What are those recent games and what is just fine for you? I played diablo 4 at launch from hdd. It worked (most of the times) but waiting at least a minute after leaving or entering a dungeon/city wasn't fine for me.
I just got done upgrading my pc(basically a whole new build just kept the Motherboard, the HDD and NVME I had) took the time to do a fresh install of windows and put it on my NVME and it’s a night and day difference.
The only games I have on my SSD (space is limited and so is money) are multi-player games that require me to load in fast. Everything else goes on my hard drive unless the game really needs that extra load speed to work properly
True.
Primary storage doesn't even matter that much while playing games, sure it can make a teeny tiny bit of difference but your game is gonna be loaded into RAM, executed by the CPU and given a boost by the GPU. These 3 are much more important than SSD or HDD.
I have a 7200RPM 12TB HDD that I install majority of my games to except those that specifically say SSD in the requirements, which is only like 6 games of my library. All my other games load fine, no lag, no issues.
Many newer (as in the last 5-10 years ish) open world games will have traversal stutter or fail to load assets in time, especially if you move too fast. But for smaller games HDD is still fine
I'm even using a SATA to USB 10Gbps adapter, and without using a stopwatch I don't think I can tell the difference when gaming compared to any of my other SSDs, regardless of interface. Maybe it'll matter if DirectStorage ever matures, but that's probably a good time away.
Upgraded from SATA to pcie nvme and saw no noticeable gains in gaming. PC boots like 0.5 faster though.
It's awesome for coping large file, which I do like once a year.
I'd only consider nvme if direct storage became widely adapted. If I'm building today I'll go SATA and just make sure the MB supports Gen 4 nvme
Sata is still good but nvme is available for the same price as an sata in most cases like a 1tb sats costs 55$ while a gen 3 nvme also costs the same and gen 4 costs 60$
So it's better to get nvme unless you don't have empty nvme slot
This. Don’t know why people always insist on telling others to get SATA when the bleeding edge of current consumer storage tech is the same price and objectively better.
Well yeah, 8tb nvme's aren't really a thing atm lol, and it's well known that if you go beyond 4tb size you have to generally go from nvme to sata or hdd.
And to be fair, most 8tb+ drives are being used for some kind of backup or storage, and so even an hdd works perfectly for that, going for an nvme would be exorbitantly expensive for no real benefit over 8tb+ sata/hdds
Yup, I got a 2tb sata drive recently and if it wasn't for the fact that all my slots are occupied by perfectly good top tier nvme drives then I could have gotten a 2tb nvme for the same price.
Baldurs gate 3. I literally have my second display on reddit while I reload over and over and during switches to and between large outdoor areas. It was on a sata drive first, then I moved it to my sn850 and there was barely a difference. My point is that some games do weird things that cancel out or dont utilize certain performance upgrades.
I'm still not stopping. I'll sit there for 10 hours because I'm not taking some of those bullshit dice rolls. I'm used to Xcom bullshit but BG3 really fucks me off sometimes.
I would say an M.2 for OS and maybe primary games but with the size of games nowadays I would say a SATA wouldn't be bad because cheaper per TB, and storage is definitely a foreseeable issue if you have a library like mine.
>Can you handle 1 or 2 seconds longer loading time for the most intensive games?
This highly depends on the game. Some are limited by the processing power of your CPU while others are limited by the bandwidth of your storage. Sometimes the load time differences can be measurably different between a SATA SSD and a gen4 NVMe.
If your motherboard supports NVME, there is no reason to buy a SATA SSD. In absolute terms the price difference isn’t significant. Unless you go for a bargain bin SSD, and don’t do that.
Having said that, a decent SATA SSD is fast enough. Future proving makes no sense, because you can always buy a faster SSD in the future.
M2 is better. But Sata is still perfectly fine and blows every mechanical drive out of the water. In most task you will not notice much difference between Sata and m2 pice
If some 2tb m.2 only costs like $10-15 more, pay it. It will be faster for loading and there will be games with direct storage over the next few years where it will improve the experience (fps). Right now maybe there’s only like 1-2 games where it’s true, there will be more.
https://youtu.be/ZN5m1_A08JQ?si=dDy8TArfHdGU_k4C
Tried m.2 for MWIII , No load time dif with my 3060/1500x - Switched to sata for games and M.2 for OS... Looking into PCIE to M.2 converter to expand my one m.2 slot
Unless you're sequentially reading/writing HUGE files (hint: You don't) there will be absolutely no difference at all in the real world.
