# Where would you install your Games? ( SSD or HDD )



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

Hi.

Which storage would you prefer to install your games?

I prefer SSD even if they are expensive but you pay for what you get..


----------



## DOA (Nov 27, 2014)

I have too many games for my SSD.
Anything I need to load quickly gets a temporary load on the SSD. MMO's and offline games can usually load slower so they go on the raid.
As an aside, this is one reason I hate games that have to be installed. Most games can reside in their own folder and can be moved and run by running them as admin to correct the pathing. Some games cannot be moved and litter my computer with junk when removed. I watch for these and avoid them. You should too or your SSD will fill up with junk from old games.
And your poll needs at least one more option. "Intelligent Choice"


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 27, 2014)

Most games I install on my SSD, when I'm done playing them I uninstall them.  Though my Steam library is on an HDD simply because it is too big, and steam is a total pain in the ass with moving games from one drive to another so I just put it all on an HDD.  I really wish Steam had an easy mechanic to simply move a game from one drive to another.  It lets you pick where to install the game when you first download it, but to move it you have to delete the game(often times deleting the saved games with it) and then re-install.  They should make it so you can just right click on the drive and select and option to move it from one drive to another.



DOA said:


> As an aside, this is one reason I hate games that have to be installed. Most games can reside in their own folder and can be moved and run by running them as admin to correct the pathing. Some games cannot be moved and litter my computer with junk when removed. I watch for these and avoid them. You should too or your SSD will fill up with junk from old games.



In the cases where the games have to be installed, what is left behind is usually just registry entries, which aren't big enough to fill anything up. All the registry entries for a game usually amount to less than 1KB of space, you'd need a crap load of games installed to fill up even a small SSD.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 27, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> my Steam library is on an HDD simply because it is too big



QFT

I install frequently played games (CSGO, LoL, 3DMark) on my SSD. Beyond that, everything gets dumped on the HDD because I have hundreds of games, not to mention review two titles a week. My SSD would get too full too fast.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Nov 27, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Where would you install your Games? ( SSD or HDD )


*HDD.*

*Unnecessary comments:*


Spoiler



SSD is still not a viable option for me, and I am safe to say it won't be till 2020 (or even after if things don't change).

Because I need more space per $ and not the fastest speed. If SSD don't become cheaper than ordinary HDD then I may never buy one in life.


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> *HDD.*
> 
> *Unnecessary comments:*
> 
> ...



come on,
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB cost 110 euro,
2,27 euro per GB


----------



## Blue-Knight (Nov 27, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Samsung 840 Evo 250GB cost 110 euro


Prices here:
Samsung EVO 250GB: €140
1TB Seagate HDD: €75

And I am being a bit generous about the currency conversion...

I could buy 2x1TB HDD against 250GB SSD or an extra 8GB memory stick and use it as ramdisk (in which case 8GB would be more than enough for most cases).

*Unnecessary comments:*


Spoiler



Considering a have a limit of how much I can spent from my 30 /month savings I would prefer to spend that extra money on a faster CPU instead.


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> Prices here:
> Samsung EVO 250GB: €140
> 1TB Seagate HDD: €75
> 
> ...



Samsung EVO 250GB: EUR 108,30

if just playing games and then uninstalling it SSD is the best choice, but if you keep your games then HDD is the way to go.


----------



## Tallencor (Nov 27, 2014)

Depends on the Game for me. Some small Indy title or something like Child of light hits the HDD. While Skyrim or something with cell loads or longer load times hits the SSD.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Nov 27, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Samsung EVO 250GB: EUR 108,30


??


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> ??



http://www.amazon.de/Samsung-MZ-7TE...id=1417104791&sr=1-1&keywords=samsung+840+evo


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 27, 2014)

SSD's are cheap.  Historically speaking, they're one of the best performance/investment ever.  Also, if they last as long as it appears they will, their cost over time will be low as well.
~$250.  It's been an interesting number over the years.  I remember advising people to spend that much on the CPU, HDD and RAM, (Yes, HDD's and RAM used to be that expensive) Today, 512 GB SD's are under that amount.
@Blue-Knight , you are right.  You have greater needs than a SSD.



Knoxx29 said:


> Which storage would you *prefer* to install your games?


Of course the answer is SSD.


Knoxx29 said:


> Samsung EVO 250GB: EUR 108,30


I don't think he's quoting EUR prices, I think he's converting the prices from where he is to EUR.


newtekie1 said:


> Steam is a total pain in the ass with moving games from one drive to another so I just put it all on an HDD. I really wish Steam had an easy mechanic to simply move a game from one drive to another.


