# Samsung Rapid mode improves gaming performance?



## puma99dk| (Feb 13, 2016)

I been wondering about the above, that is if Samsung's Rapid mode really do give u any improvement in gaming performance at all?

Currently i am running a Intel SSD 530 480GB for gaming and wondering to get a 1TB just for being able to have more games installed on my SSD and than with the price of the EVO 850 being the best with performance and a solid drive would the Rapid mode be a boost or just waste of memory?

I have a EVO 840 250GB in my work laptop with Rapid mode enabled, but running normal desktop with all the programs and waterfox I can't say i feel it's faster then without.


----------



## Toothless (Feb 13, 2016)

no. it does nothing for performance


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 13, 2016)

It does help with performance - but that is with disk access performance. But once your program is loaded into RAM, disk access is rare. So this is not likely anything you will see - especially if you have a decent amount of RAM.


----------



## sttubs (Feb 15, 2016)

I did not notice any difference using rapid mode. But you can't perform backup of drive with rapid mode enabled though, maybe a 3rd party software might.


----------



## AsRock (Feb 15, 2016)

Nope, not a single bit. how ever the 850's are solid drives all the same.


----------



## puma99dk| (Feb 15, 2016)

AsRock said:


> Nope, not a single bit. how ever the 850's are solid drives all the same.



Ik they r solid otherwise i wouldn't use them 

but always good to get confirmed by a lot of ppl they r solid meaning that Samsung is doing their job of making good ssd's


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 15, 2016)

I have used Samsung 840 Pros and Evos and my latest builds have 850 Pros and Evos and I think they are great. Now, I don't have identical computers with different brand SSDs to do a side by side comparison, but frankly I don't care. My slowest SSD blows the socks off my fastest 10K drive. Any difference is SSDs is nothing my mind can see - except on paper and in benchmarking programs and they are artificial anyway.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 16, 2016)

Once you've upgraded to _any_ decent SSD that doesn't have a semi-broken controller or doesn't run over a semi-broken controller (OCZ and Marvell, I'm looking at you) any further performance gains will only show in server/workstation/heavy applications or specific workloads with extreme amounts of constant disk access, which are extremely rare in a regular consumer environment.

Games will load faster, generally, but streaming data in-game is always loaded from RAM so it's a non issue beyond loading a level or map.
Applications will start faster, but in-app performance is loaded from RAM, same deal

I could go on... but you get the point. SSD's only affect boot & loading times, and uncached items that are requested from disk.


----------



## puma99dk| (Feb 16, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> Once you've upgraded to _any_ decent SSD that doesn't have a semi-broken controller or doesn't run over a semi-broken controller (OCZ and Marvell, I'm looking at you) any further performance gains will only show in server/workstation/heavy applications or specific workloads with extreme amounts of constant disk access, which are extremely rare in a regular consumer environment.
> 
> Games will load faster, generally, but streaming data in-game is always loaded from RAM so it's a non issue beyond loading a level or map.
> Applications will start faster, but in-app performance is loaded from RAM, same deal
> ...



I already have a SSD just for gaming, was just wondering about this topic game to mind.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 16, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> I could go on... but you get the point. SSD's only affect boot & loading times, and uncached items that are requested from disk.


This is true - except, SSDs also consume less power, take up less space (thus less impact on desired air flow), generate less heat, don't make any noise and have longer life expectancies too. This longer life and lower energy costs off-set, to a great extent, their initial higher purchase costs.

But really, I think to say, "_SSDs _only _affect boot and loading times, and uncached items that are requested from the disk_" is really minimizing their advantage. Boot times generally are _greatly_ reduced - something you will appreciate every time you sit down at your computer. Plus waking from sleep mode is even more pronounced. I note when I press a key to wake my computer, the greater delay is waiting for my monitors to finish waking - and they are pretty quick too.

Also, SSDs and page files are ideal for each other and regardless how much RAM you have installed, you should still have a page file. Those who say otherwise have never been able to produce a study, white paper, or review that recommends disabling the PF. It is just NOT true that performance improves by disabling the PF when you have lots of RAM installed.

So Windows always likes to see a Page File and after more than 20 years of fine tuning (since W95), Microsoft has it down pat (contrary to what some may want us to believe). Modern Windows will use the page file to temporarily stuff lessor priority "pages" of data into this portion of your "virtual memory" and does so very efficiently. For this reason, unless you really truly are a bona fide expert in virtual memory utilization, it is best to just let Windows manage it dynamically (dynamically because this is NOT a set and forget setting - contrary to what some may think too).

Also, the pages of data stuffed into the PF is "cached" data and cached data is "open" pages of data ready for immediate use.  So having the PF on your SSD will also improve fetching that "cached" data compared to data cached on a slow hard drive based Page File. This is in addition to much faster fetching times for the other "uncached" data ("closed" files) Vayra86 mentioned. Note it takes extra time for "closed" files to be read into and "opened" into memory, and marked as open in the disks file tables.

Frankly, except for very tight budgets, I see no reason to use HDs anymore - except, _maybe _for mass storage of my digitized collection of my 600+ music CDs, and in my backup storage server (at least until I am ready to replace that too).


