Инсталирайте Steam
вход
|
език
Опростен китайски (简体中文)
Традиционен китайски (繁體中文)
Японски (日本語)
Корейски (한국어)
Тайландски (ไทย)
Чешки (Čeština)
Датски (Dansk)
Немски (Deutsch)
Английски (English)
Испански — Испания (Español — España)
Испански — Латинска Америка (Español — Latinoamérica)
Гръцки (Ελληνικά)
Френски (Français)
Италиански (Italiano)
Индонезийски (Bahasa Indonesia)
Унгарски (Magyar)
Холандски (Nederlands)
Норвежки (Norsk)
Полски (Polski)
Португалски (Português)
Бразилски португалски (Português — Brasil)
Румънски (Română)
Руски (Русский)
Финландски (Suomi)
Шведски (Svenska)
Турски (Türkçe)
Виетнамски (Tiếng Việt)
Украински (Українська)
Докладване на проблем с превода
Правила и насоки за дискусии
Докладване на публикацията
I don't understand where you are getting the notion that the DRAM cache is only used for writes, or that it is only impactful for writes? It helps with both, and more specifically it helps with random I/O which can be significant in gaming depending on the game/engine. DRAM caches the address map which is used for both reads and writes; as well as wear leveling and TRIM.
While I understand the point you're trying to make here, the two are significantly different in function and impact. For NAND, what you are describing is only impactful at the ends of a write and/or with filesystem misalignment; and is largely due to old filesystems and filesystems retaining legacy support. Most NAND based SSDs use 4k or larger blocks but present 512b logical sectors to "look like" old HDDs for OS and filesystem compatibility.
The SSD controller is aware of this and what its actual NAND makeup is; and it does account for this in performing writes and TRIM. The SSD controller will minimize the amount of partial blocks, primarily because doing so minimizes the number of erase cycles and thus increases lifespan.
SMR on the other hand is more akin to the difference between SLC and MLC, whereby it is "layering" a small portion of a sector in one track with a sector in an adjacent track. This can impact the edge of an entire write, and the overlap is a computed differential. This is akin to every sector on a drive having a "defect" and needing to use ECC to complete a read. It will impact the entirety of a read or write regardless of size.
Where they are more similar is in how the disadvantages of SMR is attempted to be minimized which is why there is Zoned Block Commands (ZBC) and newer SMR drives being Zoned Block Devices (which is similar to what I noted above about the SSD controller being aware of its internal NAND makeup and contextually aware of writes).
While I don't disagree with your conclusion here I don't think anyone was saying DRAM is "make or break" in regards to gaming. The point being made is that DRAM based SSDs can make a significant difference in real-world gaming applications. Obviously that isn't a blanket statement that all games or all scenarios will be noticeable, however, there are a plethora of scenarios where this is the case. Another such case which will continue to become more prevalent with new games coming out that are "current gen only" titles will be more use of DirectStorage. Again, this isn't to say DRAM-less SSDs will be "broken" / don't work with DirectStorage (it "can work" with HDDs too), but they will see a meaningful difference in those titles. The difference will become more impactful as more game engines increase what is being streamed in and out.
An example of this on the cutting edge is StarCitizen's Object Container Streaming (OCS) / Server-side Object Container Streaming (SOCS) which, like most current-gen engines do with streaming larger texture files in/out, streams entire "objects" in/out of memory. The difference between a DRAM-less SSD and one with DRAM is noticeable in the frequency and size of delayed object "pop-in", such as the missing floor tiles in the image below.
https://imgur.com/a/P86HUSI
Again, this isn't to say that DRAM is "make or break" for gaming. I think the biggest flaw in your arguments is that DRAM cache only has to do with writes.
As others have noted, the DRAM isn't going to be the major factor in an SSDs heat. The SSD/NAND Controller will be what is generating heat. I don't see that anyone has asked what model Laptop you have yet; I think that would be useful for people to make rational recommendations as there is far more than just DRAM/DRAM-less and heat in regards to SSD performance.
Reading that article, what I'm seeing discussed is how they compressed the game to achieve a given install size. The compressed data is then read and uncompressed during runtime, costing CPU time for the exchange of smaller storage install sizes. That part checks out. I'm not seeing anything about stuff being compressed and re-written back to the disk though? Am I missing something, because what would the purpose of that even be? I think you're inferring something from that article that isn't there (or I'm the one missing where it is said it compresses all the data to write back to the disk for... whatever reason). It's not like the fact it was read and uncompressed means it is now gone and needs compressed and rewritten or anything. Is that what you're thinking? Just reading and uncompromising something doesn't remove it. So why would you compress and write it back?
But regardless of whatever Hitman 3 is doing (or not doing), exceptions do exist. I'm well aware of this. Minecraft is one of the primary games I play and it generates world data using RNG and then does write it to disk. Said game is fine on drives besides the fastest despite it. Behavior alone doesn't dictate needs.
Regardless of what games are exceptions (or not) on a behavioral level, what ultimately matters is the results. And I haven't seen articles come out and shedding light to the idea that non-fast SSDs, or specifically SSDs without DRAM, are significantly worse off for gaming as a rule. To the contrary, through the years as faster SSDs have kept coming out, articles seemed to have kept supporting the notion that faster SSDs are barely any faster in real world practice for gaming despite being much faster in paper specs. I'm open to real world results showing gaming is much worse off without DRAM, and specifically because of the lack of DRAM, if you have any to provide that show that (articles serving as generalist bullet points or pros and cons of DRAM don't do that) if this has changed, but I don't think it has.
