Natural Selection 2 > Discussioni generali > Dettagli della discussione
streaks_art 3 nov 2013, ore 16:30
Would installing NS2 in an SSD make a difference?
This game is different from most games I play. I really don't play much multiplayer. And with single-player games, the most notable difference one would feel when installing in an SSD are load-times, and not in-game performance.

Or at least not much in-game performance (such as improved frames per second, video lag, video tearing, etc.)

But how about with multiplayer games? So far, I have installed Warframe and MechWarrior Online in my SSD, and not in a traditional hardrive.

I've also read in some forum before about this guy complaining about multiplayer lag being so bad, and people in this forum telling him to install the game in an SSD so that communications between players' hardware could go faster.

Is this true?



PS:
So far, I have been told to install at least 2 games (XCOM: Enemy Unknown and DarkSiders2) in traditional hardrives and just wait a few more seconds during loading times.

Visualizzazione di 1-15 commenti su 27
< >
100% Recycled Awesome 3 nov 2013, ore 16:51 
I had NS2 running of a 5800 RPM Green drive on my old computer. Load times would be somewhere between 1.5 minutes to 3 minutes.

Now, on my new computer running a SATA III SSD, load times generally are 20 seconds or less. I even have a video of it. I'm almost always between the first to 4th person into the lobby after a map change.

Some of this is due to a much better processor, but the SSD does play a big role in reducing load times. FPS gains however shouldn't be noticable due to what role a hard drive plays during games.
Ultima modifica da 100% Recycled Awesome; 3 nov 2013, ore 16:52
streaks_art 3 nov 2013, ore 17:06 
Messaggio originale di 100% Recycled Awesome:
I had NS2 running of a 5800 RPM Green drive on my old computer. Load times would be somewhere between 1.5 minutes to 3 minutes.

Now, on my new computer running a SATA III SSD, load times generally are 20 seconds or less. I even have a video of it. I'm almost always between the first to 4th person into the lobby after a map change.

Some of this is due to a much better processor, but the SSD does play a big role in reducing load times. FPS gains however shouldn't be noticable due to what role a hard drive plays during games.
Awesome info 100% Recycled...Awesome. Much appreciated, helps a lot.
Oh Noes 3 nov 2013, ore 17:33 
I don’t notice too much of a difference between my SSD and caviar black for NS2.

If you want super fast use SSD and RAM Disk :)
Hobocop 3 nov 2013, ore 17:41 
The recent build probably had the largest impact on load times. I'm running on a standard 7200RPM drive. From 258 to 259, the load times were like night and day on my rig, and I haven't had any hardware changes since I started playing this game a lot during the Gorgeous update besides replacing my RAM.
Ultima modifica da Hobocop; 3 nov 2013, ore 17:42
streaks_art 3 nov 2013, ore 17:43 
Messaggio originale di Hobocop:
The recent build probably had the largest impact on load times. 258 to 259, the load times were like night and day on my rig, and I haven't had any hardware changes since I started playing this game a lot during the Gorgeous update besides replacing my RAM.
What hardrive/s do you use?
Hobocop 3 nov 2013, ore 17:45 
Just edited my post. It's just a standard 1TB magnetic platter drive.
Peril 3 nov 2013, ore 17:46 
Same here, recently installed NS2 on SSD and it made a huge difference. Since it's a 128 GB SSD, I tend to install slow-loading game I often play such as Skyrim (with mods) or Battlefield.
streaks_art 3 nov 2013, ore 18:14 
Messaggio originale di Peril FR:
Same here, recently installed NS2 on SSD and it made a huge difference. Since it's a 128 GB SSD, I tend to install slow-loading game I often play such as Skyrim (with mods) or Battlefield.
Your confirmation is well received. Thanks.
.exalt (Bandito) 3 nov 2013, ore 18:31 
I haven't played on anything but SSD with this game. The only people who beat me to the next map are the RamDisk users. I only have 8g of ram, but SSD is fast enough for me.

Good spec computer very similar to 100%'s. 120g Intel with 5 year sold me on this tech and I'm not going back. I haven't even gotten a platter for extra space. Screw them. I don't want to think about hard crashes from bumping the box anymore.
Ultima modifica da .exalt; 3 nov 2013, ore 18:35
[#OMEGA] - K2 3 nov 2013, ore 18:45 
Between 10k RPM HDD (WD VelociRaptor) and SSD there is about 1-2 sec difference in loading times. No FPS gains.
streaks_art 3 nov 2013, ore 20:35 
Messaggio originale di .exalt:
I haven't played on anything but SSD with this game. The only people who beat me to the next map are the RamDisk users. I only have 8g of ram, but SSD is fast enough for me.

Good spec computer very similar to 100%'s. 120g Intel with 5 year sold me on this tech and I'm not going back. I haven't even gotten a platter for extra space. Screw them. I don't want to think about hard crashes from bumping the box anymore.
Going to be expensive if you're going to use SSDs exclusively, even for data storage.
streaks_art 3 nov 2013, ore 20:36 
Messaggio originale di #OMEGA - K2@new mouse..:
Between 10k RPM HDD (WD VelociRaptor) and SSD there is about 1-2 sec difference in loading times. No FPS gains.
Confirmation well appreciated. Thanks
100% Recycled Awesome 3 nov 2013, ore 21:01 
Messaggio originale di streaks_art:
Going to be expensive if you're going to use SSDs exclusively, even for data storage.

Yeah, it would be. They do make a terabyte size SSD, but the price is outrageous:

http://www.macmall.com/p/6958610?dpno=8932033&source=zwb12166

$7,499.99. I kid you not. I found this when a friend and I were discussing some company's $10k custom build and I thought it was impossible to spend that kind of money on the computer itself (no monitor or speakers) short of triple SLI Titans. I was wrong.

I got a SATA III Kingston HyperX 120 gig as my primary, but I kept my old SATA I Sandisk SSD for other games like Civ 5. I got a WD Green 3 TB and a WD Green 1 TB also in my tower.
streaks_art 3 nov 2013, ore 21:07 
Messaggio originale di 100% Recycled Awesome:
Messaggio originale di streaks_art:
Going to be expensive if you're going to use SSDs exclusively, even for data storage.

Yeah, it would be. They do make a terabyte size SSD, but the price is outrageous:

http://www.macmall.com/p/6958610?dpno=8932033&source=zwb12166

$7,499.99. I kid you not. I found this when a friend and I were discussing some company's $10k custom build and I thought it was impossible to spend that kind of money on the computer itself (no monitor or speakers) short of triple SLI Titans. I was wrong.

I got a SATA III Kingston HyperX 120 gig as my primary, but I kept my old SATA I Sandisk SSD for other games like Civ 5. I got a WD Green 3 TB and a WD Green 1 TB also in my tower.
That's just...outrageous...My SSD's also my primary. Never had a failed boot up ever since.

So, that SSD is physically configured to be connected to the motherboard as a PCI card? Uh...
100% Recycled Awesome 3 nov 2013, ore 22:14 
Messaggio originale di streaks_art:
so my primary. Never had a failed boot up ever since.

So, that SSD is physically configured to be connected to the motherboard as a PCI card? Uh...

Yeah, that's how some of them are. You have a choice of mSata, 2.5 SSD or PCI form
Ultima modifica da 100% Recycled Awesome; 3 nov 2013, ore 22:15
Visualizzazione di 1-15 commenti su 27
< >
Per pagina: 15 30 50
Data di pubblicazione: 3 nov 2013, ore 16:30
Messaggi: 27