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 16, 2016)

Doesn't RAPID mode use both, RAM and a single NAND cells to make such fast writes? Multi-cell NAND is treated as single cell. Losing some of the capacity in favor of speed because writing single cell is faster than fiddling with all 3 cells.

More info:
http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...ment/Samsung_SSD_Rapid_Mode_Whitepaper_EN.pdf

EDIT:
Ok, that's TurboWrite, though it works with RAPID mode together anyway.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 16, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> This is true - except, SSDs also consume less power, take up less space (thus less impact on desired air flow), generate less heat, don't make any noise and have longer life expectancies too. This longer life and lower energy costs off-set, to a great extent, their initial higher purchase costs.
> 
> But really, I think to say, "_SSDs _only _affect boot and loading times, and uncached items that are requested from the disk_" is really minimizing their advantage. Boot times generally are _greatly_ reduced - something you will appreciate every time you sit down at your computer. Plus waking from sleep mode is even more pronounced. I note when I press a key to wake my computer, the greater delay is waiting for my monitors to finish waking - and they are pretty quick too.
> 
> ...



I would be very interested in an in-depth testing to see how page file use impacts system responsiveness  / application responsiveness with HDD versus SSD. I doubt there is much of a difference since, as you say, fetching already happens as much as possible without impacting user experience because that is how the page file works.

Either way the expected return on using RAPID mode for this purpose I think is non-existant.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 16, 2016)

RAPID uses system ram, honestly I seen no difference in gaming performance, so Id say save the ram for other tasks than RAPID


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 16, 2016)

Disk speed never affected game performance. Only games that may be affected are games where level data is streamed as you go and may be experienced as stuttering because HDD is struggling to keep up with data requests. For the rest, games preload all data into RAM anyway. So effectively, you only get longer level loads and nothing else.


----------



## Jborg (Feb 16, 2016)

Your games will load faster, that's about it. A good example is loading a BF4 MP game, on an HDD it took about 35-40 seconds, on an SSD it takes about 7-10 seconds. I have 2 Samsung SSDs but have never messed around with the rapid mode.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 16, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> I would be very interested in an in-depth testing to see how page file use impacts system responsiveness / application responsiveness with HDD versus SSD. I doubt there is much of a difference since, as you say, fetching already happens as much as possible without impacting user experience because that is how the page file works.


I don't see why you think there would be little difference. I bet there is a HUGE difference - especially with systems with low amounts of RAM. Of course it would depend on the scenario used for testing but to me, it only makes sense for scenarios that hit the PF often for performance to be better when using a SSD for your PF. In scenarios where little PF activity is used, then the difference would be marginal.

But the fact of the matter is, in either case, those would be artificial scenarios and since the vast majority of users use their computers for a variety of tasks, not sure any testing environment would be realistic. But regardless, I know of no one who does not accept that any disk activity is faster with SSDs (whether "noticeable" or not). Again, even the slowest SSD is significantly faster than the fastest 10K hybrid HDs in seek, access and data transfer times - plus they don't suffer from degraded performance due to fragmentation issues either.

One interesting read about SSDs being ideally suited for Page Files is, SSD FAQs, Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs? (scroll down to 10th FAQ).



> Disk speed never affected game performance.


Never say never as absolutes are "always" () wrong! I agree that disk speed rarely plays a role in game performance but again, there are too many variables to make such a blanket statement. Not all games are the same, nor are all computers. There are still some computers out there being used for games that have tiny dual core CPUs and just 2GB of RAM with 5400RPM hard disks with only 8MB of on-board buffer. On some games, disk speed may cause lags and jerkiness.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2016)

Makes no difference. If you want more performance get another solid state and use raid.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 16, 2016)

Jborg said:


> Your games will load faster, that's about it.


If talking ONLY about your game (assuming adequate CPU, RAM and graphics resources), then this is true. But an SSD offers many more advantages than just loading a game to say, "_that's about it_" or "_makes no difference_". If you don't believe that, then I think you (1) either have too little experience with a "full" SSD system or (2) you have been using only SSDs for so long, you forgot how slow hard drives affect MANY aspects of computing. In the case of (2), I recommend you replace your SSDs with HDs and be prepared to be disenchanted.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> If talking ONLY about your game (assuming adequate CPU, RAM and graphics resources), then this is true. But an SSD offers many more advantages than just loading a game to say, "_that's about it_" or "_makes no difference_". If you don't believe that, then I think you (1) either have too little experience with a "full" SSD system or (2) you have been using only SSDs for so long, you forgot how slow hard drives affect MANY aspects of computing. In the case of (2), I recommend you replace your SSDs with HDs and be prepared to be disenchanted.



I believe he is referring to gaming only. Which he is correct it will only affect load times, not FPS.


----------



## qubit (Feb 16, 2016)

@puma99dk| I'll chip in and also say that it will only (potentially) improve load and save times, but not framerate.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 16, 2016)

cdawall said:


> I believe he is referring to gaming only. Which he is correct it will only affect load times, not FPS.


Thanks and I agree about FPS not being affected (again, assuming adequate CPU, RAM and graphics resources). But unless a person uses their computer ONLY for gaming and NOTHING else at all, then IMO, marginalizing the advantages of SSDs with such a narrow, single descriptor is doing SSDs a grave injustice.