+1


----------



## manofthem (Nov 27, 2014)

When I had 2 ssds in my pc, I had all my games installed on the 2nd 256gb ssd. It was nice for sure and definitely preferable.  When I took the 2nd ssd for another pc, I installed the games to an hdd, and it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be.  I was expected slow load times and such, but it's been very practical. 

Still waiting for 1tb ssds to be cheap for a nice have drive.


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

thebluebumblebee said:


> Today, 512 GB SD's are under that amount.


Samsung EVO 500GB: EUR 199,00


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 27, 2014)

HDD


----------



## Blue-Knight (Nov 27, 2014)

thebluebumblebee said:


> I think he's converting the prices from where he is to EUR.


Exactly.

*Unnecessary comments:*


Spoiler



Imagine if I buy it at amazon:


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

manofthem said:


> Still waiting for 1tb ssds to be cheap for a nice have drive


been honest the 1tb is not that expensive.


thebluebumblebee said:


> he's converting the prices from where he is to EUR.


thats why.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Nov 27, 2014)

thebluebumblebee said:


> > Which storage would you *prefer* to install your games?
> 
> 
> Of course the answer is SSD.


If everyone don't consider other factors in question than of course everyone would vote for SSD, including me... And would make the pool unnecessary.

And if everyone could choose a 500GB SSD or 500GB HDD for free than everyone would choose the SSD, no doubt.

But there will always be 1 or 2 that will choose the HDD for I don't know what reason... lol


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> If everyone don't consider other factors in question than of course everyone would vote for SSD, including me... And would make the pool unnecessary.
> 
> And if everyone could choose a 500GB SSD or 500GB HDD for free than everyone would choose the SSD, no doubt.
> 
> But there will always be 1 or 2 that will choose the HDD for I don't know what reason... lol


they will choose HHD over SSD becasue they are getting more Gb for less money, but as i said before, if you just play and then uninstall why not a nice SSD? even 250GB would be enough.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Nov 27, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> if you just play and then uninstall why not a nice SSD?


Installing games from optical media takes time... And today's dozens GB games takes even more.

And some people don't like installing, re-installing games too often because of this and other reasons. And prefer paying cheaper for a bigger capacity drive.

That's subjective.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 27, 2014)

HDD. My library is huge. and to be honest my drives arent slow as dog shit. Probably because i buy a drive fora  specific purpose. programs for example are not installed on the same drive as my games are they are installed on a completely separate disk. I tried installing games to my SSD doing that whole forum popular games i always play on my SSD thing. After I noticed no difference I re-installed it on my game drive again to save space. Because seriously constantly installing/uninstalling games too and from your main SSD pardon the pun but aint nobody got time fo dat.


----------



## Jborg (Nov 27, 2014)

I just install frequently played games on SSD....

Other games I want to keep installed I just leave on my HDD. But the games I am playing most often are on my SSD and are removed when they are played less.

BF4 loading times have gone from 1-2+ minutes to taking 9-15 seconds, depending on the players latency in the server. It has been a good upgrade for me.


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> some people don't like installing, re-installing games too often


the world will not end for half an hour of patience to install a game


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 27, 2014)

RCoon said:


> QFT
> 
> I install frequently played games (CSGO, LoL, 3DMark) on my SSD. Beyond that, everything gets dumped on the HDD because I have hundreds of games, not to mention review two titles a week. My SSD would get too full too fast.



This. I keep stuff I use a lot on my SSDs that should run fast and don't tend to fill it more than 70%, I think it's at 55% now. If it's important, doesn't get used a lot, or is big, it finds its way on to my RAID-5 since SSD space is short and HDD space is abundant and safe (at least for me).

Edit: Side note, RAID-5 read speeds are similar to RAID-0's. It's write speeds where you suffer.



Blue-Knight said:


> Installing games from optical media takes time... And today's dozens GB games takes even more.


I haven't installed a game using optical media in years and following makes that a lot easier.


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

Solaris17 said:


> Because seriously constantly installing/uninstalling games too and from your main SSD


my main SSD is just for the OS and the programs, i would never install games on it, thats why i have 2 SSD


----------



## DiegoHH (Nov 27, 2014)

I have 3 ssd, total 1tb of ssd storage (also 3 tb of hdd), so all my games on ssd and i have a lot of games. i Don't like loading bars xD


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 27, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> my main SSD is just for the OS and the programs, i would never install games on it, thats why i have 2 SSD



ok everyone entitled to an opinion. I personally elected to not buy an SSD just for games. My money went to better and more logical things.


