Running Arma2 from SSD

[AnimalMother92 10]

well I've got all of Windows 7 64 bit and Arma 2 + all my mods running from the SSD and couldn't be happier. The only thing Windows is useful for is running Arma 2 anyways :rolleyes:

[KeyCat 131]

While I'm waiting for the cash to build up to buy an SSD, I've copied my entire game directory, all 8.2GB of it to a USB drive. I know that i's sequential read speed is much slower than my 500GB Spinpoint, but the much lower access time more than makes up for this. I get no texture lag anymore, no slowdowns, faster game loads and slightly better FPS.

The drive in question is a 16GB Corsair Flash Voyager. I've put it in a USB port that's directly attached to the motherboard header. It's average read speed is (only) 28MB/s and it's average access time is 0.7 ms.

Interesting and thanks for sharing! May I ask what 500 GB Spinpoint you have?

No SSD for me (yet) but I was planning to get the newer 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 HDD hoping to improve my stuttering and texture lag but maybe I shold try a USB stick first ;)

Anyone using a 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 and have any comments? According to what I read it's one of the faster HDD's around today.

/KC

Edited December 29, 2009 by KeyCat

[LondonLad 13]

Interesting and thanks for sharing! May I ask what 500 GB Spinpoint you have?

No SSD for me (yet) but I was planning to get a new 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 HDD hoping to improve my stuttering and texture lag but maybe I shold try a USB stick first ;)

Anyone using a 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 and have any comments? According to what I read it's one of the faster HDD's around today.

/KC

I'm getting 2 * 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3's on Thursday (setting them up in RAID0) - If I do happen to notice any difference to the drives I have then I'll post back here :)

[Tankbuster 1746]

Interesting and thanks for sharing! May I ask what 500 GB Spinpoint you have?

No SSD for me (yet) but I was planning to get the newer 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 HDD hoping to improve my stuttering and texture lag but maybe I shold try a USB stick first ;)

Anyone using a 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 and have any comments? According to what I read it's one of the faster HDD's around today.

/KC

It's an HD501LJ.

---------- Post added at 11:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 PM ----------

I'm getting 2 * 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3's on Thursday (setting them up in RAID0) - If I do happen to notice any difference to the drives I have then I'll post back here :)

RAID all you like, you'll still have 8 or 9 ms seek time.

[december 0]

I have eSATA SSD stick

http://tw.silicon-power.com/product/pro_detail.php?main=17⊂=54&pro=115&sub_v=&currlang=utf8

It is faster than my hd drive. I copied ARMA2 onto it and run the game from there, I also put my page file on it.

The game loads faster but I haven't seen much difference in game play.

[Rakov 0]

All this talk is for practicality and usefulness right? Putting Arma files on a RamDisk of actual RAM is till faster, over all, or am I missing something?

[KeyCat 131]

I'm getting 2 * 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3's on Thursday (setting them up in RAID0) - If I do happen to notice any difference to the drives I have then I'll post back here :)

Looking forward to hear your verdict, thanks in advance...

It's an HD501LJ.

Thanks TB!

All this talk is for practicality and usefulness right? Putting Arma files on a RamDisk of actual RAM is till faster, over all, or am I missing something?

Yes Rakov, RAM-disks is as fast as you get with todays technology.

/KC

[76 0]

WOW, thank you for that "-world=empty" my SSD load time went from 27

to 12!

HDD 37 to 15 seconds! (samsung 500Gig/platter F3s)

My load time to main menu with a stock WD caviar blue 320GB with -world=empty is 11 secs... or do you mean loading into actual game?

[AnimalMother92 10]

with -world=empty its like 5 seconds from click to menu. loading chernarus is another story

[MrBump 10]

While I'm waiting for the cash to build up to buy an SSD, I've copied my entire game directory, all 8.2GB of it to a USB drive. I know that i's sequential read speed is much slower than my 500GB Spinpoint, but the much lower access time more than makes up for this. I get no texture lag anymore, no slowdowns, faster game loads and slightly better FPS.

