Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
What do you mean "dropping support for hard drives"? The game has no idea if its stored on a hard drive or ssd.
I can tell you theres very minor performance difference between a hard drive and ssd once the game is loaded up. So even if they were somehow able to make it not work on hard drives, not only would that make no sense there would be zero benefit to doing so.
Yes ssds are dirt cheap now compared to a few years ago, but hard drives are even cheaper still and alot of people like me still have one. My OS runs on an ssd, everything else is on a larger hard drive.
Cyberpunk 2077 is ditching HDD support — they'll continue to work, but future updates won't be tested on them. Also just by the sheer amount of textures and other resources needed to be loaded is enough reason to install games on SSDs since forever, especially because when for example you drive fast ingame the game needs to load in new resources, maps, spawn characters, cars, entities, everything way before you reach that location to make it a seamless transition, so when you try to do that with a HDD, best case scenario you get freezes, worst case scenario you get loading screens randomly because the HDD can't keep up with the amount of resourced needed to be loaded.
This is simply untrue.
If its simply untrue then why am I getting performance with my 4GB 680 that nearly matches that of a 3GB 1060 in this game that was benchmarked with an ssd?
Surely if my hard drive was any sort of significant bottleneck then my machine would not be on par with a 3GB 1060 in performance.
Im not saying that ssds are not significantly faster, thats a no brainer. But in terms of real world performance there isnt alot of data being transfered from the drive once the game is loaded to really need that extra throughput that an ssd provides over a hard drive. And I feel that its proven in benchmarks that the performance difference between the 2 is negligable. There is a slight difference, but not enough to bother with.
First of all, turn off HDD mode in the settings then come back and tell me the results. HDD mode changes the way the game loads the character models and materials and the map assets, thats why you will see a bunch of popping in models and low resultion textures also it will lead to poor randomization of NPC’s and vehicles and you end up with the exact same people sitting right next to each other.
Maybe because benchmarks in games are comparing only visuals, framerate and rendering speed and not hard drive speeds. You are simply unwilling to accept that the game is not loaded ONCE and then it never touches the hard drive again, but a constant access whenever you go to a new location, see a new character or a car or basically anything. When the field changes around you, the game loads in new entities, textures, scripts, models and entire map parts from the drive again and again.
Second, yes I do have hdd mode turned off. No, it does not causing any poor/low res texture loading issues. Not seeing clone npcs anywhere. No random frame drops that one would encounter with data not loading into the ram fast enough. There is zero indication in my gaming experience with cyberpunk or any other game for that matter that using a hard drive for gaming is any different than using an ssd. Again, I have both.
As to why I have both, at the time I built my PC (2012), ssds were pricey and not very large. I got a 256gb ssd for my OS and a larger 2 TB for my games as I think 512gb was the largest ssd at that time, maybe 1TB but those were super expensive at the time.
Yes, I plan on replacing my hard drive at some point now that they have 4TB ssds available at a reasonable price, but that doesnt mean my hard drive is not capable of gaming. It simply means I want to significantly reduce my load times, as thats the only thing effected.
Yes, my computer is ancient. But, its still enough to play this game on high settings at 720 30+ fps. I personally run it at high 900p as 720 is too low for my liking and I only lose about 5 fps doing so. In certain areas I will dip below 30fps at 900p but not unplayable for me. I dont need a constant 60fps, although it would be welcomed.
At 1080p high settings I get slightly over 20fps.
Now that all of that is out of way, yes perhaps if I had hardware capable of running this game at 4K then maybe my hard drive would become a bottle neck as a much larger amount of data would need exchanged at that resultion. However, even at 1080p which I presume a good majority of people play this game at as even with modern hardware its demanding above that my hard drive still is hardly pushing anywhere near its limits at providing the data required.
So no, at least at 1080p and below, hdd mode off, there is no issues at all and using a hard drive (at least a modern one) to load game data poses no performance issue.
This sentence alone was more than enough reason not to even bother reading further. You know better. You are basically playing this game on smaller than a modern day mobile phone's resolution so obviously you won't notice anything because the game will render your game on such a low resolution with such a small texture sizes even your HDD will be able to handle it, since it's literally something people used 20+ years ago.
Thats bascially something that falls under the definition of unplayable.
No, 20 fps is quite literally a framerate is light years away to be considered a good performance. Heck not even 30 fps is considered good, hence the reason the entire world is shaming consoles and console gamers with their subpar performance locked to 30fps in many games.
Alright, well we will have to agree to disagree. I find no issues gaming at 30fps, Im sorry that you feel the need to spend thousands of dollars for the 60+fps you need but I get by with far less and the game looks and plays great to me.
In any case though, back on topic. Those of us who still use hard drives, can confrim there is no performance or texture issues with them in this game at least at 1080p and below. So no, people with hard drives are not "out of luck" with the new update unless they somehow disable the use of them somehow. Unlikely.