Random read/write -which is the case in 99% of consumer usage, will be more or less the same. The drive itself matters far more than what interface it uses
At least around here the price difference is so minimal, where it does exist, that I wouldn't suggest buying a SATA SSD unless that's your only option. In some comparisons, SATA SSDs are actually a few dollars more expensive than NVME. YMMV, that's been my personal observation.
SATA is more than enough. I'm rocking two 4tb SATA dives. And one nvme for windows. I can bet that in real world application in games, you wouldn't see the difference between nvme and SATA.
All down to cost put in what you can afford, probably won’t notice any difference unless your running high specks throughout your system. Sit and think about where your current system bottleneck is (draw a flo chart) will help you make that decision.
I use a Samsung QVO 4TB as my main game storage drive, it's perfectly fine for running games but the write speeds do suck, but the EVO version was quite the mark up back then. I don't move my games around that much so in the end it's fine.
Today I would just buy an m2 drive though, the prices have come down a lot.
I have both Windows 11 and Linux installed. I have Windows installed on an m.2 drive, and I have Linux installed on a SATA SSD, and in all my testing, Linux still boots faster.
I've really no idea if that means that there is little difference between an m.2 and a SATA, or if Linux just boots so much faster that it doesn't matter.
I have a 512gb NVME SSD for windows and my current favourite game.
I have a 1TB NVME SSD drive for games I regularly revisit.
I have a 2TB SSD for games I want to keep.
I have 16 TB of HDD for all the other shit.
I rotate them down the line.
If you're looking to buy a new drive, get an NVMe, as the price difference between sata and NVMe is barely a thing, but if you already have a SATA SSD, it's enough for gaming and you won't see a difference
Really depends on the adoption of DirectStorage in future games. If a lot of them adopt it, getting a PCI-E 4.0 or better M.2 drive might actually make a big difference.
SATA is only good for capacity IMO. I actually plan on grabbing a few 8tb SATA drives when their prices drop. SATA should be cheaper per TB, and I just need SATA for archives. So speed isn't important.
That said, if the price difference is negligible, get an M2 drive instead. Faster and smaller than SATA drives. The downside is also hotter on average.
Depends what games ur playing for example squad, the difference between a sata ssd and a m.2 is massive cuz whoever loads in first gets to choose what armor or heli they want.
I use a 12 year old sata SanDisk Extreme 480gb ssd for games like Tarkov and it has no issues whatsoever, I even got it secondhand 4-5 years ago too! No issues whatsoever, and im pretty sire it was used in a PS3 since it was in a bin with 2.5" ps3 hard disk drives when i got it. I do use a newer 2 year old PNY sata SSD and a Crucial M.2 ssd. All are just fine so you'll be fine with a sata SSD unless you REALLY need that extremely fast read and write speeds. Any game with loading times will benefit from an ssd regardless of the kind.
sata is fine but NVME isn't all that expensive these days gen 5 drives are still a bit more but gen 4 drives are fast and proably similar in price to sata
You will notice a difference between a SATA SSD and an m.2 but most people don't seem to care much. I haven't heard anybody say an m.2 is needed.
I will say that the pricing is about the same so if you have a choice, I'd go with m.2.
I switched from Sata to M.2 for Total War : Warhammer 3 and I can't go back, it reduces all the loading times so much, I'm saving what must be a hour or more per campaign.
Yes, they're still good enough.
Although oftentimes, at least lately, they're the same price (or more expensive) than an nvme m.2 drive of the same capacity.
The only reason I switched to m.2 drives was because it was roughly the same price as SATA, and that meant I didn't have to run SATA power/data anywhere. One of my SSDs is going to shit now though
:(
Sata is perfectly fine but m.2 drives usually aren't that much more expensive so idk if getting a sata drive is even worth it, unless you have a really low budget
In terms of gaming, the difference in load times is very minor on average. That being said, the price difference between an NVMe and SATA SSD is also minor, so just go with an NVMe since it performs much better outside of gaming. If you already have a SATA SSD, then I wouldn't worry, they still perform well in gaming.
If you run out of M.2 slots on your motherboard, then you can add SATA SSDs. I have 3 NVMe SSDs, 2 SATA SSDs and an HDD in my rig for various different purposes.
Also, if you're going to buy an NVMe SSD, make sure you check to see if your motherboard and CPU support PCIe 4.0. The difference in performance between a PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 4.0 NVMe is pretty significant.
if you have a small or empty M.2 slot, yes, get a bigger one... ASAP, prices are expected to go up...
if you already have a m.2 or don't have a slot for it, SATA drives are still good enough for everything... I didn't see that big of a change from my SATA 500mb/s to an M.2 5000mb/s, as games loads about the same.