The drive in question is a 16GB Corsair Flash Voyager. I've put it in a USB port that's directly attached to the motherboard header. It's average read speed is (only) 28MB/s and it's average access time is 0.7 ms.

At those speeds that must be the Voyager GT right?

I'm getting a 16Gb OCZ Throttle eSata drive today, I'm hoping this will do till SSD's are more mainstream in pricing.

Edited December 30, 2009 by MrBump

[Tankbuster 1746]

At those speeds that must be the Voyager GT right?

I'm getting a 16Gb OCZ Throttle eSata drive today, I'm hoping this will do till SSD's are more mainstream in pricing.

I wish it's a GT! Honestly, it's a basic Flash Voyager. I too drooled over an OCZ Throttle, but it was not available to add to the list of kit I submitted to Father Christmas. By making do with this USB stick, I've saved a few pennies to spend on a new Intel X25-M next month. :)

[[aps]gnat 28]

I started off with 1x 1TB WD1001FALS with my Asus P7P55 D Deluxe, i7 860, 4GB 2000 ram, HD5770 1G Gfx and a 650WattPS, with a fresh Win7Pro load.

It seemed to be working the drive hard AND Win7 was telling me (neat feature) that the drive was the weak link in all the hardware.

I couldn't bring myself to fork out MORE money for a SSD, so got another WD1001FALS and did a RAID-0.

Win7 told me my drive system score improved marginally (5.4 score to 6.3), but it still lags all the other hardware that scoring 7.5's.

(No Overclocking anywhere as yet)

Either way, the ArmA2 Benchmarks did not change before or after.

All setting High, 1680x1050, Pre-Processing OFF and VD of 4.5km (#1 benchmark = 35fps #2 = 15fps)

Maps don't seem to load any faster, but I did notice a) the drives don't work so hard b) I can spin on the spot ingame now either in city or open space and I barely get any stutter/lag.

Not sure if it was the 1.05 patch or the new computer, but the LOD detail at larger distances is AWESOME. Much more detailed screens!

[bangtail 0]

Gnat;1529512']I started off with 1x 1TB WD1001FALS with my Asus P7P55 D Deluxe' date=' i7 860, 4GB 2000 ram, HD5770 1G Gfx and a 650WattPS, with a fresh Win7Pro load.

It seemed to be working the drive hard AND Win7 was telling me (neat feature) that the drive was the weak link in all the hardware.

I couldn't bring myself to fork out MORE money for a SSD, so got another WD1001FALS and did a RAID-0.

Win7 told me my drive system score improved marginally (5.4 score to 6.3), but it still lags all the other hardware that scoring 7.5's.

(No Overclocking anywhere as yet)

Either way, the ArmA2 Benchmarks did not change before or after.

All setting High, 1680x1050, Pre-Processing OFF and VD of 4.5km (#1 benchmark = 35fps #2 = 15fps)

Maps don't seem to load any faster, but I did notice a) the drives don't work so hard b) I can spin on the spot ingame now either in city or open space and I barely get any stutter/lag.

Not sure if it was the 1.05 patch or the new computer, but the LOD detail at larger distances is AWESOME. Much more detailed screens![/quote']

You routinely see scores of 7.3 or more in the "Windows experience" when using a decent SSD (depends on the SSD, mine are 7.6). However, "Windows experience" is not a good benchmark of RW performance so I wouldn't worry about it :)

As you can see below, in RW tests, the 2TB WD Black is actually faster than the more expensive VelociRaptor and is holding it's own against the SSDs (and it's not even in a RAID config).

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/24310-western-digital-caviar-black-2tb-hard-drive-review-12.html

[Tankbuster 1746]

That depends on your definition of 'holding it's own'.

It certainly whooped the raptors, but those results don't really apply to our application. Yes, it can shunt big files around, but Arma 2 wants lots of little files and it wants them yesterday.

Chalk and cheese. Chalk is rather more chalky, yet cheese is quite cheesy, Sherlock.

