]

Also one thing to keep in mind, its always a good measure to leave 20% free of the SSD, so around 12-15gb for you should be left unused.

You don't need to do that anymore with new SSDs. The new controllers' performances don't take a hit when the disk is full.

[karamazovmm]

You don't need to do that anymore with new SSDs. The new controllers' performances don't take a hit when the disk is full.

yes they do and you still need to do that

[karamazovmm]

I got around 15s, and mine is a sata 2 ssd running in IDE mode, its 120se btw in a seleucid campaign

[Ye Olde Fahrt]

I got around 15s, and mine is a sata 2 ssd running in IDE mode, its 120se btw in a seleucid campaign

Not bad, from one minute (my HDD) to 15 secs.

Possibly has to do with CPU as well, as I have an oldish AMD quad-2.6 GHz thingie.

[chris10]

Loading the campaign file (UAC 618 W)
SSD: 28.7 sec
HDD: 58.4 sec

Loading the Battle map (random smallish battle):
SSD: 14.9 sec
HDD: 33.8 sec

Exiting a battle, loading the Campaign map again:
SSD: 27.5 sec
HDD: 42.1 sec

A tad disappointed, to be honest.
I was sort of hoping to buzz in and out between maps in say 5 to 10 sec per piece. I have a 2.6 MHz rig with W7 64b.
Thought I'd share this. Anyone having better luck re. load times?

Your load times have been cut by close to 50% average, which is entirely and completely within the technical parameters when comparing average SSD to average HDD performances...so what ?...............

[karamazovmm]

Your load times have been cut by close to 50% average, which is entirely and completely within the technical parameters when comparing average SSD to average HDD performances...so what ?...............

because when we rub the lamp something appears?

there is a terrible misconception with SSD, people think that everything is instant, its not. its quite faster and once you go ssd you never go black

[Ye Olde Fahrt]

Your load times have been cut by close to 50% average, which is entirely and completely within the technical parameters when comparing average SSD to average HDD performances...so what ?...............

Ahhh... Parameters, scharameters... How very boring

because when we rub the lamp something appears?

Hey it worked for Aladdin!

there is a terrible misconception with SSD, people think that everything is instant, its not. its quite faster and once you go ssd you never go black

Yes, warmly recommended! Installing it was a breeze, and deffo would not go back to old ways of things now that I have it

[MemphisRex]

It matters on the RAM a lot. Because it is what causes the "Random Access Memory" to load up.
And, Not only the size, We also have to look at the frequency of the RAM, i.e (400/800/1333/1600 MHz). It can make a huge difference.

[karamazovmm]

@ all - dont worry we dont have to know everything, and FF8 is a fairly old game I played when I was in high school

It matters on the RAM a lot. Because it is what causes the "Random Access Memory" to load up.
And, Not only the size, We also have to look at the frequency of the RAM, i.e (400/800/1333/1600 MHz). It can make a huge difference.

The gains in terms of frequency within a architecture are minimal, it will boost performance just not enough to advocate for higher speed. For example a 1066mhz DDR3 would be around 15% slower than a 2800mhz, and given that for 8gb (2x 4gb) you have to pay around 270 bucks instead of 35 bucks for the former, you get the idea of how much not worth is that.

if you want to know more read these articles:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2002/07/caching/
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/...d-performance/
http://arstechnica.com/information-t...s-really-work/

those explain somethings that give us a good performance boost with marginal costs, instead of major costs like exceedingly expensive ram.

and here is some basic things on how ram works (yes wikipedia in terms of pcs is fairly good for basic knowledge)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-channel_architecture

[karamazovmm]

@Ye Olde Fahrt the joke about the lamp was because chris10 avatar is diablo from FF8, which you can get by rubbing a lamp

@MemphisRex ram doesnt work that way

[MemphisRex]

@MemphisRex ram doesnt work that way

Yeah. I am sorry, was kinda confused, But, I was basically talking about the frequency.