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> I keep stuff I use a lot on my SSDs that should run fast and don't tend to fill it more than 70%,


the same here.


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

DiegoHH said:


> so all my games on ssd and i have a lot of games


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> If it's important, doesn't get used a lot, or is big, it finds its way on to my RAID-5 since SSD space is short and HDD space is abundant and safe (at least for me).


i have 30TB in my WHS 15TB are RAID-1 and i do the same thing as you do with big things ect ect,


----------



## Jborg (Nov 27, 2014)

1 250GB SSD is enough for my OS and games. I don't mind uninstalling/reinstalling games. 

I do have a ton of games also. But I don't actively play ALL of them. I have like 5 I stick to mainly... and those are on my SSD to load quicker.


----------



## FireFox (Nov 27, 2014)

Jborg said:


> 1 250GB SSD is enough for my OS and games. I don't mind uninstalling/reinstalling games.
> 
> I do have a ton of games also. But I don't actively play ALL of them. I have like 5 I stick to mainly... and those are on my SSD to load quicker.


i have one 250GB SSD for my OS and programs and one 250GB SSD for games


----------



## TRINITAS (Nov 30, 2014)

SSD Samsung 840 EVO 500GB for me
I can use my WD 500GB 10000rpm


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

TRINITAS said:


> SSD Samsung 840 EVO 500GB for me
> I can use my WD 500GB 10000rpm


So far my machine doesn't now what a HDD is


----------



## Warrgarbl (Dec 1, 2014)

I personally have my most used games permanently on my SSD (World of Warcraft and Diablo III at the moment), and the rest would be on my theoretical HDD... but I got fed up with it and installed a second SSD instead, so yes, SSD all the way, but lacking that I'd put my primary games on the SSD and put games I only play for a while on an HDD.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

Warrgarbl said:


> I personally have my most used games permanently on my SSD (World of Warcraft and Diablo III at the moment), and the rest would be on my theoretical HDD... but I got fed up with it and installed a second SSD instead, so yes, SSD all the way, but lacking that I'd put my primary games on the SSD and put games I only play for a while on an HDD.


I just install games on SSD, that's why I have a WHS to install all the rest.

Edit: I don't mind how fast or stable can a HDD be or if my SSD will sooner Degrade but I still refuse to install games on HDD


----------



## Jetster (Dec 1, 2014)

OS and BF4 on the SSD. Everything else on the HD


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

Jetster said:


> OS and BF4 on the SSD. Everything else on the HD


I dont trust installing games where the OS is installed because if installing or uninstalling a game something goes wrong I don't want to compromise the OS.


----------



## Jetster (Dec 1, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> I dont trust installing games where the OS is installed because if installing or uninstalling a game something goes wrong I don't want to compromise the OS.



It can just as easily compromise the OS if installed on the HD. Game files are everywhere


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 1, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> I dont trust installing games where the OS is installed because if installing or uninstalling a game something goes wrong I don't want to compromise the OS.


That's an unfounded fear. You shouldn't make decisions based on that view because it's false. Games don't install into the OS when you put it on the same drive as the OS. Borking a game uninstallation won't hurt your Windows installation, at least I've never found it to and I see no reason why it would.



Jetster said:


> It can just as easily compromise the OS if installed on the HD. Game files are everywhere


Maybe AppData on your C:, but nothing in C:\Windows.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

Jetster said:


> It can just as easily compromise the OS if installed on the HD. Game files are everywhere


I agree with you, but if main files from the game are where the OS is installed it is more complicated when you have issues with the game


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 1, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> I agree with you, but if main files from the game are where the OS is installed it is more complicated when you have issues with the game


Where it is installed almost never has issues to do with if it works or not. Once again, I think you're finding reasons to justify the way you do things. The simple fact is there is no reason why you have to split things up other than running out of SSD storage space. Putting stuff in different places for "safety" as you describe it is insanity.


----------



## puma99dk| (Dec 1, 2014)

i use a mix for my games som and steam client and game on a WD Green 500gb and the games i use the most on my Samsung Evo 840 250gb.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Where it is installed almost never has issues to do with if it works or not. Once again, I think you're finding reasons to justify the way you do things. The simple fact is there is no reason why you have to split things up other than running out of SSD storage space. Putting stuff in different places for "safety" as you describe it is insanity.