There are a dozen or so pros for going with SSDs and AFAIK, only one con (for now) and that is $/GB. But those costs keep coming down rapidly.


----------



## Jborg (Feb 16, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> Thanks and I agree about FPS not being affected (again, assuming adequate CPU, RAM and graphics resources). But unless a person uses their computer ONLY for gaming and NOTHING else at all, then IMO, marginalizing the advantages of SSDs with such a narrow, single descriptor is doing SSDs a grave injustice.
> 
> There are a dozen or so pros for going with SSDs and AFAIK, only one con (for now) and that is $/GB. But those costs keep coming down rapidly.



Agreed completely. Was just responding directly to the thread title


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 17, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> I don't see why you think there would be little difference. I bet there is a HUGE difference - especially with systems with low amounts of RAM. Of course it would depend on the scenario used for testing but to me, it only makes sense for scenarios that hit the PF often for performance to be better when using a SSD for your PF. In scenarios where little PF activity is used, then the difference would be marginal.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is, in either case, those would be artificial scenarios and since the vast majority of users use their computers for a variety of tasks, not sure any testing environment would be realistic. But regardless, I know of no one who does not accept that any disk activity is faster with SSDs (whether "noticeable" or not). Again, even the slowest SSD is significantly faster than the fastest 10K hybrid HDs in seek, access and data transfer times - plus they don't suffer from degraded performance due to fragmentation issues either.
> 
> ...



You're right, on systems hungry for resources, the results may well be very different and no testing scenario really is realistic. But the point I was referring to was more in terms of this thread as well; on this forum people seem to have a tendency to over-think the effects of every setting and every new part that comes out. I understand this, because we all want to maximize performance, but very often the point is totally missed. As with SSD's, their use for gaming is limited and there is another thread up right now about NVME and why it won't take off - PC markets are in decline, saturated etc. The only reason for thát, is that the performance level we have reached now for the masses, is *'sufficient' *and these little SSD debates kind of end there for most people. This goes for many other things as well, Windows is a good example. It works without any real interruptions, so people want it to keep working and stay the same.

*edit: this is also why we see all these new 'great revolutionary' technologies come out these days like VR, 3D, 4K, HDR and new REC specifications and all the little goodies that came to gaming the past few years. The market needs new toys to stay alive. I know a group of consumers is eager for something new but I think a lot of these things won't be large successes.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 17, 2016)

"Also, SSDs and page files are ideal for each other and regardless how much RAM you have installed, you should still have a page file. Those who say otherwise have never been able to produce a study, white paper, or review that recommends disabling the PF. It is just NOT true that performance improves by disabling the PF when you have lots of RAM installed."

hello again bill.. 

i havnt and aint going to write a white paper on windows and its swapfile.. and apart from saving disk space there isnt much to gain from turning it off.. this is for one simple reason.. given enough real ram windows never ever uses it.. he he..

for the last ten years or so i have run with the windows pagefile disabled.. my reasons are twofold.. first to prove my point many years ago and second to save disk space on my always small operating system drive or partition.. i keep it small for easy back ups..

so bill when you say windows uses and needs a swapfile you are quite simply wrong.. given enough ram windows does not need or use its swapfile.. and believe it or not it never does..

all you have to do is to simply disable your own and you will find out.. i currently have 32 gigs of ram but for quite a few years i ran win XP with no swap file and only 4 gigs of ram..

you are not on your own believing what you do that windows does need its swapfile.. much is written saying it does.. most of it is copy and paste mythology dating from the distant past..

one other thing.. windows 10 is very very protective as regards what it lets people do.. ask yourself a simple question.. if windows really does need an active swapfile.. why does it include the option to disable it..

my system is all solid state.. it has everything going for it except the price.. but all it really does in a practical sense is speed up boot and loading times.. it does speed up large game loading times a fair bit.. with other smaller files it dosnt make much difference..

i would like to have more ram.. enough to use a ram drive and pre-load a 40 gig game install directly into it.. i do have some software called dimm drive set up to do this but dont have enough ram.. you really need 64 gig.. my 32 gig is enough for smaller games but not the important ones..

i could ask you another simple question.. why would i say (given enough ram) windows dosnt need its swapfile unless i know for sure that what i am saying is true.. do you think i am too stupid to know.. he he he

no need to answer my last question bill.. you quite clearly do.. he he

trog


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 17, 2016)

rapid mode is  a glorified ram disk 
it does exactly nothing


----------



## johnspack (Feb 17, 2016)

I love rapidmode,  it does help my 850,  but no,  it will not make games run faster........  you use an ssd to speed up your os or boot from it,  that's it.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 17, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> As with SSD's, their use for gaming is limited



The problem I see with that goes back to what you were saying about users over thinking things. Except maybe a joystick or similar "game controller", no major computer component is just for gaming. Or just for Internet browsing, or just graphics editing. Major components (RAM, drives, motherboards, graphics) are for "overall" computer performance and any one can be a bottleneck, depending on the task(s) being performed at the time. So in other words, you don't buy a SSD just to improve gaming. You buy a SSD to improve over all computer performance.



trog100 said:


> and apart from saving disk space there isnt much to gain from turning it off.. this is for one simple reason.. given enough real ram windows never ever uses it.. he he..