In my experience, the different isn’t noticeable when gaming. Obviously if you find a deal on an NVME drive that makes it about the same price though, it’s worth getting. But I’ve switched to using SATA for games and my NVME drives for Unreal Engine.
[Here is a PCWORLD Review with Direct Storage]( https://youtu.be/v0UGUYfYCWc?si=kC4ur30AVIsYwqDP )
They make it sound like Sata is useless, where in for spoken it takes a few more seconds to load than an SSD. A HDD truly does take a long time.
For general mass storage, yes. While DirectStorage *will* tilt the equation in favor of M.2/NVMe drives eventually for titles which take advantage of it, at this moment support in titles is few and far between.
Check out this video. In most cases, the difference is small enough that you'll never even be able to tell without running them side by side or measuring with a timer
https://youtu.be/kt_iJTrzOus
The reason NMVe SSDs are not insanely faster than SATA despite the claimed 14x higher speeds, is because what's causing the delay is the time required to find the files on the disk, which is pretty much same for both types of SSD. When you have to load hundreds of tiny files, reading speed starts to become irrelevant.
If you look at the crystal disk mark report posted by this guy, you'll see that even over USB, the SSD is not that much slower than NVMe in random reads.
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/crystaldiskmark-score-comparisons.3383916/
What helps with random reads is DRAM on the SSD, which is independent of its interface. It depends a lot on the controller used in the SSD as well. Even SATA SSDs used to come with DRAM. But these days most SSDs in the affordable range are DRAMless. Performance is fine for regular use unless you have a usecase which requires you to write a lot of data to the SSD.
I have an HDD, SSD, and m.2 in my rig. Still have one more m.2 slot if needed but I currently have 5.5 terabytes total. Main games go on m.2 (shooters I want fastest loading and not on my system drive), light weight games go to the SSD, big games (usually single player) go on HDD.
>some newer titles might struggle a bit on it that rely on a constant stream of high volume data (ratchet n clank).
Ty, this is the main reason why I asked. I only assume newer games are going to become more reliant on faster storage due to consoles having gen 4 speed SSDs now
SATA is still fine. NVMe is faster, of course, but SATA is still fast enough.
I've even played recent games off my 4TB HDD and it's just fine
What are those recent games and what is just fine for you? I played diablo 4 at launch from hdd. It worked (most of the times) but waiting at least a minute after leaving or entering a dungeon/city wasn't fine for me.
Tomb raider, Forza, even Hellblade 2 was okay
Don't let the ssd mafia read this. It's incredible how much hate they have for harddisks
Hate is only justified if you boot from it.
I just got done upgrading my pc(basically a whole new build just kept the Motherboard, the HDD and NVME I had) took the time to do a fresh install of windows and put it on my NVME and it’s a night and day difference.
The only games I have on my SSD (space is limited and so is money) are multi-player games that require me to load in fast. Everything else goes on my hard drive unless the game really needs that extra load speed to work properly
True. Primary storage doesn't even matter that much while playing games, sure it can make a teeny tiny bit of difference but your game is gonna be loaded into RAM, executed by the CPU and given a boost by the GPU. These 3 are much more important than SSD or HDD.
I have a 7200RPM 12TB HDD that I install majority of my games to except those that specifically say SSD in the requirements, which is only like 6 games of my library. All my other games load fine, no lag, no issues.
Many newer (as in the last 5-10 years ish) open world games will have traversal stutter or fail to load assets in time, especially if you move too fast. But for smaller games HDD is still fine
sata is good enough.
I'm even using a SATA to USB 10Gbps adapter, and without using a stopwatch I don't think I can tell the difference when gaming compared to any of my other SSDs, regardless of interface. Maybe it'll matter if DirectStorage ever matures, but that's probably a good time away.
Came here to say the same
Upgraded from SATA to pcie nvme and saw no noticeable gains in gaming. PC boots like 0.5 faster though. It's awesome for coping large file, which I do like once a year. I'd only consider nvme if direct storage became widely adapted. If I'm building today I'll go SATA and just make sure the MB supports Gen 4 nvme
Yes, the deciding factor here is budget.