Last time that I installed a game (titanfall )
Was a hell for me, fortunately it was not installed where I have the OS installed, that game gave me too much headaches I couldn't even run any other games due titanfall issues ( j hate it ) how did I solve issues? Just formating the SSD where the game was installed, that's mean that if the game was installed where OS is I had to format my main SSD.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 1, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Most games I install on my SSD, when I'm done playing them I uninstall them.  Though my Steam library is on an HDD simply because it is too big, and steam is a total pain in the ass with moving games from one drive to another so I just put it all on an HDD.  I really wish Steam had an easy mechanic to simply move a game from one drive to another.  It lets you pick where to install the game when you first download it, but to move it you have to delete the game(often times deleting the saved games with it) and then re-install.  They should make it so you can just right click on the drive and select and option to move it from one drive to another.
> 
> 
> 
> In the cases where the games have to be installed, what is left behind is usually just registry entries, which aren't big enough to fill anything up. All the registry entries for a game usually amount to less than 1KB of space, you'd need a crap load of games installed to fill up even a small SSD.


 
Steam Mover is a brilliant program! In two minutes your Steam game resides in another drive, yet Steam behaves as if it's on the same drive.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 1, 2014)

This poll is too limited.

I install my games to my mechanical drive, then use steammover to move the one(s) i'm currently playing to my SSD.

This means my SSD(s) never get full.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

rtwjunkie said:


> Steam Mover is a brilliant program! In two minutes your Steam game resides in another drive, yet Steam behaves as if it's on the same drive.


I never tried Steam Mover, maybe I should give it a try


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 1, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> I never tried Steam Mover, maybe I should give it a try


 
I use it just because I'm semi-obsessive and like to put all my strategy games on one drive separate.  No reason for it, other than saving some room on my Steam drive for the horde of other games.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 1, 2014)

Mussels said:


> This poll is too limited.
> 
> I install my games to my mechanical drive, then use steammover to move the one(s) i'm currently playing to my SSD.
> 
> This means my SSD(s) never get full.


"A lot" (aware its a few clicks and some time waiting but...) of effort but interesting!

Since i only really play a game or two at a time, I just install them to my 256GB SSD.

Funny poll choices though!



Knoxx29 said:


> I dont trust installing games where the OS is installed because if installing or uninstalling a game something goes wrong I don't want to compromise the OS.


That happens? Never had that happen in 20 years of PC gaming personally...


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Dec 1, 2014)

HDD for me. even 3tb is almost full now. Thats all my games. I could read that one guy says "some people dont like installing, uninstalling" to be honest I am one of that "some people" lol


----------



## Brusfantomet (Dec 1, 2014)

I throw everything on my SSD, and when it gets full i will make a backup to the Server (HDDs)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 1, 2014)

I'm approaching 2 TB of games installed.  That would cost a fortune to store on SDD, so I don't.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 1, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm approaching 2 TB of games installed.  That would cost a fortune to store on SDD, so I don't.


 
Same here...minimum.  I don't want to have to constantly install and uninstall.  I just want to be able to play whatever I want to play, when I want.  Thus, they stay installed.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> "A lot" (aware its a few clicks and some time waiting but...) of effort but interesting!
> 
> Since i only really play a game or two at a time, I just install them to my 256GB SSD.
> 
> ...


Read above what happened with titanfall


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 1, 2014)

I did. Bad luck.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Dec 1, 2014)

I've found that once you put the OS and all your apps on the SSD and let the HDD deal with just the games, things are plenty fast.


----------



## vega22 (Dec 1, 2014)

i have my games installed on a thumb drive atm...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 1, 2014)

Os on ssd and games on hdd.


----------



## GhostRyder (Dec 1, 2014)

Depends on the game in all honesty, I personally install the big name games to the SSD (Samsung 840 Pro 512gb) but the smaller games/rest go to my storage drive.  I normally research load times if I am not buying day 1 and decide but some games do not really need the enhanced load times as they load decent enough as is while some almost demand it.  BF3/4 needed an SSD for me because many times games had already begun once I loaded on a 1tb HDD but games like Arma/Dayz and other steam games do not suffer with the HDD load times so I normally have those defaulted to my HDD.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

Brusfantomet said:


> I throw everything on my SSD, and when it gets full i will make a backup to the Server (HDDs)





FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm approaching 2 TB of games installed.  That would cost a fortune to store on SDD, so I don't.


And that's why I have a WHS 15TB to throw everything what shouldn't be on my SSD


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> I did. Bad luck.


Can happen


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Os on ssd and games on hdd.



When SSD will get the prices equal to the hdd then all of us will use only ssd.

Note: one day not too far SSD will be replaced by something faster..