Two things. For one, it really is not much disk space anyway. For example, I have 16Gb installed and my Windows 10 managed page file is currently allocated at just 2432MB. But if you have a tiny boot disk or partition and event that 2.4GB is a squeeze, you can always move the Page File to a larger drive or partition.

But for another, you are incorrect when you say Windows never uses it. Regardless how much RAM you have, Windows will always use the PF if there. This is easy to verify yourself in Task Manager. For me right now, with 16GB RAM installed, I have 18.3GB committed and 650MB in the "Paged pool" (PF). 





trog100 said:


> .. do you think i am too stupid to know.. he he he


No. I just think you are ill-informed and you've been misguided. And I think you believe what was right for XP is still right for modern Windows. That too is incorrect. And I don't believe you are smarter than the experts at Microsoft. I know I'm not.

I ask again - show any study to support disabling the PF is a good thing to do. You can't - because there aren't any. Even Mark Russinovich, arguably the most authoritative expert when it comes to memory management, who does show how to properly manually manage the PF, does not recommend disabling it.



trog100 said:


> one other thing.. windows 10 is very very protective as regards what it lets people do.. ask yourself a simple question.. if windows really does need an active swapfile.. why does it include the option to disable it..


That's easy. Because it allows users of small boot drives to move it to larger drives. And also, you are implying disabling the PF would break Windows - nobody said that. I said (or meant to if I didn't) that Windows needs a PF to work optimally.

Your basic rationalization for patting yourself on the back is claiming disabling your PF didn't break your machine, therefore it must be the best thing to do.


----------



## AsRock (Feb 17, 2016)

Noticed they have a Win10 version out now so i thought i try it, well i checked the firmware it said it was up to date but i checked were you go to get the firmware and their was one available so updated.  

It shutdown the system and all that i enabled rapid mode and it's giving memory management issue's so re disabled that and every things been fine once again.

Did a memtest no issue's, just glad i did not enable it before updating the firmware, that could of been bad.


----------



## GpuManiac1000 (Aug 27, 2016)

Yes, fast SSD will improve gaming. Windows need page file, you can disable it, but windows will still use it. Example: GTA 5. It will still use 10GB and more even if you disable it in windows.  I have 32GB ram and i have 50GB of virtual memory on SSD (850 Evo). Also, Nvidia use shader cache to increase performance so definitely, Samsung rapid mode increases performance even more. Less stuttering and smoother game experience.


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 27, 2016)

GpuManiac1000 said:


> Yes, fast SSD will improve gaming. Windows need page file, you can disable it, but windows will still use it. Example: GTA 5. It will still use 10GB and more even if you disable it in windows.  I have 32GB ram and i have 50GB of virtual memory on SSD (850 Evo). Also, Nvidia use shader cache to increase performance so definitely, Samsung rapid mode increases performance even more. Less stuttering and smoother game experience.



Personally I don't really disable my pagefile bcs some microsoft programs still want to use it and can crash if they don't have access to it.

I just use a 850 EVO 1TB for my games and it runs great.


----------



## INSTG8R (Aug 27, 2016)

I wouldn't know I have 2 500GB 850 EVO's in RAID 0 so I can't use Rapid Mode but the speeds I get from being in RAID would more than make up for any supposed gains from it. Only downside of that is if there is a firmware update I will have a problem. As Bill mentioned I have 16GB of RAM and my PF is a paltry 2432MB which I have no issues keeping on my array for whatever may need or want it.


----------



## GpuManiac1000 (Aug 27, 2016)

Yes, i have page file enabled. As i wrote, i have 51200MB initial and max paging file size + Samsung Rapid mode.


----------



## Kamikaze-X (Aug 31, 2016)

I once tried rapid mode over a few weeks to see if there were any real benefits. Any benefit I saw was outweighed by massively slowed down shut down as the content of the RAM needs to be written back to the disk. 

Startup was slowed down a lot too, but not as drastically as shutdown was affected.


----------



## GpuManiac1000 (Sep 3, 2016)

Kamikaze-x, something is wrong with ur system.


----------



## Kamikaze-X (Sep 5, 2016)

GpuManiac1000 said:


> Kamikaze-x, something is wrong with ur system.


No, there isn't. The more ram you have, the bigger the size of the ramdisk that rapid mode uses. When you shut down it writes (in my case 4gb) the ramdisk image back to the disk which delays shutdown,  and startup is slower as it has to read the image from the disk and load it into ram.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 5, 2016)

Kamikaze-X said:


> The more ram you have, the bigger the size of the ramdisk that rapid mode uses.


That's not how it works. First, it is "RAPID" in all uppercase because it is an acronym that stands for "*R*eal-time *A*ccelerated *P*rocessing of *I*/O *D*ata".

Second, RAPID mode consumes at most 25% of the installed DRAM, *up to a maximum of 1GB*, but will scale down resource usage and eventually revert to a pass-through mode if the CPU core(s) or DRAM is occupied with other system tasks.

Source: Samsung White Paper, RAPID mode.

I will also note that the reviews I have read showed some performance gains, but also some performance losses with RAPID mode enabled. And more importantly (to me anyway), the gains were typically noted in synthesized benchmark testing but were not "_perceived_" in real world use.


