150GB is a joke!

[SCARaw]

my System Windows SSD literally have 128gb (its marketing gigabytes so its like 118gb in real units)
i m sorry but larian studios i know made games like divinity original sin

[Cirrus]

Originally posted by Fiachra:

Originally posted by Cirrus:

7200 ssd will do you absolutely nothing if you don’t have modern pcie4 bus for it.

Nobody with pcie3 era motherboards and cpus need to invest for such ssd.

Good to know. So the access time for SSD is faster due to other factors beyond just the stated Mb/s speed then? Looked up the SSD I use for my OS and it has a laughably low Mb/s so presumably my 5 year old motherboard is not going to take advantage of the latest SSD speeds.

Yes. Exactly ssd can access all data faster than hdd and that is the most important part in games. Of course some save game loads etc can be faster with fastest of ssds when compared to slowest (sata bus) ssds. But it is not the most important factor.

Your 5 year old computer most propably cannot benefit from the pcie4 generation. You computer is bus limited to around 3500 etc with pcie3.

There is fairly cheap options for such computers to get decent performing gaming ssd.

[SpaceNvader]

Originally posted by Fiachra:

Originally posted by Cirrus:

7200 ssd will do you absolutely nothing if you don’t have modern pcie4 bus for it.

Nobody with pcie3 era motherboards and cpus need to invest for such ssd.

Good to know. So the access time for SSD is faster due to other factors beyond just the stated Mb/s speed then? Looked up the SSD I use for my OS and it has a laughably low Mb/s so presumably my 5 year old motherboard is not going to take advantage of the latest SSD speeds.

Comfortably using 4,500 MB/s on a PCI 4.0 and I was using a 3,200 before that. Does not need to be super fast for gaming in my experience as everything ran and loaded fine. 3,200 is already relatively fast when compared to a SATA SSD. I guess faster can help when moving lots of files around.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Fiachra:

Originally posted by Cirrus:

7200 ssd will do you absolutely nothing if you don’t have modern pcie4 bus for it.

Nobody with pcie3 era motherboards and cpus need to invest for such ssd.

Good to know. So the access time for SSD is faster due to other factors beyond just the stated Mb/s speed then? Looked up the SSD I use for my OS and it has a laughably low Mb/s so presumably my 5 year old motherboard is not going to take advantage of the latest SSD speeds.

In general this is so, but you'll still be able to access the capacity and a speed that is significant over that of eide.

Ssd and M2 nv drives are the same as memory, cpu, gpu etc.. if you don't have the max possible bus or power supply with ample output, they just run slower. But you still get access to the technology to a degree.. obviously an older mobo will block some access but it shouldn't be an excuse to not buy it. You can always buy a new mobo put it to one side, some time later buy a new cpu for that mobo.. and then install both, clean your fan and slap it on the cpu throw in your gpu and memory.. and so on. Upgrade over time, you don't have to buy an entire rig and whilst there are preferences, so long as you're within range and spec don't worry too much about bus speeds or usb versions etc. Just be prepared for it to run a little bit slower.

As for peak speeds.. Windows on my sons computer loads in about 15 seconds. On my computer in about 2 seconds.. games are similar, yes eide are ok, always have been but m2 drives are to ssd what ssd is to ide where speed is concerned.

I was watching a video on dlss v fsr the other day and it had to be pointed out what the differences were, I couldn't see them otherwise, there is no particular reason to have better then a 60' gpu you don't need a 4090 or the max range cpu or 256 gig of the fastest ram.. none of that really affects games most of it is about vanity but you do need a decent drive and the best at the moment are the m2's if you have a mobo that supports them.

It also shouldn't need to be said, but cutting edge technology usually works worse than time served, the newest tech isn't supported often has bugs and huge power demands.. if you're paying the electricity you might consider a more conservative system.

Just make sure you're buying compatible hardware ie cpu and mobo, gpu and bus, memory and bus and you should be fine.

[Fiachra]

My ASUS Z370-P can't handle more than 3,200 Mb/s so I stand corrected, a sub $50 SSD is the option for me.

[MundM]

Originally posted by Fiachra:

I see several comments about sub $50 SSDs. Just like with HDs you need to check the transfer speeds of an SSD, if you are paying $30 to $50 for a 1Tb SSD then it is likely around the 3000 Mb/s mark. You are looking at at least double the cost for a 7000+ Mb/s card which is recommended for gaming.

I use a 7200 Mb/s HD (Seagate BarraCuda ST2000DM006 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s) for games and media and have had no issues with BG3 so far. How does a 3000 Mb/s SSD compare with a 7200 Mb/s HD? I don't know, but when I do inevitably get an SSD for loading the presumably much larger city levels it will not be a cheap slow one. If you have a fast HD and money is an issue wait until you can save for a faster SSD if possible.

Currently it takes maybe 30 to 45 seconds (I'll have to time it) to load a saved game which is not an issue for me, but if you didn't wait for half an hour for the original Sid Meier's Civilization to create a new game on an ancient 8086 XT as a kid in the early 90s then this may be unacceptable to you. I'd be interested to hear how SSDs of various speeds compare for loading a quick save.

A 50 bucks SSD gives you about 1 tb and 500 mb/s write and a bit faster read speed. That's plenty. Any faster will only be noticable or a worthy upgrade, if you have the cpu to match in order to also decompress faster etc. Sure, more expensive is better, but a cheap SSD is still better than an HDD for any purpose. HDD is only good for cheap storate.

[Adam__86]

It has lots of audio files go figure

[Linell]

Why is the GoG version of the game only listed at 70GB and the Steam copy is 150GB?

[Kozzy]

Starfield is 125gb, to be expected for big releases these days

[breadman]

Originally posted by Linell:

Why is the GoG version of the game only listed at 70GB and the Steam copy is 150GB?

outdated info? ea alone is 80gb

[Oubley]

Originally posted by SCARaw:

my System Windows SSD literally have 128gb (its marketing gigabytes so its like 118gb in real units)
i m sorry but larian studios i know made games like divinity original sin

lol as I just reloaded skyrim and it was only like 6gb or so.

Yay, 150 gb seems pretty horse manure.

I don't recall dragon age origins being that big

It's not the 150 gb on it's own, it's you're going to have like 3-4 other games installed too.
and For the type of game play, it shouldn't be 150 gb

If they come at me with a lot more dragon age cinematics, then ok I'll change my tune.

But I didn't see anything that was worth 150gb of space in EA.

[Shadow]

[

Originally posted by Linell:

Why is the GoG version of the game only listed at 70GB and the Steam copy is 150GB?

Maybe it change when Final is out

[⎝⎝💚TOͥNͣNͫY💚⎠⎠]

This OP is a joke.

[breadman]

Originally posted by Oubley:

lol as I just reloaded skyrim and it was only like 6gb or so.

skyrim is from 2011 and it's 14gb

[Oubley]

Originally posted by Kozzy:

Starfield is 125gb, to be expected for big releases these days

Different type of game.
From trailers alone, the game seems like it will be worth the space.

time will tell though

[breadman]

Originally posted by Oubley:

Different type of game.

it has nothing to do with the type of game, it's about assets