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 1, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Can happen


So can dieing on the ground by a falling airplane from the sky, but I don't plan for that.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 1, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> When SSD will get the prices equal to the hdd then all of us will use only ssd.
> 
> Note: one day not too far SSD will be replaced by something faster..



Those are PCIE SSDs already.

SSDs have limited writing space. Games constantly read and write so they are best on a HDD


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 1, 2014)

> SSDs have limited writing space. Games constantly read and write so they are best on a HDD


Worrying about writes on SSDs for the average consumer has long (a few years now) been blown out of proportion. Also, not a lot of games write to the HDD a lot either. 

There are studies all over the place showing how long (to the order of dozens of TB's in writes) it takes to kill an SSD by writing to it... 

Games are FINE on an SSD, period.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Those are PCIE SSDs already.
> 
> SSDs have limited writing space. Games constantly read and write so they are best on a HDD


That's right, I just forget to mention it


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Worrying about writes on SSDs for the average consumer has long (a few years now) been blown out of proportion. Also, not a lot of games write to the HDD a lot either.
> 
> There are studies all over the place showing how long (to the order of dozens of TB's in writes) it takes to kill an SSD by writing to it...
> 
> Games are FINE on an SSD, period.



Samsung claim 10GB writes per day will make the 840 Evo 120GB version last for 28 years. This roughly translates to 100 TBW. Let's wear it out and see if it dies gracefully.
Could be that right?

Note: an ssd could die between 28 years as it could fail at any time.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 1, 2014)

Sure it can be right... Look: http://techreport.com/review/27062/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-remain-after-1-5pb

So can a HDD... but you are correct, writes are not the only issue as the controller could fail... but that person mentioned he was worried about writes specifically.


----------



## Brusfantomet (Dec 1, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Samsung claim 10GB writes per day will make the 840 Evo 120GB version last for 28 years. This roughly translates to 100 TBW. Let's wear it out and see if it dies gracefully.
> Could be that right?
> 
> Note: an ssd could die between 28 years as it could fail at any time.


 anecdotal evidence says they last a bit longer than that  but dies rather abruptly

edit: damed ninjas


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Sure it can be right... Look: http://techreport.com/review/27062/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-remain-after-1-5pb
> 
> So can a HDD... but you are correct, writes are not the only issue as the controller could fail... but that person mentioned he was worried about writes specifically.



interesting review.

so here is a pic of my 9 month old  Samsung SSD an the total data written,
normally i upgrade SSD every year and a half, maximum 2 years


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 1, 2014)

2Tb... seems you have a ton of writes to go...

Anyway, eiderman - no worries with writes on SSDs friend.


----------



## Space Lynx (Dec 1, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> Prices here:
> Samsung EVO 250GB: €140
> 1TB Seagate HDD: €75
> 
> ...




I saw a Hitchia Desktar 6 TB on Newegg yesterday for $269.99, a single 6TB drive... I am not sure what that comes out to per gigabyte, but yeah I almost nabbed it, kind of regret not nabbing it, lol.

SSD's got a long way before they get to that level of cost/benefit ratio.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

lynx29 said:


> I am not sure what that comes out to per gigabyte


4,499833333333333
a good deal


----------



## RealNeil (Dec 1, 2014)

I have one PC that the games are loaded onto a SSD. Not all of them, but my favorites are on a 120GB SSD. The OS (and some of the games) is on a 480GB SSD, so the system is pretty snappy overall.

All the rest of my PCs have an SSD for the OS and HDDs for programs and games.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> 2Tb... seems you have a ton of writes to go...
> 
> Anyway, eiderman - no worries with writes on SSDs friend.


It will be running for 6/7 months after that will be replaced


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 1, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> It will be running for 6/7 months after that will be replaced


Why? That seems like you are wasting quite a bit of life... Hell I have Vertex 2's still running in my benching system and can barely notice a difference in performance between it and the Vertex 460 I currently run on the other system as far as load times.


----------



## RealNeil (Dec 1, 2014)

I run them until they die. (with proper DATA Backup)


----------



## FireFox (Dec 1, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Why? That seems like you are wasting quite a bit of life... Hell I have Vertex 2's still running in my benching system and can barely notice a difference in performance between it and the Vertex 460 I currently run on the other system as far as load times.


In 6 or 7 months there will be something better out there.
After I replace SSDs I just give it away to someone that could need it.

Edit: in 7 months that SSD will still give good performances so someone can take advantage of it.


----------



## xorbe (Dec 1, 2014)

I installed Rage on the SSD, so the textures would load in a reasonable amount of time ... almost done so I can delete that title.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> In 6 or 7 months there will be something better out there.
> After I replace SSDs I just give it away to someone that could need it.
> 
> Edit: in 7 months that SSD will still give good performances so someone can take advantage of it.