----------



## 95Viper (Sep 5, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> Second, RAPID mode consumes at most 25% of the installed DRAM, *up to a maximum of 1GB*



They have changed it when they went from version 1 to version 2, around 2014 (The whitepaper you have linked to was 2013).


Quote from article at The Tech Report:


> RAPID mode debuted alongside the 840 EVO before migrating to the 840 Pro. The cache size has been capped at 1GB, but the latest revision introduces a 4GB option for systems with 16GB of RAM.



Quote from article at AnadTech:


> The 1.0 version of RAPID supported up to 1GB of DRAM (or up to 25% if you had less than 4GB of RAM) but the 2.0 version increases the RAM allocation to up to 4GB if you have 16GB of RAM or more. There is still the same 25% limit, meaning that RAPID will not use 4GB of your RAM if you only have 8GB installed in your system.


----------



## Kamikaze-X (Sep 5, 2016)

thanks 95Viper. 

I have extensive experience with software ramdisks, the issue has always been backing up and restoring data from the non-volatile storage. that will always be the bottleneck.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 5, 2016)

Thanks for that but that 4GB limit is an option. 1GB max is still the default unless the user changes it - if I understand it correctly. But the point I was trying to make is still valid - the size is still limited. It does not keep increasing as you add more RAM.


----------



## GpuManiac1000 (Sep 6, 2016)

So Kamikaze-x, do the math. You need more RAM. 16GB RAM is not enough for modern system+Rapid mode.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 6, 2016)

2GB RAM is required, 4GB is recommended for Rapid Mode. Says so in the panel. I'm using it since day 1 and it's fine. No data loss even when system crashed or locked up during OC testing.


----------



## GpuManiac1000 (Sep 6, 2016)

Yes, for testing and easy gaming is enough, but when you need a lot of RAM (example: GTA 5 uses up to 10GB + Windows 2GB + Rapid 4Gb) than you can be in troubles. Some games use even more RAM + Page file. And fast page file in RAPID is also imporatnt for smooth gaming.


----------



## d265f2785 (Oct 12, 2016)

Idk about how much Windows needs a swap file and how intelligent it is in it's use. I've ran systems with and without it and both were stable (of course all had enough ram). These days with ssd/hdd space being as cheap as it is I'll give every machine at least 1GB of swap just in case, although I've never seen it prefer using swap over real ram.

With linux I would recommend using a dm_crypt encrypted swap with a random key each boot partition + zswap with z3fold and lz4 compression. Lz4 is faster than your cpu/ram so using it will make reading pages from a ssd/hdd faster with no noticable cpu impact, zswap will compress the pages ready for swapping using lz4 (not sure if they are compressed immediately once the computer decides they can be swapped out or just before, and z3fold will let up to 3 compressed pages be written into the space of one uncompressed (the default, zbud, allows for two). Encrypted because all sorts of things can get swapped out including sensitive data you'd prefer not be written on a ssd/hdd in clear text. If you have a cpu with aes-ni, this is also effectively free as the compression/decompression speeds are a few gb+. Configure the kernel right and you'll either get a low latency desktop or a high trough put server or something in between. If you are a desktop user you probably want the first option + a few power saving options that are bad for bot latency and throughput, but good for your ears and power bill.

As for rapid... well I can't see it improving your fps, it might potentially give better read speeds (although I'm doubtful since Windows has gotten pretty smart with it's read caches), but the biggest potential gain I can see is in write performance since it could cache writes in ram combine them in the most optimal way and then write them. Windows can do this too, but imo rapid is smarter at it. This does have a bad side. If you don't have some sort of backup power write caching can be dangerous since a power loss = loss of the cache.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 19, 2016)

I think rapid is only beneficial to servers.

I don't waste time as it slows dont restarts and shutdowns/bootups.

PS 4096MB paging/swap is only a suggestion. I have mine at 8192MB (probably could shrink it because i have 16GB ram.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 19, 2016)

I have my pagefile set to 16MB so I can still have the benefits of crash debugging via minidumps if system crashes, but don't have a massive file sitting on my drive for no reason (I have 32GB of RAM so pagefile really isn't needed).


----------



## Ancientgamer. (Dec 10, 2016)

I can only speak for myself, but Doom 2016 reloads, after death, in a tenth the time after enabling rapid mode on my 850 evo. Obviously the game cache is sitting in my 32 meg of ddr4 ram. Don't believe ? Just try it. I believe this will work for any game reload.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 10, 2016)

The topic of this thread is about game "performance". While faster game loads are nice, it's all about performance once loaded - and of course, system stability.

The problem with RAPID mode is it takes up space in RAM the OS could otherwise use. So OS boot times actually suffer. And frankly, I would rather my computer be ready for me first.

Of course, depending on your normal computing habits, YMMV - assuming any mileages differences are really perceptible and not just wishful thinking or the placebo effect.

BTW, it is "*R*eal-time *A*ccelerated *P*rocessing of *I*/O *D*ata" so all caps for the acronym, "RAPID" is appropriate.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 10, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> The topic of this thread is about game "performance". While faster game loads are nice, it's all about performance once loaded - and of course, system stability.
> 
> The problem with RAPID mode is it takes up space in RAM the OS could otherwise use. So OS boot times actually suffer. And frankly, I would rather my computer be ready for me first.
> 
> ...



