Is the game exclusive to SSD owners?

[XecuteR]

Although I fully agree my system is potato and does not have a SSD but is at least capable of playing QC at low settings. However.. the map loading. Man it takes forever to load one map and by the time it does I get disconnected from the Bethesda server. Is there any way to speed things up (besides buying a new machine)?

[tyl0413]

It's not but it's recommended for quicker load times.

[Shakes]

Originally posted by Agent XXX:

You should buy a M.2 (PCIe) SSD if you mainboard got a empty m2 slot or adapter via PCIe.
Same price but more performence!

Not necessarily. M.2 is just the form factor, not an interface. Depending on the motherboard, the m.2 slot might still use the SATA interface. At that point you'd just be dumping heat onto your GPU for no real performance gain over a normal SSD.

[Got Goals]

Originally posted by XecuteR:

Although I fully agree my system is potato and does not have a SSD but is at least capable of playing QC at low settings. However.. the map loading. Man it takes forever to load one map and by the time it does I get disconnected from the Bethesda server. Is there any way to speed things up (besides buying a new machine)?

I've had SSDs since 2013, serious tech leap prior to that date. I don't know how you've survived without one.

You poor thing, even 2nd hand you can get one and just trial an OS on it or programs.

[ciklotron]

Originally posted by XecuteR:

Is there any way to speed things up (besides buying a new machine)?

Defragment the drive. Steam makes copies of the game files when updating them. While it affects all games, QC's shared.pak can fragment extremely due to its 20+ gigabyte size.

[Got Goals]

There is no real performance difference between SATA SSDs and M.2. But notably a price hike, and 4k video handling as a slight perk for M.2. Also given this persons pc as described. They may even only have sata 2 on their mobo who knows. Which I ran an SSD through, and it is slower than SATA 3. Meaning it doesn't operate at full bandwidth speed. Then we have OS to consider and things like trim.

Don't buy an m.2 and adapter, or at least yet. Please share your full PC spec so we can advise better.

[nukest]

yo man, i dont know if youve experienced an overall slowering of your computer, but I did recently after I mistakenly loaded up something with malware and had the same issue out of QC, taking forever to load, most of the time would disconnect and eveyrthing

i had to do a fresh reinstall of my OS and was back to normal after that

SSD will affect load times some, but you should still be able to load up and play in roughly within the same couple minutes

[Got Goals]

Minutes? Pff whut...

[Shakes]

Originally posted by Agent XXX:

I said he should buy a M.2 (PCIe) SSD which he can use in a m2 slot or via adapter in a PCIe slot.

There is nothing wrong with it!

The price is the same but you get MUCH more speed with a M.2 (PCIe) SSD INSTEAD of M.2 (Sata) SSD.

I would never ever buy a "normal" Sata SSD.
Makes no sense.

"At that point you'd just be dumping heat onto your GPU for no real performance gain over a normal SSD."

I see, your knowledge isn't like mine.
LOL

The speed increase might only apply with the PCIE adapter, that's what I'm saying. Having a free M.2 slot doesn't mean the card you throw in it will get PCIE speeds, which is why I mentioned looking at what your motherboard supports. The M.2 slot itself might still be going through the SATA bus, or it might use PCIE. Again, this is dependent on the motherboard. You can buy an NVME M.2 card, but it won't utilize the PCIE bus unless the motherboard supports it or you hook it up to an adapter.

[Shakes]

Originally posted by Agent XXX:

"I'm sorry" but you guys have no clue at all...
We all getting scammed and fooled by the industries since day 1.

USB 2.0 can do 300MB/sec. and you can feed a old Sata 1 HDD with 1,8GB file in less than 15sec.

I'm even not joking....

I even can't explain why I had with my good old DFI Lanparty CFX and a AMD X2 45sec. boot time into Windows 2000 (2x3Ghz, FSB 300Mhz) instead of 90sec. with 2x 2,8Ghz, FSB 280Mhz back in the day.

The world even hasn't seen a GPU watercooler with option to cool a HDD.

Well, well, well...that all what I got to say little snowflakes...

YOU ARE GETTING SCAMMED.

I don't know if this would considered moving the goalposts or if you're just going off on a tangent. We're not discussing marketed performance vs. actual performance, we're talking about M.2 with a SATA interface vs M.2 with a PCIE interface. Performance of old legacy SATA hardware from the turn of the millenium isn't relevant to the discussion.

[Go_Coup]

You boys need to chill. Girls everywhere are now wondering why their panties are soaking wet.

[XecuteR]

Thanks for all the suggestions people. So it seems that this game does require a SSD. I have a peasant system with intel HD graphics, barely enough to run 30 FPS at lowest settings. Maybe when I get some money I’ll think of buying one.

[ciklotron]

Why would you insist on the SSD-trail, when you simply don't have a graphics card? Running from a spinning hard disk is perfectly fine, but Intel HD packing things in the memory just takes forever to start up, and afterwards it plays useless, see my screenshots here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/611500/discussions/0/1861616055080400343/#c1861616168878448654 - note the yellow lag icon, despite of being completely alone on a small map, and the apparent 52 and 60 FPS (which would drop in the moment I moved). And while that laptop has an okay CPU, an SSD with SATA III over M.2 as hyped above, and plenty of RAM, it still took almost 4 minutes to load into that state, and that's only because of the Intel HD graphics itself, which is slow for this kind of load and this game, it's that simple.
Unfortunately I can't suggest "get a cheap graphics card", because that may not work, in NVidia terms you would need something comparable to a 1050Ti (with 4GB) as the absolute minimum, but a 1060 (strictly with 6GB, forget the ones with 3GB) is better, but still for generally low settings.

[SMJSMOK]

It doesn't require an SSD. I have an HDD (I'm lazy, I know that SSD is better) and I'm never the last one to join a match, we're always waiting for someone else (probably someone with an even slower drive than me :-D )

[TigerBLUE]

Originally posted by SMJSMOK:

It doesn't require an SSD. I have an HDD (I'm lazy, I know that SSD is better) and I'm never the last one to join a match, we're always waiting for someone else (probably someone with an even slower drive than me :-D )

I have an SSD and while I'm not always last to join, I am in the last 2-3 most of the time I think...I assumed it's because I'm loading the larger ultra textures and most others are loading medium or low.

[-|Nur|-]

I've had QC on both HDD and SSD and there's barely any difference. Not that it matters anyway as the game won't start until everyone is in the game.