While its awfully noble that you like to sell your old wares, the difference in SSD performance over such a little time (hell, double that to a year) is negligible for most users. Are you saying you use your PC/SSD to transfer large files to and from another SSD frequently so that you can actually notice the difference?

Butt dynos... they be screwing with people's minds and wallets, yo...


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Are you saying you use your PC/SSD to transfer large files to and from another SSD frequently so that you can actually notice the difference?


I don't use to do that


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2014)

Wish I had your discretionary income to waste cash like that!


----------



## RealNeil (Dec 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Wish I had your discretionary income to waste cash like that!



Right now, the sales that are going on have really dropped prices and combination deals are making it all a lot sweeter too. I have been saving up for a i7-4790K and was able to buy a Kingston 240GB SSD too. Considering the lower cost of the CPU, I didn't get the SSD for free. But I got it for about half of the normal price.

Being on a fixed income, I have to find the best deals out there.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2014)

Great news for you, but I was talking to the guy that upgrades his SSDs every 6/7 months and upgrades to something faster. 

I'll take the high road and call him a philanthropist. Lol!


----------



## RealNeil (Dec 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> I'll take the high road and call him a philanthropist. Lol!




At least he's giving them away. I really can't afford to give SSDs away, but I am planning to contribute something towards the next FAH Tribute PC giveaway.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2014)

We all do what we can, when we can (we hope).


----------



## hat (Dec 2, 2014)

I have an SSD for my OS and programs, and one for my games. I regret spending the money on the SSD for my games, though. I noticed no great difference, hardly any difference at all in load times, even with the 4GHz i7 I had at that time. Any respectable HDD would do for games. I paid $330 for it a couple years ago. With that money today I could have had a 1TB velociraptor and had $100 left over, for little to no performance impact.

SSD is grand for OS, not so much for games... just not needed there.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 2, 2014)

personally I wouldn't waste an SSD on a game.Unless it was a HDD intensive game like Arma or DayZ, I see no significant benefit to justify the excessive cost.I run seprate drives for specific task's, like, steam, DayZ,games/storage, but SSD is just not worth it to Me.Maybe if your running a weaker PC, with not too much RAM , or something, but I can't imagine that write, and read speed's are going to improve game performance, Definitely NOT FPS, Loading(MAYBE) , but that's where the benefit end's.Or maybe it's because I'm not rich, and I hate wasting money.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2014)

> I can't imagine that write, and read speed's are going to improve game performance


They dont in frame rates... just level loads and such.. it can help in some MMO's/RPGs especially.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Great news for you, but I was talking to the guy that upgrades his SSDs every 6/7 months and upgrades to something faster.
> 
> I'll take the high road and call him a philanthropist. Lol!


Is not for upgrade to something faster but something better.

I was already thinking to get a nice Samsung 850 serie


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 2, 2014)

Id add another option to the vote and say 'mixed' cuz i have some games on ssd and some games on standard hdd


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Id add another option to the vote and say 'mixed' cuz i have some games on ssd and some games on standard hdd


Option added


----------



## jihadjoe (Dec 2, 2014)

I install everything to SSD, then when a game is pretty old and infrequently played I just move its entire folder over to HDD and leave a symlink in it's place on the SSD.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Id add another option to the vote and say 'mixed' cuz i have some games on ssd and some games on standard hdd


For me HDD is good just for the reason that you can get a lot of GB for less money.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 2, 2014)

Ive moved a few steam games to SSD

TF2, KF, CS:S/CS:S GO, ARMA II & III

Also farcry 4 (which i havent played at all yet) the BF games & Guildwars 2 cuz loading into lions arch from login can be a bit of a bitch on a standard hard drive.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

jihadjoe said:


> I install everything to SSD, then when a game is pretty old and infrequently played I just move its entire folder over to HDD and leave a symlink in it's place on the SSD.


I just install games on my second SSD then when I don't play it anymore I just uninstall it.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 2, 2014)

You could have a regular HDD with an SSD cache drive to achieve the same goal and still improve the amount of storage you have. I guess that depends on how important the amount of storage space is to you, because if extra space isn't important there is no reason to go from an SSD to HDD.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Is not for upgrade to something faster but something better.
> 
> I was already thinking to get a nice Samsung 850 serie


Better? Im curious, how you quantify better? Why is a Sammy 850 'better' than a 840 EVO?