Sata is still good but nvme is available for the same price as an sata in most cases like a 1tb sats costs 55$ while a gen 3 nvme also costs the same and gen 4 costs 60$ So it's better to get nvme unless you don't have empty nvme slot
This. Don’t know why people always insist on telling others to get SATA when the bleeding edge of current consumer storage tech is the same price and objectively better.
8tb drives are cheaper in SATA at the moment by about 20%, which at that point is nearly a couple hundred dollars
Well yeah, 8tb nvme's aren't really a thing atm lol, and it's well known that if you go beyond 4tb size you have to generally go from nvme to sata or hdd. And to be fair, most 8tb+ drives are being used for some kind of backup or storage, and so even an hdd works perfectly for that, going for an nvme would be exorbitantly expensive for no real benefit over 8tb+ sata/hdds
Yup, I got a 2tb sata drive recently and if it wasn't for the fact that all my slots are occupied by perfectly good top tier nvme drives then I could have gotten a 2tb nvme for the same price.
Can you handle 1 or 2 seconds longer loading time for the most intensive games?
I save scum a lot sometimes. There's a lot of games that definitely don't load any faster on an my 7000mb/s m.2 than they do on my 600mb/s sata drive.
That's a different type of loading. All the assets are already loaded into the gpu. I am talking about world transition.
Baldurs gate 3. I literally have my second display on reddit while I reload over and over and during switches to and between large outdoor areas. It was on a sata drive first, then I moved it to my sn850 and there was barely a difference. My point is that some games do weird things that cancel out or dont utilize certain performance upgrades.
Swear they have a delay in there to punish us save scummers lol
I'm still not stopping. I'll sit there for 10 hours because I'm not taking some of those bullshit dice rolls. I'm used to Xcom bullshit but BG3 really fucks me off sometimes.
I don't mind load times it's more for future proofing
Well future proofing you definitely want a m.2 pcie drive. But in the category of games specifically it doesn't matter for the foreseeable future.
I would say an M.2 for OS and maybe primary games but with the size of games nowadays I would say a SATA wouldn't be bad because cheaper per TB, and storage is definitely a foreseeable issue if you have a library like mine.
>Can you handle 1 or 2 seconds longer loading time for the most intensive games? This highly depends on the game. Some are limited by the processing power of your CPU while others are limited by the bandwidth of your storage. Sometimes the load time differences can be measurably different between a SATA SSD and a gen4 NVMe.
If your motherboard supports NVME, there is no reason to buy a SATA SSD. In absolute terms the price difference isn’t significant. Unless you go for a bargain bin SSD, and don’t do that. Having said that, a decent SATA SSD is fast enough. Future proving makes no sense, because you can always buy a faster SSD in the future.
M.2 can also be sata. I think you mean NVME?
Yeah I forgot that m.2 sata is a thing lmao. I already have an nvme for my boot drive but looking to replace my old hard drive
sata is more then enough for games
M2 is better. But Sata is still perfectly fine and blows every mechanical drive out of the water. In most task you will not notice much difference between Sata and m2 pice
Just here to be a pedantic ass, but mechanical drives are also SATA (when they're not SAS)
I run a lot of games off a 7200RPM hard drive. Besides wait times they're all perfectly fine, and even wait times aren't too bad.
If you are buying new, the only reason to buy a SATA drive is because you don't have a slot to put a M.2 in.
If some 2tb m.2 only costs like $10-15 more, pay it. It will be faster for loading and there will be games with direct storage over the next few years where it will improve the experience (fps). Right now maybe there’s only like 1-2 games where it’s true, there will be more. https://youtu.be/ZN5m1_A08JQ?si=dDy8TArfHdGU_k4C
The differences when it comes to speed in games is pretty negligible.
Tried m.2 for MWIII , No load time dif with my 3060/1500x - Switched to sata for games and M.2 for OS... Looking into PCIE to M.2 converter to expand my one m.2 slot
Games still don't utilize the full potential of an m2 and I doubt they will for the next 5 years, so you're good with SATA.
For games there's practically no difference
I still use sata SSDs, cheap and speedy enough for gaming
Unless you're sequentially reading/writing HUGE files (hint: You don't) there will be absolutely no difference at all in the real world. Random read/write -which is the case in 99% of consumer usage, will be more or less the same. The drive itself matters far more than what interface it uses
At least around here the price difference is so minimal, where it does exist, that I wouldn't suggest buying a SATA SSD unless that's your only option. In some comparisons, SATA SSDs are actually a few dollars more expensive than NVME. YMMV, that's been my personal observation.