OS lag will only happen when the OS is ram limited, not likely much if any of an issue with the 32-64GB setups people run.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 10, 2016)

I did not say anything about OS "lag". Ancientgamer was talking about game "loads" and I was talking about the OS "loading". Totally different from lags.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 10, 2016)

OS load time shouldn't be affected by a program that loads after OS startup.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 10, 2016)

I should have been more clear. It loads when Windows starts and according to some reviews, that can result in minor delays before Windows is fully ready.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 10, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> I should have been more clear. It loads when Windows starts and according to some reviews, that can result in minor delays before Windows is fully ready.



Measurable?


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 10, 2016)

That's the point, isn't it? If RAPID mode provided noticeable (I don't care about "measurable" - I have to "see" it for it to be meaningful for me) for my favorite programs without degrading other aspects of my computing experience, then I would be all for it. But frankly, I see it as middle man between me and what I want to do. And generally middlemen take more than they give.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 10, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> That's the point, isn't it? If RAPID mode provided noticeable (I don't care about "measurable" - I have to "see" it for it to be meaningful for me) for my favorite programs without degrading other aspects of my computing experience, then I would be all for it. But frankly, I see it as middle man between me and what I want to do. And generally middlemen take more than they give.



If it was noticeable it would be measurable, if it isn't measurable it isn't a real thing.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 10, 2016)

cdawall said:


> If it was noticeable it would be measurable


Yes, but many things big enough to be measureable are too small to notice or be seen. This is why many benchmark programs and stats are pointless. If you can only see it on paper, is it worth it - except for bragging rights? Not to me.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 10, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> Yes, but many things big enough to be measureable are too small to notice or be seen. This is why many benchmark programs and stats are pointless. If you can only see it on paper, is it worth it - except for bragging rights? Not to me.



Loading times are measurable and some times substantially different.


----------



## Jetster (Dec 10, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> Yes, but many things big enough to be measureable are too small to notice or be seen. This is why many benchmark programs and stats are pointless. If you can only see it on paper, is it worth it - except for bragging rights? Not to me.



Benchmarks are helpful to elevate the "feels faster" effect as none of us are completely objective. Sometimes its baby steps that lead to big performance breakthroughs. As far as rapid mode? Pointless IMO


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 11, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Loading times are measurable and some times substantially different.


Again, measurable does not always equate to noticeable. And many times, NOT substantially different. The difference is often measured in milliseconds - clearly measurable, but hardly noticeable, if noticeable at all.



Jetster said:


> Benchmarks are helpful to elevate the "feels faster" effect


 "Feels" faster. That's funny. When I'm going 70MPH in my truck, it "feels" faster than 70MPH in my car. But guess what? I get to my destination in exactly the same amount of time.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 11, 2016)

GpuManiac1000 said:


> I have 32GB ram and i have 50GB of virtual memory on SSD (850 Evo)


50GB of wasted space right there... Just leave it on auto, Windows knows better how much it needs.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 11, 2016)

I use the NEW updated software and I see a nice bump in performance 

The older software sucked bag but the latest is nice and works well imho


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 11, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> 50GB of wasted space right there... Just leave it on auto, Windows knows better how much it needs.



With 32GB RAM it needs exactly 16MB which is the recommended minimum.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 11, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> Again, measurable does not always equate to noticeable. And many times, NOT substantially different. The difference is often measured in milliseconds - clearly measurable, but hardly noticeable, if noticeable at all.



You play fallout? It makes a noticeable measurable difference on the constant loading screens. Quite a few games it helps with. Things it doesn't affect at all, boot up time. You know your argument against it.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 11, 2016)

cdawall said:


> You play fallout?


So what? You just cherry pick specific examples trying to justify whatever position you are taking at the moment as though it makes it absolute; that it applies to every program and every person in every scenario. Bull feathers! Have you gone back to the beginning of this nearly year old thread and read where other gamers noticed no difference?

It is clear all you want to do is argue - flip-flopping just to keep argueing.  You failed to rationalize your claim that "measurable" and "noticeable" are the same thing, so now you try use "noticeable measureable". That is either just silly or pathetic, or both. 

I have said throughout this thread, it depends on your normal computing habits, how much RAM you have to begin with, and YMMV. To use your "absolute" argument, it made no difference with my 69 page 23,344 Word document.  Therefore, your position is null and void.  

I never - as in NEVER EVER said it didn't work.

If it works for you great! But don't assume it works for everyone, or that your position is what everyone must follow. But when it comes to your position, you don't even know what it is.

Here's how silly/pathetic your flip-flopping argumentative way is; a demonstration showing all you want to do is argue. From your post #62, you just said, 





cdawall said:


> It makes a noticeable measurable difference on the constant loading screens. Quite a few games it helps with.


Yet in your own words from your first post in this thread in post #17 YOU answered the OP's question, '_does Samsung's RAPID mode improve gaming performance?'_, and you said, 





cdawall said:


> Makes no difference. If you want more performance get another solid state and use raid.



