Cool, 10 years from now when it's €50 for 1TB.

That will be a pretty dreadfull performance/££££ upgrade in games

That's fine, it'll go down unlike HDD prices Game performance will require direct storage 1.1 games

It's fine, but 10Gbps is a little disappointing. PCIe 4 ones currently do 7Gbps+ .

Will get excited when there's 4k random reads of 200MB sec. We can just raid gen 4 drives to get better than 7k read.

pegasus1:

That will be a pretty dreadfull performance/££££ upgrade in games

SATA is still plenty fast enough for most games, so yeah, awful value proposition. Games haven't really been bottlenecked by disk performance in a long while, especially now that you can load so many more assets in RAM than we could in the 2000s and earlier. Of course, there are some games that probably benefit from high-speed storage, like those with 4K+ textures and no loading screens. Even then, I'm not so sure.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/F3BeiZNq6VbDwyxzxF/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952aphfr2ok35rre2bkdyho38q4ymffzupvzr22oa7u&rid=200w.gif&ct=g Pass

Stairmand:

It's fine, but 10Gbps is a little disappointing. PCIe 4 ones currently do 7Gbps+ .

PCIe Gen4 X4 has 8GB/s of bandwidth. So it would limit this SSD. But I agree with you, it's not a big step up. Especially considering the price.

schmidtbag:

SATA is still plenty fast enough for most games, so yeah, awful value proposition. Games haven't really been bottlenecked by disk performance in a long while, especially now that you can load so many more assets in RAM than we could in the 2000s and earlier. Of course, there are some games that probably benefit from high-speed storage, like those with 4K+ textures and no loading screens. Even then, I'm not so sure.

I saw a boost when going to NVMe drives from SATA, but maybe only in a couple of games and those were texture heavy. DCS performance increased massively from SSD to NVMe as it loves RAM so the start of a self made mission might see huge amounts of textures loaded from the drive into RAM (i use 64gb). Its not unusual to see well over 30GB being used on big missions featuring lots of units.

Still gonna keep my pcie4 sabrant rockets plenty fast.

I am more worried about the size of SSD's then of the speed. SSD's need to be bigger. 4TB is nothing. I currently have a 14tb mechanical drive in my system, which i would love to change to a SSD.

pegasus1:

I saw a boost when going to NVMe drives from SATA, but maybe only in a couple of games and those were texture heavy. DCS performance increased massively from SSD to NVMe as it loves RAM so the start of a self made mission might see huge amounts of textures loaded from the drive into RAM (i use 64gb). Its not unusual to see well over 30GB being used on big missions featuring lots of units.

I have to admit I haven't done much with modern AAA titles so I could see how some are becoming demanding enough to saturate SATA bandwidth. I get the impression most games still work fine on SATA. Perhaps there's a little bit of a delay but at least we're not talking several seconds like what we used to have to deal with for HDDs and optical discs. Honestly though what annoys me is how content isn't better compressed. We've all got CPUs that can handle some pretty heavy compression algorithms and it would put good use to the abundance of RAM we all have. I would gladly trade temporary high CPU usage for more disk space. Besides, I'm sure in most cases a modern affordable CPU can decompress data faster than an expensive SSD can read uncompressed data. This implies a real-world use-case, where games aren't just dumping GBs of data sequentially into RAM.

WhiteLightning:

I am more worried about the size of SSD's then of the speed. SSD's need to be bigger. 4TB is nothing. I currently have a 14tb mechanical drive in my system, which i would love to change to a SSD.

I agree. As I just spoke about, games are getting rather bloated, and unless you use BTRFS or enable LZO on NTFS, it's kinda annoying to have to keep deleting games to make room for others. Granted, this usually isn't that big of a deal since the most bloated games are ones you maybe only play for a year and then never again, so there isn't really much point in keeping them around if you're never going to use them. Since re-downloading such games takes forever, I often just archive these games to a mechanical HDD. Sometimes I'm lazy enough where I won't even move the game off the drive; I just access it through USB and the experience is typically "good enough".

Give it a year or two and those prices should come down 🙂 , as someone stated before we need beter reads and writes at random 4k.

WhiteLightning:

I am more worried about the size of SSD's then of the speed. SSD's need to be bigger. 4TB is nothing. I currently have a 14tb mechanical drive in my system, which i would love to change to a SSD.

Amen and even though i now have two diskless arrays they're all 2Tb one is RAID and one is just a JBOD for media 4tb + M.2 are still prohibitively expensive especially when you get sale prices @ 2Tb

the physical size is going to be worrying too the cooler in the stock photo

no just no they are price of gpu now? and 1TB is 4/5th price of ps5? and almost twice price of ps5 for 2 tb?

Kaleid:

That's fine, it'll go down unlike HDD prices Game performance will require direct storage 1.1 games

It doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. QLC and DRAM-less SSDs are still several times more expensive per TB and lower density per drive. HDD prices have started to slide back down now that Chia isn't worthwhile.