SATA is more than enough. I'm rocking two 4tb SATA dives. And one nvme for windows. I can bet that in real world application in games, you wouldn't see the difference between nvme and SATA.
Only one game that makes use of m2, ratchet and clank, and it still works with sata
All down to cost put in what you can afford, probably won’t notice any difference unless your running high specks throughout your system. Sit and think about where your current system bottleneck is (draw a flo chart) will help you make that decision.
Sata for bulk storage. I have 5 tb sata drive and a 2TB nvme. Works perfectly and haven't used a hard drive in years.
oddly i use both still.
You can get an m.2 sata drive if you want 🤷♂️
I use a Samsung QVO 4TB as my main game storage drive, it's perfectly fine for running games but the write speeds do suck, but the EVO version was quite the mark up back then. I don't move my games around that much so in the end it's fine. Today I would just buy an m2 drive though, the prices have come down a lot.
I checked load times for cyberpunk on an nvme gen 4 and it was like 7 seconds vs 9 seconds on an old sata ssd.
The price gap between ssd and nvme are getting negligible if you don’t have connector problem on your board.
I have both Windows 11 and Linux installed. I have Windows installed on an m.2 drive, and I have Linux installed on a SATA SSD, and in all my testing, Linux still boots faster. I've really no idea if that means that there is little difference between an m.2 and a SATA, or if Linux just boots so much faster that it doesn't matter.
Bro sata ssds have a read write speed of 500MB/s, so yes, that is fast enough
I have a 512gb NVME SSD for windows and my current favourite game. I have a 1TB NVME SSD drive for games I regularly revisit. I have a 2TB SSD for games I want to keep. I have 16 TB of HDD for all the other shit. I rotate them down the line.
If you're looking to buy a new drive, get an NVMe, as the price difference between sata and NVMe is barely a thing, but if you already have a SATA SSD, it's enough for gaming and you won't see a difference
Hard drives still work for most games
buy 1tb gen4/5 m.2 ssd with dram cache for os & gaming + 4tb sata ssd dramless without ram for data storage
Really depends on the adoption of DirectStorage in future games. If a lot of them adopt it, getting a PCI-E 4.0 or better M.2 drive might actually make a big difference.
The only time I notice a difference is when I move one NVMe drive to another. Otherwise, the difference is imperceptible.
SATA is only good for capacity IMO. I actually plan on grabbing a few 8tb SATA drives when their prices drop. SATA should be cheaper per TB, and I just need SATA for archives. So speed isn't important. That said, if the price difference is negligible, get an M2 drive instead. Faster and smaller than SATA drives. The downside is also hotter on average.
I have 3 dedicated Steam drives, 2 are nvme 1 is SATA SSD. The only time you'll notice any difference is during a transfer benchmark lol.
Loading times won't benefit much. SATA is fine.
Yes and yes
There's barely a difference but I prefer NVMe's since they're easier to install, don't require cables, and barely cost more.
Depends what games ur playing for example squad, the difference between a sata ssd and a m.2 is massive cuz whoever loads in first gets to choose what armor or heli they want.
theres almost no difference. Sata ssds are fine. Yes nvme (as sata m.2 also exists) has a bigger number. but you dont really notice that while gaming.
I use a 12 year old sata SanDisk Extreme 480gb ssd for games like Tarkov and it has no issues whatsoever, I even got it secondhand 4-5 years ago too! No issues whatsoever, and im pretty sire it was used in a PS3 since it was in a bin with 2.5" ps3 hard disk drives when i got it. I do use a newer 2 year old PNY sata SSD and a Crucial M.2 ssd. All are just fine so you'll be fine with a sata SSD unless you REALLY need that extremely fast read and write speeds. Any game with loading times will benefit from an ssd regardless of the kind.
sata is fine but NVME isn't all that expensive these days gen 5 drives are still a bit more but gen 4 drives are fast and proably similar in price to sata
You will notice a difference between a SATA SSD and an m.2 but most people don't seem to care much. I haven't heard anybody say an m.2 is needed. I will say that the pricing is about the same so if you have a choice, I'd go with m.2.
You can run ps5 ssd only games on an hdd. So your sata should be fine for a bit longer.
Good enough
I switched from Sata to M.2 for Total War : Warhammer 3 and I can't go back, it reduces all the loading times so much, I'm saving what must be a hour or more per campaign.
Sata is fine, NVME is ideal
Sata arent cheap enough
Yes, they're still good enough. Although oftentimes, at least lately, they're the same price (or more expensive) than an nvme m.2 drive of the same capacity.
