DRAM-less SSD vs Speedy HDD

[Nosteru]

Hello,

My OS is on an old good quality Kingston 120GB SSD. I need a secondary 1TB drive mostly for Steam games as my actual HDD is dieing. I heard good and bad about DRAM-less SSD esspecialy for Steam gaming (updating, installing slow down). The only option is 2.5 SATA SSD (so no HMB as option)
My plan is a Western Digital 1TB HDD 7200RPM (WD10EZEX)
SSD brand is undecided yet, but their price is just a little higher than HDD.
Note that I will fill it space around 80-90%
I would hear some pro and contra about this.

Thanks

[ハイイロギツネ]

Цитата допису Nosteru:

Цитата допису MBK:

A ssd will always be better than an hdd for games, even a dram-less one

This was the case back in time. I still use a now 12 years old Kingston HyperX 3K SSD what is speedy. Then over time manufacturers showed up with new technologies what made it cheaper but also worst. Like QLC and DRAM-less. I readed in other places these SSD can go so slow that even an average HDD work faster. The thing is I dont know at wich scenario this can hapen.
Also note I talk about SATA SSD. I know M.2 NVME can use system memory and those are all way faster than any HDD ofc.

SATA SSDs use system memory too

[Nosteru]

Цитата допису Vx:

SATA SSDs use system memory too

For caching, no it does not. That is a feature what only NVME have, the HMB.

[Lord Flashheart]

Цитата допису Nosteru:

Hello,

My OS is on an old good quality Kingston 120GB SSD. I need a secondary 1TB drive mostly for Steam games as my actual HDD is dieing. I heard good and bad about DRAM-less SSD esspecialy for Steam gaming (updating, installing slow down). The only option is 2.5 SATA SSD (so no HMB as option)
My plan is a Western Digital 1TB HDD 7200RPM (WD10EZEX)
SSD brand is undecided yet, but their price is just a little higher than HDD.
Note that I will fill it space around 80-90%
I would hear some pro and contra about this.

Thanks

DRAMles sata SSDs - typically a bad idea, unless there are no nvme slots and/or money issues.
DRAMless nvme - well you have HBM.

I suggest not putting your games on a hard drive.
The crucial MX500 drives I suggest if you must go for sata.

It is always a better idea to get an SSD with DRAM for longevity.

Your money - your choice.

[Illusion of Progress]

Цитата допису Nosteru:

Цитата допису Nabster:

Where is no speed comparison between dramless ssd vs any hdd, ssd wins by a mile

Yes SSD wins untill the cache filled then go crawling behind any HDD. I just dont know in what scenario can hapening this.

An SSD dropping to sub-HDD performance should only ever be possible in select circumstances. Those circumstances would be when all of the following are true...

1. During "large" (often sustained) writes.

2. Once the cache is exhausted (hence large was in quotes, since what is large will depend on the cache size and the cache size will vary on model, but when looking at the same model, typically the lower capacity sizes also have smaller cache sizes).

3. On the slowest QLC SSDs without DRAM (especially SATA, but it can also occur with NVMe).

In other words, only during larger writes and on the slowest types of drives should this show up. That is typically a very unlikely scenario when playing games. Playing games is mostly reads, and mostly random reads as opposed to sustained reads. Additionally, DRAM impacts write performance but not read performance, so having it isn't that crucial for a gaming drive. It may become relevant when installing them through Steam, however.

If you're also getting a 1 TB HDD anyway, then I'd say that last part becomes a non-issue because you can always download/install them to the HDD, and then move the installation to the SSD. And that's if you even have the issue.

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

All hard drives have a delay in access times and are *EXTREMELY* slow in random access. Hard drives also suffer from fragmentation issues.

All SSD's have instant access times, significantly faster in random-access and do not suffer from fragmentation issues.
------------------------------------------------------
If all you are doing is writing multiple very large files that won't be accessed often then a hard drive would be fine.

If you are needing the storage for installing an operating system or a game onto it then an SSD should be considered a requirement.

[Andrius227]

Цитата допису 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

All hard drives have a delay in access times and are *EXTREMELY* slow in random access. Hard drives also suffer from fragmentation issues.

All SSD's have instant access times, significantly faster in random-access and do not suffer from fragmentation issues.
------------------------------------------------------
If all you are doing is writing multiple very large files that won't be accessed often then a hard drive would be fine.

