Are hard drives useless for gaming now?

[EASY PETE]

I have a 2tb hdd where i put my games but new games are saying you must have an SSD as a requirement

And second question if i where to buy a portable ssd and plug it in would that forfull the requirement?

[Bad 💀 Motha]

I'd look to do this as a minimum.

1x ssd for OS + Apps
1x ssd for Games
1x hdd for general storage, personal files, downloads, photos, videos... if that means having it via USB for the hdd, so be it. I would suggest installing games to any drive that is USB though. But if you have space or need more ssd space, less demanding or very old games can easily go to the hdd.

[Lord Flashheart]

GARDEN YOUR GARDEN RIGHT NOW OR 님이 먼저 게시:

I have a 2tb hdd where i put my games but new games are saying you must have an SSD as a requirement

And second question if i where to buy a portable ssd and plug it in would that forfull the requirement?

Hard drive storage is much cheaper obviously than SSDs.

Maybe use this:
https://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache
I have been using it for years.
A much smaller SSD to cache to store the most accessed date on a larger & slower drive.

[Ralf]

From what I heard on the forums, Steam Deck still uses hard drive so I would say it's dead.

[76561198343548661]

Ralf님이 먼저 게시:

From what I heard on the forums, Steam Deck still uses hard drive so I would say it's dead.

Wrong , Steam Deck uses M 2 ssd , the cheapest one uses eMMC

[MonkehMaster]

Ralf님이 먼저 게시:

From what I heard on the forums, Steam Deck still uses hard drive so I would say it's dead.

none of the steam deck versions use a hard drive and for that matter a steam deck is not large enough to fit a hard drive in it.

[Illusion of Progress]

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

nullable님이 먼저 게시:

No one is saying that HDDs can't function for decades. However lots of people have this narrative that SSDs are fragile and short lived, especially compared to HDDs, which isn't the case. Both types of drives can function long past their functional usefulness so it's really a non-issue.

I think my Inland 1 TB nvme ssd is going down. Works perfectly but in CrystalDiskInfo it says "good" status but "50%". So with that I think it's almost done but I don't mess with SSD's too much anymore so I don't know how accurate that status is.

I assume it's correct because I read/write to this SSD A LOT!. I am constantly downloading zipped files and unzipping them to the same drive. I've done that with terabytes of stuff, so I don't blame the drive itself, since as far as I'm aware ssds do have maximum read/writes but I've only had this thing like a year or two where I have an ssd that's been through the same that's lasted much much longer.

What does Crystal Disk Info say for the amount of data written and read? 50% after two years would somewhat raise my concern too, but we need to define what "a lot" is.

My oldest SSD shows ~50% too, but it's from 2012 and used as my primary drive until 2019 or 2020, and I imagine it has "a lot" written to it too (now I want to find out how much but I think maybe it's so old it doesn't reflect that information?).

My current SSD is closer to the age of yours, maybe a little bit older, and it's at 95% with this much data written.

https://imgur.com/a/4Fi8dhY

I'm fairly sure I write to drives more than a typical consumer, but I'm not sure how my "a lot" compares to yours. All is relative, I suppose.

[emoticorpse]

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

I think my Inland 1 TB nvme ssd is going down. Works perfectly but in CrystalDiskInfo it says "good" status but "50%". So with that I think it's almost done but I don't mess with SSD's too much anymore so I don't know how accurate that status is.

I assume it's correct because I read/write to this SSD A LOT!. I am constantly downloading zipped files and unzipping them to the same drive. I've done that with terabytes of stuff, so I don't blame the drive itself, since as far as I'm aware ssds do have maximum read/writes but I've only had this thing like a year or two where I have an ssd that's been through the same that's lasted much much longer.

What does Crystal Disk Info say for the amount of data written and read? 50% after two years would somewhat raise my concern too, but we need to define what "a lot" is.

My oldest SSD shows ~50% too, but it's from 2012 and used as my primary drive until 2019 or 2020, and I imagine it has "a lot" written to it too (now I want to find out how much but I think maybe it's so old it doesn't reflect that information?).

My current SSD is closer to the age of yours, maybe a little bit older, and it's at 95% with this much data written.

https://imgur.com/a/4Fi8dhY

I'm fairly sure I write to drives more than a typical consumer, but I'm not sure how my "a lot" compares to yours. All is relative, I suppose.

Well here's the image on IMGUR to make it simpler https://imgur.com/a/mkX9TPH

I always for some reason digest that info better when it's directly on the application gui.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

What does Crystal Disk Info say for the amount of data written and read? 50% after two years would somewhat raise my concern too, but we need to define what "a lot" is.

My oldest SSD shows ~50% too, but it's from 2012 and used as my primary drive until 2019 or 2020, and I imagine it has "a lot" written to it too (now I want to find out how much but I think maybe it's so old it doesn't reflect that information?).

My current SSD is closer to the age of yours, maybe a little bit older, and it's at 95% with this much data written.

https://imgur.com/a/4Fi8dhY

I'm fairly sure I write to drives more than a typical consumer, but I'm not sure how my "a lot" compares to yours. All is relative, I suppose.