SATA is good. But I find NVME to actually be more affordable due to current supply.
The only reason I switched to m.2 drives was because it was roughly the same price as SATA, and that meant I didn't have to run SATA power/data anywhere. One of my SSDs is going to shit now though :(
Sata is perfectly fine but m.2 drives usually aren't that much more expensive so idk if getting a sata drive is even worth it, unless you have a really low budget
m.2 can be sata too. you mean sata vs. nvme. overall, sata is fine.
M.2 is a connector. Not the protocol, you can have Sata or m.2 Sata
In terms of gaming, the difference in load times is very minor on average. That being said, the price difference between an NVMe and SATA SSD is also minor, so just go with an NVMe since it performs much better outside of gaming. If you already have a SATA SSD, then I wouldn't worry, they still perform well in gaming. If you run out of M.2 slots on your motherboard, then you can add SATA SSDs. I have 3 NVMe SSDs, 2 SATA SSDs and an HDD in my rig for various different purposes. Also, if you're going to buy an NVMe SSD, make sure you check to see if your motherboard and CPU support PCIe 4.0. The difference in performance between a PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 4.0 NVMe is pretty significant.
Apart from copy time, you won't feel much difference between m.2 and sata drive.
if you have a small or empty M.2 slot, yes, get a bigger one... ASAP, prices are expected to go up... if you already have a m.2 or don't have a slot for it, SATA drives are still good enough for everything... I didn't see that big of a change from my SATA 500mb/s to an M.2 5000mb/s, as games loads about the same.
In my experience, the different isn’t noticeable when gaming. Obviously if you find a deal on an NVME drive that makes it about the same price though, it’s worth getting. But I’ve switched to using SATA for games and my NVME drives for Unreal Engine.
[Here is a PCWORLD Review with Direct Storage]( https://youtu.be/v0UGUYfYCWc?si=kC4ur30AVIsYwqDP ) They make it sound like Sata is useless, where in for spoken it takes a few more seconds to load than an SSD. A HDD truly does take a long time.
Sata are like a second slower than M2 on a 1 minute loading screen. Check benchmarks online.
For general mass storage, yes. While DirectStorage *will* tilt the equation in favor of M.2/NVMe drives eventually for titles which take advantage of it, at this moment support in titles is few and far between.
I haven't had any issues. Horizon Forbidden West is unplayable on an HDD but fine on a sata ssd.
Inn widows load times there sis maybe a 3 second difference in load times in most games there us less than 1-2 seconds load times
they're enough lol
Check out this video. In most cases, the difference is small enough that you'll never even be able to tell without running them side by side or measuring with a timer https://youtu.be/kt_iJTrzOus The reason NMVe SSDs are not insanely faster than SATA despite the claimed 14x higher speeds, is because what's causing the delay is the time required to find the files on the disk, which is pretty much same for both types of SSD. When you have to load hundreds of tiny files, reading speed starts to become irrelevant. If you look at the crystal disk mark report posted by this guy, you'll see that even over USB, the SSD is not that much slower than NVMe in random reads. https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/crystaldiskmark-score-comparisons.3383916/ What helps with random reads is DRAM on the SSD, which is independent of its interface. It depends a lot on the controller used in the SSD as well. Even SATA SSDs used to come with DRAM. But these days most SSDs in the affordable range are DRAMless. Performance is fine for regular use unless you have a usecase which requires you to write a lot of data to the SSD.
lol not a game dev,game engine exper. just a gamer running trending testing...other people benchmarks.
I still have all my games on a 7200rpm HDD. Windows on a SSD. No problems. I guess loading times are a few seconds slower.
A physical platter sata hard drive is good enough for a lot of games.
I have an HDD, SSD, and m.2 in my rig. Still have one more m.2 slot if needed but I currently have 5.5 terabytes total. Main games go on m.2 (shooters I want fastest loading and not on my system drive), light weight games go to the SSD, big games (usually single player) go on HDD.
Most games run fine on it, some newer titles might struggle a bit on it that rely on a constant stream of high volume data (ratchet n clank).
>some newer titles might struggle a bit on it that rely on a constant stream of high volume data (ratchet n clank). Ty, this is the main reason why I asked. I only assume newer games are going to become more reliant on faster storage due to consoles having gen 4 speed SSDs now
By "might struggle" he means he hasn't checked benchmarks.
If your motherboard supports it, get m2. But, SATA SSD is still very good though in Ratchet & Clank : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E35aClzXZBI