There's no point in further discussion for we can see whatever it is, you will oppose it. Good day.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 11, 2016)

I tested it myself against a set of ssd's in raid, am I not allowed to change my opinion after testing? I had used it in the past, and it made no difference the latest iteration of the software is actually pretty awesome.

And I did cherry pick a specific example based off of a game I am currently playing. What more real world instances would you want than programs actively being used?


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 11, 2016)

You are still arguing just for the sake of arguing! Once again, I have NEVER EVER said it didn't work!

So I give and you win! Obviously everybody in the whole wide world and everyone (but me, apparently) on TPU are avid Fall Out players with hardware specs the same as you. Therefore, everyone should enable RAPID mode to not only "measure", but clearly "notice" improved performance. There! Happy now? 

End of discussion.


----------



## Jetster (Dec 11, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> Again, measurable does not always equate to noticeable. And many times, NOT substantially different. The difference is often measured in milliseconds - clearly measurable, but hardly noticeable, if noticeable at all.
> 
> "Feels" faster. That's funny. When I'm going 70MPH in my truck, it "feels" faster than 70MPH in my car. But guess what? I get to my destination in exactly the same amount of time.



So the clock would be a benchmark and measurable


----------



## cdawall (Dec 11, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> You are still arguing just for the sake of arguing! Once again, I have NEVER EVER said it didn't work!
> 
> So I give and you win! Obviously everybody in the whole wide world and everyone (but me, apparently) on TPU are avid Fall Out players with hardware specs the same as you. Therefore, everyone should enable RAPID mode to not only "measure", but clearly "notice" improved performance. There! Happy now?
> 
> End of discussion.



So what part of what I said is wrong? Steam averages 20k players of FA4 on steam pc alone I'm sure hardware is all over the place, but seeing how >90% of all SSD's sold are Samsung I bet quite a few of them are using this program. More than one person on this thread has commented that it helps game screen loading time. Not all of us are crotchety old men who patiently wait for loading screens like you. Instead of claiming the program hurts performance try it out for yourself? I'm glad I did. Free performance is free performance and a rare gem in this world.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 11, 2016)

Jetster said:


> So the clock would be a benchmark and measurable


Because you didn't use any punctuation, I don't know if that is a statement, or a question. And I don't know what you mean by "clock" here but if you mean time, then of course, time is measureable.

But "measurable" does not mean it is "noticeable". Are you going to notice if Fall Out (since clearly you play that too! ) loads 300ms faster? That's just 3/10ths of 1 second. What about 100ms?

If it works for you, fine. Use it. But if you don't "notice" any real (not imagined) differences on the programs you use most, I say you don't need yet another program running in the middle. Especially with Windows 10, which knows how to use SSDs just fine.


----------



## Jetster (Dec 11, 2016)

I was just pointing out that benchmarks have there place. Obviously not in this case.


----------



## ithehappy (Dec 11, 2016)

I have never used it, just keep it installed that's all. The moment I saw that it uses RAM to give you performance boost I was over with it. Let alone using RAPID mode, I haven't even used that OS Optimise thingy (does that one work?). Also the version I have installed, 4.9.7, has some bug where it can't find my SATA Interface and AHCI shows as Disabled, LOL! I don't know if there is a newer version which fixes that.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 11, 2016)

I sure am not suggesting Samsung SSDs users never use it. But I am saying your mileage may vary. So give it try. But understand the desire for humans to see good where it does not exist is strong - to a fault. So if you see any improvement, make sure it is real and not wishful thinking or just the placebo effect.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 12, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> I sure am not suggesting Samsung SSDs users never use it. But I am saying your mileage may vary. So give it try. But understand the desire for humans to see good where it does not exist is strong - to a fault. So if you see any improvement, make sure it is real and not wishful thinking or just wishful thinking.



It is about even with my NVMe in loading times using an old 845DC


----------



## gottistar (Dec 12, 2016)

lol, at the answers....

.....its does.....it doesnt......it does.....it doesnt

I say it makes no diff, if it does , it will very very marginal.


----------



## cat1092 (Feb 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> It is about even with my NVMe in loading times using an old 845DC



My 512GB Samsung 950 PRO NVMe blows the windows clean off of my 850 Samsung Pro of the same size (I have several Samsung 840-850 series SSD's), regardless of what I do, on Windows 10 Pro or Linux Mint 17.1. RAPID is disabled for that model, it's not needed, as the near 2,600MB/sec & 1,500+MB/sec writes are *real* & *not *enhanced by software gimmicks. Yet some fools still believes that their Samsung 250GB EVO with RAPID enabled is still faster than a true NVMe SSD (& not the SATA-3 ones). NVMe SSD's are still kind of new to Windows users & market share is growing, for Linux users, these has out out of the box support since 2012, around the time of two OS's that are approaching EOL (Linux Mint 13 & Ubuntu 12.04 LTS).

Whether gaming, general usage, home office or even a server or heavy Workstation use (some of these applies to the 850 Pro also), the EVO's or anything with RAPID is chicken change when compared to a true NVMe SSD. The 960 PRO takes things to another level, which not only kicked the 256GB model to the curb, Samsung also began offering an EVO SSD for these drives, and these doesn't include (nor need) RAPID.

