Tubez said:
loc978 said:
Tubez said:
loc978 said:
Tubez said:
loc978 said:
Yep. I don't trust any system I or some specific people I know didn't build. I'm still using a three year old system that hasn't had a gaming hiccup yet. Some people don't believe me when I say it runs Crysis turned up to the nines... but most of those people have it installed on slow hard drives...
You do know that slow HDD pretty much only affects the load times? And may i ask what resolution you are using?
Load times, precaching texture maps, accessing game data that isn't precached... You'd be amazed how many different things speed up with a faster hard drive.
But yeah, I only run it in 1280x1024. Limits of my cheap monitor.
I've played with SSD and with my normal hdd which read around 80-90mb/s and I havent noticed anything difference except load times for maps and such so to say a normal hdd slows down the computer in game is quite wrong. And the reason that you can play it with quite high settings is cause you're using such a low resolution, and most ppl use 1920x1080 these days and that is probably why people are so suprised that you can play it on "high" settings.
eh, *shrug*
Depends on the game. You're right about Crysis, though. It's not really my mainstay genre in gaming anyway (I never actually finished Crysis. Got bored with it quick).
God I hate that *shrug* if you don't believe me or something else please tell me then.
Might be a bit outdated article:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/products/SSD/downloads/SSD_vs_HDD_is_there_a_difference_Rev_3.pdf
Difference between a SSD and a 7200rpm HDD
6.4% improvement in frames per
second was measured
and a SSD is alot faster then a raptor HDD so would be even less difference between a normal HDD and urs.
Ye gods I hate chatspeak... thing is, this is the internet. Get used to people not caring enough to argue.
But if you must have an answer:
It's not that I don't believe you. I know a faster hard drive has little effect on graphics rendering speed (which is all the benchmark you cited tests). As I said, most of my games aren't of the
small, but graphically impressive persuasion. I'm not too concerned about my frames per second, so long as they stay above 20. What I
am concerned with is load times that happen during combat, which happens
a lot in large, open-world games. Makes all the difference in the world for the new Fallout games, or even something like Diablo II.
This is a similar argument to the one about more processor cores being effectively useless for gaming. Might not help in your linear shooter, but my RTS can support and effectively use up to eight cores (so yeah, my current system build runs Crysis better than it runs Supreme Commander... much to my shame).