This is still untrue. The proper statement would be:
People who still use a hand drive and specifially set the resolution to under 1080p might not experience issues caused by the slow load times because of the hardware limitation of a HDD. Everyone else is most likely "out of luck" since the texture sizes and the sheer amount of data loaded constantly will definitely cause unwanted issues with every game not just Cyberpunk, and this is even more relevant since CDPR stops supporting it entirely. It will work, sure, but every issue coming from this is on the user.
I dont really know what your upset about here. But saying that a hard drive is essentially unusable for gaming at 1080p and above is utter nonsense and at the very least disproven.
Furthermore, anyone that can run this game above 1080p likely has the funds to not be running a hard drive anyway, so yea....
So again, its still true, that for those of us with whats considered lower end hardware today will be just fine at 1080p using hard drives. Cyberpunk nor any other game to my knowledge is exceeding that data transfer rate at any time, unless the said machine has less than 12GB of RAM, then that may become an issue as the system will be constantly transferring data due to not having enough RAM.
Either way, the fact is hard drive vs ssd is a non issue at 1080p for every game I have played, including this one. And will remain true, regardless of your opinion. Im glad that you dont have a hard drive, but no need to talk down on those of us who still use one and tell us that we having issues that we are not.
Why would i be upset? I merely correcting your false statements since it's all based on purely your feelings. The one who is brinking feelings into this is you. Also, last time I checked your words does not automatically disprove anything. It's just not how this works.
Totally agree, thats exactly why this discussion makes absolutely no sense, since we're talking about technology used 20 years ago. Glad we're at least agree on this one.
No, thats once again your subjective feelings talking, not the general consensus of the players. Heck, PC gamers has been arguing about wether 60 fps should be considered good or only the minimum hence the existence of 144 hz monitors.
Exactly, because those are your subjective feelings, and those are yours only. No argument here. There's no talking down anywhere, i'm not looking down on you because you have a HDD, i'm simply correcting your false statements because they are just false, and does not represent reality nor the general playerbase in any way.
Fwiw, I think the main issue with revised specs may be the minimum vram increasing again as the last time they raised it people below the minimum vram requirement did find the game wasn't stable at all. Look forward to the benchmarking ahead of release.
edit: and just to be clear, the new revised specs apply to update and expansion.
See: https://www.cyberpunk.net/en/news/48271/update-to-pc-system-requirements
Well apart from having crowd density on high and the fact that I havent run the game on an ssd I cant say that I have noticed any difference in crowd density versus what I have seen on youtube videos. Doesnt appear to be all that much different, certain areas get pretty crowded and no clones.
What exactly was your conclusion to your findings? And what were the settings used? I would be interesting on seeing that testing in further detail as at 1080p high settings high crowd density hdd mode off I did not see high usage on my hdd. But, I do have 48GB of ram so I would presume I have enough ram for the game to not need to be constantly accessing data on the drive.
I should note that even though I have done alot of playing around at 1080p, because I cant maintain 30fps enough at that resolution I do play at 900p. Which keeps me at or above 30fps over 90% of the time. Enough for me, despite what others may think. I can say, for certain, at 900p high settings and high crowd density hdd mode off, I see no texture loading issues, no stuttering, extremely smooth framerate always, even cruising through the city at top speed my framerate will slowly drop to around 25fps in high traffic areas but its a smooth drop no stutter and no graphical issues whatso ever. Nothing to do with my hard drive and everything to do with my gpu not being able to process fast enough. I would be surprised if an ssd performed any better in my situation.
As for the vram thing, from what Iv seen this game can use up to around 9GB of vram. And I can confirm my 4GB isnt enough, I believe that to be my main bottleneck.
Found this on here, and it turns out that Im not the only person using a hard drive that has had no ill effect on gameplay performance due to the hard drive:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1091500/discussions/0/2966147051985947268/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1091500/discussions/0/4472613273096717896/
Cheers, that's interesting.
I'm not going to do it again any time soon but last time I did it was back around 1.5 (also tested external drive, which was reason for doing it). System is in profile, HDD is a 1TB Samsung HD 103SJ, but it was @1440p. Main thing I noticed was that the game was culling a lot more on identical settings on HDD over SSD. On higher graphics settings, it was also noticeable that the game on HDD was getting a lot more of the janky issues related to things not getting put on screen appropriately. (classic is t-posing but gravity going absent is fun too etc etc.)
Was just genuinely curious what you'd seen and what your experience of it was.
As for vram, yeah, I've fingers crossed for people.
Hmm, 16GB of ram correct? Perhaps you are reaching near your system memory limit and its having to access data on the drive more frequently?
I know in my case, at 1080p this game will use over 14GB of my system memory.