I'll be honest here, the only difference that I could actually feel with RAPID, was on SATA-2 hardware, where these drives gave the system(s) a much needed boost, yet there's some computers that'll still run kind of buggy with the software, including the one I'm now on. The Optiplex 780 is no pushover, runs Windows 10 like a champ, on a CPU predated the 'i' series, and the best of the business/consumer editions of the Intel Core 2 Quad. Of course there were/are still enthusiast editions that uses a lot more power (130W), way too much for this DT edition of the Optiplex 780 series (mid-choice). Even has a 1GB GDDR5 (UEFI approved) GPU that was transplanted from my XPS 8700, which has been gutted of it's CPU for a 2nd build, where the 512GB Samsung 850 Pro resides. I purchased this PC, which included the Q9650 & Windows 7 Pro (now W10 Pro) for just a bit more than the CPU alone sells for on eBay if from an original owner.

http://speccy.piriform.com/results/Z7HZTfUBSYlX2VexNcECoYx

Yet the specs to my sweetness, all built my my two hands & some specs won't be shown, such as the Fractal Design R5, EVGA Supernova G2 650, Noctua NH-D15 & more is in the below link, where my Samsung 950 PRO is installed. It's going to be later moved to a Intel 6 core build to have more PCIe lanes, plus nearly 2x the L3 cache of the CPU, or may simply purchase a 500GB 960 PRO, depending on funding.

http://speccy.piriform.com/results/gVBJx7ivpIeeuq7ZKUzXZEJ

Have fun gaming with RAPID!

Cat


----------



## mcraygsx (Feb 5, 2017)

Besides synthetic Benchmark and while movies documents, I cant find usefulness of RAPID.

RAPID Disabled.






RAPID Enabled


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 5, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Besides synthetic Benchmark and while movies documents, I cant find usefulness of RAPID.
> 
> RAPID Disabled.
> 
> ...



Memory waster


----------



## GpuManiac1000 (Feb 5, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> Memory waster



If u have only 16GB of memory, than it is.


----------



## cat1092 (Feb 5, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> Memory waster



Sure is, and on some systems, these will start acting unstable, running perfectly fine until the RAPID service is enabled, which includes a driver (why the required reboot) added. Since it doesn't 'kick in' for about 45 seconds, it's not supposed to affect boot, and when I had it enabled, if it did affect shutdown, I didn't notice any extra time.

The two computers it caused issues with me on was a Dell XPS 8700, maxed out with 32GB RAM installed & the Core 2 Quad system linked on the prior page with 16GB, also maxed (both were running the previous version of Samsung Magician), so there must be driver conflicts with some computers.
A memory hog, it is, that could be put to use performing needed/wanted tasks.

Cat


----------



## GpuManiac1000 (Feb 5, 2017)

Something is wrong with your system. Reinstall from scratch and upgrade to 2400 ram, your 1600 ram clearly bottleneck whole system.


----------



## cat1092 (Feb 5, 2017)

I intend on upgrading to 2133-2400 RAM at some point (would be a waste of cash to purchase 1866 RAM), my system as listed in in the link at my avatar has a NVMe SSD & RAPID is not possible, it's running fantastic.

My 2nd self-build (ASRock Z97 Extreme6), the one I'm now on, is the one with the 512GB Samsung 850 Pro, which can also take a RAM upgrade, runs fine w/out RAPID, only used Magician to tune the system.

http://speccy.piriform.com/results/h1D4Iu1IKppipDIsgY8rMxM 

Chances are, I'll not likely upgrade the RAM on this one, as the CPU is locked (i7-4770) & that may negate any RAM upgrade, though may do as you stated, a fresh slate with a NVMe SSD, have other upgrades to complete first, in particular, a 24-28" 4K UHD monitor with GSync. While some says it's overkill for my usage, that's what makes the GTX 1070 look good, and the GTX 1060 in this one will also benefit, as far as watching Netflix or YouTube videos goes. Some folks tens to forget that just over a year back, had the GTX 1060 been available, would had slapped most all of the 9 series cards around, other than the Titan & the 980 Ti.

While I have the Steam client installed to use a free game bundle with the GTX 1060, I rarely use it, other than to benchmark the GPU, along with Heaven's Benchmark.

Cat


----------



## cdawall (Feb 5, 2017)

cat1092 said:


> Have fun gaming with RAPID!



Even my htpc has an nvme drive...


----------



## mcraygsx (Feb 5, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> Memory waster



Right, its no match for the pure performance offered by NVME e.g. Samsung 960 m.2.


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 5, 2017)

NVMe's only have an edge where you need massive sequential speeds. Which, on casual systems isn't a requirement and every 550MB/s SSD will do the job brilliantly. It's the IOPS and while NVMe has a slight edge there, the difference isn't as huge as one might think...


----------



## Derek12 (Feb 7, 2017)

Since I started using a SSD I won't use a HDD as system disk never AGAIN. Only as backup/music/games storage
The first thing I did after buying my laptop is replacing the 1 TB HDD with a 128 GB SSD and putting the HDD into a USB 3 external enclosure.
BTW I still have never used the RAPID mode on the desktop which has a Samsung EVO 750


----------