The misinformation would be presuming a stance of me that I didn't make. Saying that most games are more reading and less writing, and that DRAM helps only with writes (or mostly with writes if I'm wrong on the extremity of that) is not the same as saying that.
To my understanding, DRAM has either no or a very negligible performance for reads and it is entirely or largely there for write performance. Maybe I am wrong on the extremity of saying it is not being beneficial to writes at all and maybe it technically does something and I will admit that if so, but yes my understanding was that it's entirely (or at least mostly) a write thing.
Of course, as I myself gave with another example, there's a lot of misconception out there on a lot of things so perhaps this was one I fell prey to?
My own original stance was one that DRAM isn't make or break for gaming, and I elaborated by saying DRAM is commonly confused for the ability to do caching in entirely.
Someone served as an example and replied with an experience of a slow flash drive slowing down further, paired with the notion that they would never consider drives without DRAM for gaming because of it, when said behavior they described happens regardless of DRAM being present or not because that behavior is what happens when the write cache (not DRAM) is exhausted. Said behavior occurs on the fastest drives with DRAM too. I find using a slow flash drive as a very poor example to presume all drives without DRAM mirror it based solely on that factor alone.
From what I know, there's really not a lot of concrete information on this (open to being provided it if I'm wrong!) because there's not really a way to isolate the influence of DRAM alone and keep the drive the same otherwise, no? Once you change the drive you're also changing other things, and drives without DRAM also tend to have slower controllers or slower NAND and so on and so forth. The DRAM alone is hard to isolate.
I admit I'm a bit behind the very latest crop of games (outside the reputation that they're a mess and/or performance demanding in some regards) and I expect next generation stuff based on the newer consoles in particular could be where examples of higher storage demands occur.
But I still haven't seen any articles showing specifically that without DRAM, and because of that alone, that a drive significantly worse off for games.
I'm always open to such information as it changes, but the "might change in the future" reasoning only carries concrete weight in my mind when it materializes.
For example; WD Blue SN550 vs WD Black SN750 is interesting in this regard as the Blue is using a newer generation TLC NAND, and a slightly newer controller than the Black. They both use an in-house WD controller which is essentially the same controller; with the SN550 being a cut-down newer revision with 4 channels instead of 8 channels and updated to NVMe 1.4 to add support for HMB.
PCIe Gen3 x4
NVMe 1.4
DRAM-less (Supports Host Memory Buffer)
BiCS4 96L TLC NAND
PCIe Gen3 x4
NVMe 1.3
SK-Hynix DDR4 DRAM
BiSC3 64L TLC NAND
Here is the comparison in Anandtech Storage Bench (ATSB)[www.anandtech.com]
Some of the performance delta, e.g. the peak sequential write throughput, is obviously going to be mostly attributable to the additional NAND channels, as well as the SSD configuration being populated with multiple NAND packages vs one NAND package on the SN550. However, the read and write latency differences are largely attributable to the DRAM, as well as a significant portion of the burst write performance.
Even just having two slots can be the difference between ~2TB and ~16TB
And yeah, until the SN850, Western Digital didn't truly have a very high end SSD (at least under their own name) so the Black 700 series being not much better than the Blue, especially a newer one, doesn't surprise me. But that sort of serves as an example of what I was saying too. More and more are mid-range or even upper-mid/lower high end SSDs forgoing DRAM. It's not as much of an issue like it was in the SATA days.
The benchmarks, articles, or real worlds results through the years I've seen time and again never show that gaming is just substantially worse without either fast SSDs or specifically those without DRAM. The opposite has only been shown time and again. I think a lot of this is just bad but outdated impressions for the SATA days where's lack of DRAM did have other drawbacks and people presuming it's both an across the board issue, and still an issue today, and neither of those are frankly true. Now you have people presuming "the first tier of cache ran out and speeds dropped" equals "it's because of lack of DRAM" and that's not why.
Context is important too; OP's on a laptop so this doesn't strike me as "I'm willing to jump increasing cost into very unnecessary and diminishing returns" but... I admit that's my own presumption.
And the idea that these fast drives are needed because games are uncompressing and recompressing themselves and writing it back to disk during runtime on the regular (or even at all) is... how does anyone infer that sort of thing from an article that doesn't even state it!? I'm sorry but that one made me tilt my head.
But I'd like further information if you have it on how DRAM helps reads (and more than to a minuscule level) and not writes. Not because I don't believe you; to the contrary, I would hold something you say in higher regard but at the same time, if I'm going to formally flip my knowledge/statement on that bit, I'd like to be sure I'm correct. If you can show that, I'll admit I was wrong on the "it doesn't impact reads" statement, but I get the feeling that even if I'm technically wrong it's still something that largely impacts writes, so the amount that would move the needle is so small it won't change my original statements. That statement being that DRAM isn't outright necessary for gaming, and that people presume DRAM-less drives is worse off than they actually are (especially for certain roles like gaming) and that they can't cache at all (they can).
A drive is no means in an oven because it's at 50C as many of them are just fine up to temperatures much higher. My pair of NVMe drives do run at ~45C (primary drive) and ~50C (secondary drive) idle, and are fine up to just above 80C. My old SATA drive did run at ~30C to 35C. But most people definitely aren't going to see temperatures that low on NVMe drives, especially while pushing them but maybe not even idle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnST5rA64Oc