Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Since USB-C is faster than USB-3, will I have issues extracting files while gaming?
I do notice a lot of FPS drops while gaming when files are getting extracted.
In Europe it's mostly from the same Chinese OEM and gets rebranded like DeLock, Icy Box, Sabrent, LogiLink, StarTech or Deltaco. And In general all 4-bay are decent whereas the 2-bay tends to have weighted plates and are made on the cheaper side. Just be aware when shopping in the US since scams are more normal via Amazon due to lolkek refund policy.
De/Compression speed is also highly depending on other factors like the OS, and the speed of the CPU and RAM.
In your opinion, what would you personally suggest that I should get?
I was hoping to get something fast, if possible.
My Specs:
RTX 2080 Ti
Ryzen 9 5900x
16gb RAM 3200
be aware that a multi-bay enclosure over eSATA (not usb) requires SATA PM (port multiplication) on the host controller. SATA PM is notoriously ♥♥♥♥♥♥ and you should avoid using it, though it's unlikely your mobo supports it at all.
if you're RAIDing your disks you should be using a proper SATA/SAS controller and not an enclosure, a USB enclosure will probably limit you to a single lane of SATA as previously stated which will quash any performance gains from raid0/1/5/6 etc
I see others advertising USB-C instead of USB-3.
Claiming to make it even faster than USB-3?
I think the drives are more important then the connection type. I have always gotten like 150-200 average copying to/from an hdd dock to my pc iver usb-3.
But I have a usb hub that when I connect my ssd to that by a usb-c to usb adapter, I get close to 400 MB a second.
You use HDD Bays and NAS primary for storage/backup purposes whereas NVMe is just if speed is the limiting factor and price isn't an issue whatsoever. And with speed it obviously come with cons like overheating easily if not properly mitigated. Running an NVMe SSD past PCIe 3.0 x2 speeds naked will no doubt make it overheat and reduce its lifespan rather quickly.
Most bays that advertise USB 3 Gen 2 for example are kinda moot since it only applies if you use SSDs and the input device supports USB 3 Gen 2. And even if you your device supports said USB spec if also relies heavily on other factors like hardware and heat which I already mentioned. If you only plan on using HDDs than a NAS is much better be it prebuilt or DIY made unless you actually know what you're doing.
Only people who know what they're doing like those that deal with DR (Data Rescue) would rely on a HDD bay since it often comes with quick copy/cloning functions not to mention having the ease of swapping drives quickly. The main purpose of a NAS is its reliability to stay on 24/7 (assuming it's not hot garbage). A HDD/bay will overheat if the drives where to be used in the same way which would lead to faster degrading HDD/SSDs.
usb c is a form factor, usb c can be used for just power, or anything from usb2 to thunderbolt standards, just for a safety bet, assume that any usbc is 3 unless stated otherwise.
now, 4 sata bays for hdds would at most make go at 1200 mb/s read if optimal conditions are met, but realisticly seek spead will slash any performance.
you are better off getting a cheap nvme 2tb or 4tb stick and putting it in the pc, or at worst, a usb enclosure for it, as far as games go. as far as files go, I beleive that at least for home use, even 100mb/s would be perfectly reasonable (1gbit nas) for mass file storage, gameing off it would be hell due to random reads and steaming, but would be workable.
I plan on getting more m.2’s.
Should I get some sort of 2 - 4 Bay slots for my m.2’s?
Do you recommend any, if you can provide links to them?
how often is that a factor? I mean realistically if a hdd read at 6mb a second it would take upwords 5 minutes for games to load, but with few exceptions, this was never a problem.
benchmarks are one thing, real world benchmarks usually show another.
I am not going to endorse anything because I don't know whats current in this area, but this is what you are looking for, something like this
https://www.newegg.com/orico-prm2-c3/p/0VN-0003-001E8?item=9SIA1DS99M5420
this is far from perfect and honestly may just be on par with sata in terms of speed/throughput,
you could get a m.2 carrier card, again, I wont endorse this because I don't know your setup and there are probably better
https://www.amazon.com/Adapter-advanced-solution-Controller-Expansion/dp/B07JKH5VTL
if your motherboard allows pcie bifurcation, a 16x slot could take 4 nvme m.2's
if your motherboard doesnt, then it can only take 1
if you pay out the ass, you can get a card that does the splitting itself but its probably better to replace the motherboard at the cost of those things.
at least in my experience, hdds outside of the pc are meant for file storage not heavy file use, gaming is heavy file use, you would be better just getting a larger driver inside the pc and consolidating data to it.
lets see here, I have a sata ssd and a game loads in 45 seconds, nvme it loads in 30 and a hdd loads in a minute, with the most notorious for this being fallout 4 because the devs were incompetent their storage method happened to benefit ssds.
now, games with direct storage, something that actually takes advantage of nvme, you have 11 games, of which I believe 8 are not worth owning, 1 is an mmo and then ratchet and clank and forbidden west.
this is effectively the benchmark for game streaming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VODSVVkKRD4
as its real world performance and not synthetic wankery.
the reason the ps5 in this case is running faster than the nvme is because the motherboard they ran it on was gen3, which while more than fast enough most of the time, the ps5 used a proprietary solution that was closer to pcie 4 speed, I think a bit faster than most pcie 4 nvmes will do though.
I use direct storage as the high end use case for a reason, its a worst case scenario for loading, and there are only 11 games in the last 2 years since it came to pc, was in xbox for 4 years, and likely had at least 2 years before then in sdk form so prep for the console launch, and a grand total of 11 games use it.
unreal 5 in one of their tech demos where they are pushing game streaming to the max showed the numbers, about 200mb read when loading in the scene, 10-20mb sustained for moving around.
we have seen this for a very VERY long time, hdds are slow at random read but if its sequential they are fairly fast, ssds effectively remove seak time as a factor, what did that do for loading stuff? a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ssd that barely saturated sata one loads things at 50 seconds, sata 2 loaded at 45 seconds, and sata 3 at 44.9
I have an 8tb 7200 rpm drive and a 4tb nvme on pcie 3, and a 2tb nvme drive on pcie 2 that have games installed, do you think my load times halved going from 2 to 3, or that I load 20x faster than my hdd? no, games that take advantage of ssds in load times may load twice as fast, all the nvme does is when things are streamed, seak time is removed from the equation and smooths things out, but nothing feels night and day different, you have no idea how much I wished it did.
the only reason that games have long load times is down to develop oversight on an issue, and if it doesn't get fixed, developer incompatnace, see bethesda as a prime example for incompetence when it comes to loading.