If you are needing the storage for installing an operating system or a game onto it then an SSD should be considered a requirement.

Yes. SSD’s are always superior for gaming, even the slowest ones. Access time is much more important than transfer speed.

[Ralf]

Even my 15 years old 55GB sata SSD is faster than the WD10EZEX that I used for secondary drive.

[Nosteru]

Цитата допису Ralf:

Even my 15 years old 55GB sata SSD is faster than the WD10EZEX that I used for secondary drive.

Those old SSD were good fast SLC or MLC drives. Not comparable to modern cheap DRAM-less and QLC drives.
My 12+ years old 120GB Kingston HyperX 3K also realy fast compare to my HDD.
Modern is not faster always. :)

[Nosteru]

Цитата допису Illusion of Progress:

Цитата допису Nosteru:

Yes SSD wins untill the cache filled then go crawling behind any HDD. I just dont know in what scenario can hapening this.

An SSD dropping to sub-HDD performance should only ever be possible in select circumstances. Those circumstances would be when all of the following are true...

1. During "large" (often sustained) writes.

2. Once the cache is exhausted (hence large was in quotes, since what is large will depend on the cache size and the cache size will vary on model, but when looking at the same model, typically the lower capacity sizes also have smaller cache sizes).

3. On the slowest QLC SSDs without DRAM (especially SATA, but it can also occur with NVMe).

In other words, only during larger writes and on the slowest types of drives should this show up. That is typically a very unlikely scenario when playing games. Playing games is mostly reads, and mostly random reads as opposed to sustained reads. Additionally, DRAM impacts write performance but not read performance, so having it isn't that crucial for a gaming drive. It may become relevant when installing them through Steam, however.

If you're also getting a 1 TB HDD anyway, then I'd say that last part becomes a non-issue because you can always download/install them to the HDD, and then move the installation to the SSD. And that's if you even have the issue.

Your answer is the most valuable. Basicaly the info I looked for.
Thanks

PS: Your last stuff about install on HDD then move to SSD made no logic for me. Copy files also the same amount of files and size like installing the game. Also it is a combined time install+copy.

[_I_]

steam download+installs are much slower than copy even from a slower drive

steam downloads compressed files that need to be decompressed and copied, takes much more than just read/writes along from separate drives

[Nosteru]

Цитата допису _I_:

steam download+installs are much slower than copy even from a slower drive

steam downloads compressed files that need to be decompressed and copied, takes much more than just read/writes along from separate drives

I see, thanks

[Andrius227]

Цитата допису Nosteru:

Цитата допису Ralf:

Even my 15 years old 55GB sata SSD is faster than the WD10EZEX that I used for secondary drive.

Those old SSD were good fast SLC or MLC drives. Not comparable to modern cheap DRAM-less and QLC drives.
My 12+ years old 120GB Kingston HyperX 3K also realy fast compare to my HDD.
Modern is not faster always. :)

The cheapest, dramless qlc ssd beats the fastest hard drive in gaming.

[Nosteru]

Цитата допису Andrius227:

Цитата допису Nosteru:

Those old SSD were good fast SLC or MLC drives. Not comparable to modern cheap DRAM-less and QLC drives.
My 12+ years old 120GB Kingston HyperX 3K also realy fast compare to my HDD.
Modern is not faster always. :)

The cheapest, dramless qlc ssd beats the fastest hard drive in gaming.

On pure gaming maybe (some games do alot of read and write however), and as I plan to fill the drive to 80-90% where SSD cache might fail miserably. Also above mentioned on game install can be a nightmare. And we use our PC for other stuffs too not just gaming and i want constants speed even if it slower. No way I would ever buy a QLC DRAM-less SSD over a fast HDD.

[Stormer]

dont get a DRAMless one it normally cripples the devices lifespan to be even worse then an HDD

[_I_]

gaming is read only, yea any ssd will have faster reads than a hdd

writes maybe tho, hdd can cache writes, as long as it has enough cache to store data before getting in position to write it, it will be snappy
but after that, or read+writing or non seq writes is there hdds start to slow since its more head movement activity (defrag after large game install helps here to free larger seq sectors for new files, and it can pre cache predicted reads when some files are needed)

most hybrid sshd have ~8g cache, but are almost all 2.5in hdd, which are dirt slow for writes longer than that and very slow reads
1tb 3.5in sshd is ~$100, a ssd is cheaper and better in every way