Well here's the image on IMGUR to make it simpler https://imgur.com/a/mkX9TPH

I always for some reason digest that info better when it's directly on the application gui.

So written about 378TB data to the drive, which I assume nand write could be in ball park 250TB ~ 300TB written.

In my case I had my SSD sata since 2016 almost 7 years only fell by 4% which I only written 93TB, and nand write 47TB https://imgur.com/6Lw5OPb

So I wonder if something up with the PCI adapter you're using, do you know model of your SSD?

[Illusion of Progress]

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

What does Crystal Disk Info say for the amount of data written and read? 50% after two years would somewhat raise my concern too, but we need to define what "a lot" is.

My oldest SSD shows ~50% too, but it's from 2012 and used as my primary drive until 2019 or 2020, and I imagine it has "a lot" written to it too (now I want to find out how much but I think maybe it's so old it doesn't reflect that information?).

My current SSD is closer to the age of yours, maybe a little bit older, and it's at 95% with this much data written.

https://imgur.com/a/4Fi8dhY

I'm fairly sure I write to drives more than a typical consumer, but I'm not sure how my "a lot" compares to yours. All is relative, I suppose.

Well here's the image on IMGUR to make it simpler https://imgur.com/a/mkX9TPH

I always for some reason digest that info better when it's directly on the application gui.

Yeah, you have like 7 and a half times my written data haha. Hard to extrapolate since my 95% could be in the middle near 94% or 96%, but presuming an even 5% for ~50 GB written in my case, mine would be at 62.5%-ish (with a relatively wide possible range above or below that) with the same data written, so your use resulting in that isn't too surprising, I guess? I mean I'm not sure of the endurance of how our two drives compare but in reality seems close...-ish? (also I'm presuming health drops linearly but it might not).

Either way, your fast degradation seems to be "expected" based on use. I think you might just write to a drive a lot to where the finite aspect of NAND is more of a consideration to you, and drives with less endurance would be worth skipping. I notice you have two partitions on the same drive too. Maybe consider a scratch drive purely for downloads/extracts in this case? With use that heavy, I'd probably do something like that.

I'm not familiar with the Inland 1 TB beyond knowing it's a Micro Center brand of sorts.

[emoticorpse]

Dr.Shadowds 🐉님이 먼저 게시:

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

Well here's the image on IMGUR to make it simpler https://imgur.com/a/mkX9TPH

I always for some reason digest that info better when it's directly on the application gui.

So written about 378TB data to the drive, which I assume nand write could be in ball park 250TB ~ 300TB written.

In my case I had my SSD sata since 2016 almost 7 years only fell by 4% which I only written 93TB, and nand write 47TB https://imgur.com/6Lw5OPb

So I wonder if something up with the PCI adapter you're using, do you know model of your SSD?

Well the model I can't seem to find easily right now. I know it's a Inland 1 TB m.2. It might even be this one but I'm not 100% positive https://www.microcenter.com/product/659881/inland-premium-1tb-ssd-3d-nand-m2-2280-pcie-nvme-30-x4-internal-solid-state-drive,-read-write-speed-up-to-3100-mbps-and-2800-mbps,-nvme-13-pcie-31-com?rd=1.

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

Well here's the image on IMGUR to make it simpler https://imgur.com/a/mkX9TPH

I always for some reason digest that info better when it's directly on the application gui.

Yeah, you have like 7 and a half times my written data haha. Hard to extrapolate since my 95% could be in the middle near 94% or 96%, but presuming an even 5% for ~50 GB written in my case, mine would be at 62.5%-ish (with a relatively wide possible range above or below that) with the same data written, so your use resulting in that isn't too surprising, I guess? I mean I'm not sure of the endurance of how our two drives compare but in reality seems close...-ish? (also I'm presuming health drops linearly but it might not).

Either way, your fast degradation seems to be "expected" based on use. I think you might just write to a drive a lot to where the finite aspect of NAND is more of a consideration to you, and drives with less endurance would be worth skipping. I notice you have two partitions on the same drive too. Maybe consider a scratch drive purely for downloads/extracts in this case? With use that heavy, I'd probably do something like that.

I'm not familiar with the Inland 1 TB beyond knowing it's a Micro Center brand of sorts.

Well, the 1TB ssd is actually only for my my main OS. If there is another partition on it, it would be those very small ones Windows creates but hides. The other drive E: is actually a Seagate 8TB 5,400 rpm Barracuda.

[Illusion of Progress]

Oh, right, I had a dumb moment. I saw the temperature and thought that was the physical drive letter, and that the one below it was the partition letter.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

Well the model I can't seem to find easily right now. I know it's a Inland 1 TB m.2. It might even be this one but I'm not 100% positive https://www.microcenter.com/product/659881/inland-premium-1tb-ssd-3d-nand-m2-2280-pcie-nvme-30-x4-internal-solid-state-drive,-read-write-speed-up-to-3100-mbps-and-2800-mbps,-nvme-13-pcie-31-com?rd=1.