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> if extra space isn't important there is no reason to go from an SSD to HDD.


One Samsung 840 EVO 1TB for games is enough for me.


----------



## xBruce88x (Dec 2, 2014)

it somewhat depends on the game, but the games that have the most disk activity would definitely go on an SSD for sure. One game I know has a HUGE benefit in terms of IOPS is SimCity4. I know its an older game, but the way its designed... well. lets just say i went from a slideshow of 10fps to a smooth constant 40fps and no slow downs, well at least not until its memory leak ate up all my ram.

though just not poorly optimized games will benefit... just about any game that streams data while the game is in play will see a boost. (mass effect anyone? that graphics quality pop-in).

If you can afford it... all games and programs that have heavy random drive access should go on the SSDs. Documents, movies and other vids, music, and even installers can go on a regular HDD


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 2, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> One Samsung 840 EVO 1TB for games is enough for me.


I get that, but those are expensive. You already have a 250GB SSD and you can buy say a 1TB WD Black for 70-80 USD and use a caching SSD. My point is that it costs a lot less but gives you a bit of the best of both worlds. Not everyone has the money to dump into a 500+ USD SSD. I know I certainly don't. In fact I can think of many other things I would rather spend 500 USD on.

Even on your own machine, I would rather get a GTX 980 instead of a 1TB SSD. I personally think it's wasteful spending.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Better? Im curious, how you quantify better? Why is a Sammy 850 'better' than a 840 EVO?


Check here:
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Pro-256GB-vs-Samsung-840-Evo-250GB/2385vs1594


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

xBruce88x said:


> If you can afford it... all games and programs that have heavy random drive access should go on the SSDs. Documents, movies and other vids, music, and even installers can go on a regular HDD


That's the way I use to do.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2014)

That shows speed... which you said wasn't why above...



> Is not for upgrade to something faster but something better.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> That shows speed... which you said wasn't why above...


Yeah, I remember something about reliability being important unless I misunderstood the post...


Knoxx29 said:


> Is not for upgrade to something faster but something better.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> That shows speed... which you said wasn't why above...


Maybe I am just obsessed with SSDS


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Yeah, I remember something about reliability being important unless I misunderstood the post...


You didn't, maybe I just should test the 850 and after that I can give you a concrete opinion about it.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Even on your own machine, I would rather get a GTX 980 instead of a 1TB SSD. I personally think it's wasteful spending.


I totally agree with you.
I am trying to sell my 770s in order to buy 2 powerful GPUs

Edit: I paid 400€ per each card and are not older than 5 months, so maybe I could still get a money for it.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> You didn't, maybe I just should test the 850 and after that I can give you a concrete opinion about it.


With respect, Id prefer hearing about it from a review site. You just said one thing, then balked. I think the link you posted says quite enough already on it honestly....




> the 256GB Samsung 850 Pro is the fastest consumer SSD we have seen to date. *Thanks to Samsung's new 3D V-NAND the 850 Pro has lower power consumption and better performance, albeit marginally, than both the 840 Evo and 840 Pro. *Looking at the peak lab performance figures for the840 and 850 Pros shows that the effective performance improvement is only 5% whereas the850 Pro beats the 840 Evo by 16%. *All of these drives effectively saturate SATA 3.0 making it near impossible to distinguish between them in day-to-day use. At current prices the 256GB 850 Pro is prohibitively expensive, prices need to drop by 15% before it approaches the 840 Pro from a value perspective. *Samsung may release a value orientated 850 Evo soon, but for now "most" users are better off with the 840 Pro.





> I am trying to sell my 770s in order to buy 2 powerful GPUs


For a single 2560x1440 monitor? I take it you are the 60FPS+ minimum kind of guy...


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> With respect, Id prefer hearing about it from a review site. You just said one thing, then balked. I think the link you posted says quite enough already on it honestly....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I get 2 news gpus I will definitely get one more monitor, I could order today 2 new gpus but who guarantees me that I will sell my 770s?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 2, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> If I get 2 news gpus I will definitely get one more monitor, I could order today 2 new gpus but who guarantees me that I will sell my 770s?


 
I can't guarrantee how long to sell your 770's but you WILL sell them.  Check out all the sold listings on ebay, over 500 of them worldwide.  Many people are sitting below that level and would LOVE that kind of upgrade!


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> For a single 2560x1440 monitor? I take it you are the 60FPS+ minimum kind of guy...


