I'ma say it: Spinning disks are still a good choice for gaming. I wouldn't run my OS off one, but I would and do install my games library on one.
Awful idea for games with a lot of leading screens, such as Skyrim.
Total War Warhammer is arguably unplayable on HDD.
Did you know that you can move things between drives? No one plays their entire Steam library at the same time, but I can store much of it ready to play on large-capacity HDDs, which are dirt-cheap. If I suddenly got back into Skyrim again, I'd spend a few minutes moving it to one of my SSDs.
Congrats, you have just invented caching, but worse
SSDs have limited write endurance, so moving a lot of large files on and off of them will wear the nand flash out shortening its lifetime and potentially killing it
If yoh DO want to run off of a HDD, it is a good idea, but for older games that were designed to run on them, modern games are more reliant on fast drives
Edit:
SSDs have limited write endurance, so moving a lot of large files on and off of them will wear the nand flash out shortening its lifetime and potentially killing it
This is the conventional wisdom, but honestly I've not seen any detectable wear on any of my several year old SSDs even with daily use. I've seen more SSDs fail just due to age/power on hours professionally and never wear-related
That's probably because you are not moving 100s gigabites of daya on a regular basis (i assume)
But for gamers moving game installs that they don't feel like rebuilding the mod load out for between an HDD and an SSD that might be moving an extra 100GB month or so, probably less frequently depending on how much they're moving games around, plus it's no more wear than if they simply uninstalled and reinstalled the game as needed. Ultimately I don't think that'll make much difference.
I'll look at the wear stats on my main desktop with its 8 year old SSD when I get a chance and share
It has nothing to do with modern hardware since you're still limited by the read speed of your disks. Given we're talking about spinning rust, that will take tens of minutes to complete a couple hundred gig, and even more so if you're transferring tons of small files.
I could easily see it taking over an hour for a 200+gb install. Even going at the theoretical max, you're looking at 20min just in data. Tacking on added latency from opening and closing many small files and any kind of fragmentation/disk location, that's going to add significant time to the transfer.
Depends on the game. Iβve definitely seen requirements list an SSD specifically and the game was designed around that assumption.
I tend to agree for most things, but modern Blizzard titles are near unplayable without SSD because of they way that they load assets. You'd be technically in the game, but half of the models take 5 minutes to load in.
The are other games that load in things like this, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Honestly......spinning disks are good for anything. Yeah I don't have any in my gaming rig but my NAS is only spinners. Cheap and fast enough.
It all comes down to how much money you have. If you can only afford spinning disks, then get them - and enjoy your gaming. If you can afford faster drives then great, good for you!
I used to think this too until I got a proper NVME (instead of another SATA SSD). Once you get used to programs opening instantlyβand no loading screens in games, everβthere's no going back to spinning disks. Waiting 10-20 seconds for a program to open on a HDD feels like an eternity now.
Edit: formatting, spelling
Yeah but you must recognise that's a luxury. There's no going back because your circumstances allow it. If someone needs more storage but they can't afford an SSD then there is going back - and I for one would choose loading screens over no screens.
There's way too much snobbery around PCs imo. I want to encourage the world to be more compromising so that there is no societal pressure to buy this year's gfx card for Β£1700 and this year's CPU for Β£700 and this year's newest nvme for Β£300 etc...etc...buy what you can and want to afford.
Theres only one type of mod that racked up 100gb of Skyrim mods. And it's not because of looting mods!
Yeah. Textures and remodels.
100 GBs is mid-tier modding nowadays. That's where you stop if you want Skyrim to still be Skyrim instead of a game made in the last 5 years that is actually good.
100GB for a game? Rookie numbers by todayβs standards. Removing that still wouldnβt be enough for modern βAAAβ games
*Laughs in Spider-Man 2 Brazil* (the unofficial PC port)
It's a 256GB download, and when there's an update, you have to re-download the entire game again. I hope you have gigabit internet.
Spider-Man 2 got a PC version, but it was a completely different game from the more well-known console versions and wasn't nearly as good. A linear progression of levels instead of an open world and you could only swing from "webbing points."
Dude's talking out their ass.
And just to clarify, I was taking about the 2023 version of Spider-Man 2 on PS5, not the 2002 version on GameCube. The official PC port is that game doesn't come out for another year, or you could just play the unofficial port now.
And FWIW hardware limitations weren't a thing in 2002, either. Graphics cards existed then. So again, dude's talking out of their ass.
I unironically want Todd Howard to release Skyrim again with full pathtracing support
Who the hell only have 100GB of modded Skyrim? Even just my install of FO4 is at least 400GB.
I think the point is that he quit playing a long time ago but can't bring himself to delete it. Even to free up a bit of space.
What do want him to do? Redownload 100GB worth of mods at some point in the future in which he wants to play the game again?
I don't know about you but I'm keeping my 400GB modded FO4, even if I haven't touched the game in more than half a year. I rather spend 4 hours updating mods than spend 8 hours redownloading everything and spend another 8 hours debugging the crashes.