Ah ok, there should be a sticker on it that say model number on it, as I'm not able to find much about this product such as release, or product quality really, as I assume this company is under microcenter, but still, not sure what the deal with their SSD. https://inlandelectronics.com/product-tag/nvme-ssd/

All I can find is tomhardware that tested one you link in 2022, not sure if late review, or what.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/inland-premium-ssd/2

Anyways main reason I ask is the type of nand your current SSD using if it was SLC, MLC, TLC, or QLC, and seeing your screen shot I assume it was a TLC, or QLC.

[emoticorpse]

Dr.Shadowds 🐉님이 먼저 게시:

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

Well the model I can't seem to find easily right now. I know it's a Inland 1 TB m.2. It might even be this one but I'm not 100% positive https://www.microcenter.com/product/659881/inland-premium-1tb-ssd-3d-nand-m2-2280-pcie-nvme-30-x4-internal-solid-state-drive,-read-write-speed-up-to-3100-mbps-and-2800-mbps,-nvme-13-pcie-31-com?rd=1.

Ah ok, there should be a sticker on it that say model number on it, as I'm not able to find much about this product such as release, or product quality really, as I assume this company is under microcenter, but still, not sure what the deal with their SSD. https://inlandelectronics.com/product-tag/nvme-ssd/

All I can find is tomhardware that tested one you link in 2022, not sure if late review, or what.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/inland-premium-ssd/2

Anyways main reason I ask is the type of nand your current SSD using if it was SLC, MLC, TLC, or QLC, and seeing your screen shot I assume it was a TLC, or QLC.

I forgot which one it is and I really don't do much reading up on SSDs. Which ones are the better ones? I seriously up to now have simply gone on a combination of price intuition hehe, but I mainly do that because I figured every SSD is so fast that I wouldn't notice the difference anyways unless I'm looking at numbers.

What is is better TLC, QLC?

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Just be sure it's not a DRAM-less SSD or it's sustained performance suffers quite a bit.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

Dr.Shadowds 🐉님이 먼저 게시:

Ah ok, there should be a sticker on it that say model number on it, as I'm not able to find much about this product such as release, or product quality really, as I assume this company is under microcenter, but still, not sure what the deal with their SSD. https://inlandelectronics.com/product-tag/nvme-ssd/

All I can find is tomhardware that tested one you link in 2022, not sure if late review, or what.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/inland-premium-ssd/2

Anyways main reason I ask is the type of nand your current SSD using if it was SLC, MLC, TLC, or QLC, and seeing your screen shot I assume it was a TLC, or QLC.

I forgot which one it is and I really don't do much reading up on SSDs. Which ones are the better ones? I seriously up to now have simply gone on a combination of price intuition hehe, but I mainly do that because I figured every SSD is so fast that I wouldn't notice the difference anyways unless I'm looking at numbers.

What is is better TLC, QLC?

Don't worry you're not the 1st to assume that, but yeah TLC is better. The letters are number of bit per cell.

SLC = Single Layer Cell / 1 bit for every cell, example if it 1TB there should be 1 bit to 1 cell ratio

MLC = Multi Layer Cell / 2 bit for every cell, example if it 1TB there should be 2 bit to 1 cell ratio

TLC = Triple Layer Cell / 3 bit for every cell, example if it 1TB there should be 3 bit to 1 cell ratio

QLC = Quad Layer Cell / 4 bit for every cell, example if it 1TB there should be 4 bit to 1 cell ratio

PLC = Penta Layer Cell / 5 bit for every cell, example if it 1TB there should be 5 bit to 1 cell ratio

SLC being the best, PLC being the worse, and as you move down the tier from SLC to PLC you see performance, and durability goes down in quality, as you write more bits into a cell wears out the cell faster that why SLC performance & durability being the best but also super expensive. TLC is basically best spot for avg joe, or affordable SSD, the problem QLC is that it loss so much in performance & durability, to make up for it they include a small portion of the SSD to using SLC so it has a performance of TLC, or better, but problem remains for it durability, and PLC if anyone tell sell you that, you throw that into the trash in front of them.

Now you mightt ask why is it like that, that because when use less material to make product the cheaper you can list it, or make more money from it when selling it, and as get the point of bit per cell, basically if it take 8 chips for SLC to have 1TB, basically may only need 4 ~ 6 chips to make 1TB because you're pushing 2 bits per cell, that kind of the idea is to use less and lowering the price, now when look around between TLC and QLC, and only see price gap like $1 ~ $15 that because QLC has portion of it drive using SLC that drive up the cost on it.

Now it not ideal at all for them to go below QLC because things become unstable for maintaining data, as the more bits you push into a cell the higher chances wearing it faster, and data corruption which why QLC is good for certain cases like if don't use it as often it perfectly fine, but if you write like a lot example like you have for almost ~400TB basically want TLC, or better as have better durability so it last longer, as there are TBW = Terabytes Written limit, as there no true fix number only estimate what SSD should be good for, and could last longer than what it rated for by the manufacturers.

Hope this helps a bit for info how nand type differ, and use cases for them.

Bad 💀 Motha님이 먼저 게시:

Just be sure it's not a DRAM-less SSD or it's sustained performance suffers quite a bit.

Oh it if was DRAM-less SSD you know right away performance gonna be **** as be no better than a HDD really, or even worse.