Asus PG278Q ROG is a 144hz display, it's not like it's limited by 60fps, however the gain is marginal (IMHO), I'll give you that.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

rtwjunkie said:


> I can't guarrantee how long to sell your 770's


that would not be the only problem, in addition to that there is the fact that my Graphics Cards are Watercooled and i paid 100€ per each Waterblock, no everybody likes to Watercool their components, whith that said i have to find who wants to 
buy the Graphics Cards with the Waterblock included.


----------



## GhostRyder (Dec 2, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> that would not be the only problem, in addition to that there is the fact that my Graphics Cards are Watercooled and i paid 100€ per each Waterblock, no everybody likes to Watercool their components, whith that said i have to find who wants to
> buy the Graphics Cards with the Waterblock included.


The only problem is with the recent price of the GTX 970, it kind of ruined the value of all video cards because of how low its priced.  You will likely be able to get 200 for the cards and up to 75 for the blocks each based on used prices I see which would at least get you going for a pair of 970's and then some waterblocks to go with them.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> which would at least get you going for a pair of 970's


i would skip the 970 and get a pair of EVGA GF GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 4GB DDR5 but as i said just if i sell the 770.


----------



## GhostRyder (Dec 2, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> i would skip the 970 and get a pair of EVGA GF GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 4GB DDR5 but as i said just if i sell the 770.


I would encourage you to wait personally overall because though you would get a nice performance bump its not going to be as much as I think would be worthwhile overall.  My advice would be to hold off until the next series and get one of those because at this point you are going to take a loss on the cards not matter what and the value already took its biggest leap.  The performance difference might feel nice at first but I think your cards have plenty of life left especially because they are 4gb models.  If you wait I am sure that around Q3 2015 there will be a new card (GTX 1080 or whatever they decide to name it) which you will really feel the difference in performance.  The 980 is not really that great a value right now and the performance is not much of a jump from the GTX 780ti overall and while it would be a decent step up from your GTX 770, I think it would be better for you to wait with your current setup (Heck maybe bump the clocks on your cards a bit).

That is just my opinion of course.

Also if nothing else I would say wait at least until February because the R9 390X will probably come out which could drive prices down or give you some more options.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 2, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> If you wait I am sure that around Q3 2015 there will be a new card (GTX 1080 or whatever they decide to name it


thanks a lot for the advice, i will wait untill the new GTX series.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 3, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> I would encourage you to wait personally overall because though you would get a nice performance bump its not going to be as much as I think would be worthwhile overall.  My advice would be to hold off until the next series and get one of those because at this point you are going to take a loss on the cards not matter what and the value already took its biggest leap.  The performance difference might feel nice at first but I think your cards have plenty of life left especially because they are 4gb models.  If you wait I am sure that around Q3 2015 there will be a new card (GTX 1080 or whatever they decide to name it) which you will really feel the difference in performance.  The 980 is not really that great a value right now and the performance is not much of a jump from the GTX 780ti overall and while it would be a decent step up from your GTX 770, I think it would be better for you to wait with your current setup (Heck maybe bump the clocks on your cards a bit).
> 
> That is just my opinion of course.
> 
> Also if nothing else I would say wait at least until February because the R9 390X will probably come out which could drive prices down or give you some more options.


If the rumor is correct, there might be a GTX Titan II on its way coming to market sometime during the first half of 2015.


----------



## GhostRyder (Dec 3, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> If the rumor is correct, there might be a GTX Titan II on its way coming to market sometime during the first half of 2015.


Probably but that is a poor choice to look forward to in my opinion as its probably going to cost upwards of 1K+, if your waiting on the fully unlock Maxwell chip that will not be outrageously priced then its not going to be until the end of Q3 2015.  Though it will be a good representation of where the performance will lie so you can make a good assumption of what your purchase will be in the future and how much of a difference it will make.  Most likely there will be a GTX 1080 (Something like that name but its unconfirmed, I hope its that name because that would be an awesome name) with 1 or 2 SMU's disabled that will performance around 10% less than the Titan II for like ~$700.


----------



## FireFox (Dec 3, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> Probably but that is a poor choice to look forward to in my opinion as its probably going to cost upwards of 1K+, if your waiting on the fully unlock Maxwell chip that will not be outrageously priced then its not going to be until the end of Q3 2015.  Though it will be a good representation of where the performance will lie so you can make a good assumption of what your purchase will be in the future and how much of a difference it will make.  Most likely there will be a GTX 1080 (Something like that name but its unconfirmed, I hope its that name because that would be an awesome name) with 1 or 2 SMU's disabled that will performance around 10% less than the Titan II for like ~$700.


Thanks once again, 
I have to be patient and that's why I won't upgrade my Machine until then.


----------