[bangtail 0]

That depends on your definition of 'holding it's own'.

It certainly whooped the raptors, but those results don't really apply to our application. Yes, it can shunt big files around, but Arma 2 wants lots of little files and it wants them yesterday.

Chalk and cheese. Chalk is rather more chalky, yet cheese is quite cheesy, Sherlock.

I've tested A2 extensively with Intel SSDs and WD Black 1TB and 2TB (RAID0). The only thing that changes is the load time and not by that much.

[MrBump 10]

I've tested A2 extensively with Intel SSDs and WD Black 1TB and 2TB (RAID0). The only thing that changes is the load time and not by that much.

RAID0 improves the seek times slightly 10ms compared to 12ms for a single WD Black 1TB, but it's still nowhere near the 0.1ms seek time of a Intel SSD, this definately makes a big difference.

[bangtail 0]

RAID0 improves the seek times slightly 10ms compared to 12ms for a single WD Black 1TB, but it's still nowhere near the 0.1ms seek time of a Intel SSD, this definately makes a big difference.

Again, not really when you are talking about A2, at least not in the testing I've done. Don't get me wrong, I love my SSDs, I just don't think they are the "night and day" solution that some people profess them to be in the case of A2.

Edited December 30, 2009 by BangTail

[MrBump 10]

Again, not really when you are talking about A2, at least not in the testing I've done. Don't get me wrong, I love my SSDs, I just don't think they are the "night and day" solution that some people profess them to be in the case of A2.

I agree that they're not going to improve overall framerate much if at all, but they do help a lot with modules that spawn like the ACM or the SOM.

[bangtail 0]

I agree that they're not going to improve overall framerate much if at all, but they do help a lot with modules that spawn like the ACM or the SOM.

Every little bit helps ;)

[Freebie 10]

Simple answer, you can use SSDs with XP and maintain performance. SSDs with garbage collection work regardless the OS, this is the way I'm using mine at the moment. You can also perform a manual Trim command (that is the functionality of the W7 you are speaking of) as long as the drive supports it and have a utility provided from the manufacturer (wiper.exe for OCZ).

For more information on SSD I recommend visiting the OCZ SSD forums and reading some posts:

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=186

Thanks Tony, I already got my hands on an OCZ Vertex 60G SSD with 64Mb cache. I installed W7 64bit on it and Arma 2 but it didn't perform any better than it does on XP32 on my 1TB Western Digital HDD. :(

From early experimentation I know that Arma 2 doesn't like W7 and Vista on my machine hence why I went back to XP originally. But I still thought that it would run better than it did on W7 using the SSD.

You say that your running XP on ur SSD and maintaining the performance with a garbage collection program. Can I ask what SSD you have? and how long have you been using it? Plus are you also using that wiper.exe as well as OCZ's garbage collection program? There's conflicting information about XP performance maintainence being possible/not possible so I don't know what to believe or what to try.

I'd rather get the info 1st hand from another Arma2 player. As the only reason I'm doing this is to get Arma2 to run better.

ps- if anyone else here has been playing Arma 2 on XP/SSD for a while and is keeping the drive maintained and performing well then please post up what SSD you have and what you're doing to keep it running at it's peak.

Sorry for all the questions. :o

[tonygrunt 10]

Garbage collection is firmware feature of the drive, no external control except you are to let the drive idle so it does its job. Wiper.exe is an external program that perform the trim command but doesn't work when you are running your controller in RAID mode as I do. For my SSDs there are at the moment 2 firmwares, 1.40 is the one with trim capability and 1.41 is the one with garbage collection that I'm running.

I don't know first hand but from what I have gathered of either one would work with XP.

[LondonLad 13]

Looking forward to hear your verdict, thanks in advance...

<snip rest of message>

/KC

KC,

I've finally managed to get everything setup and reinstalled, although I've not had a chance to game with ARMA 2 yet (probably tomorrow 'Sunday' now).

I can't say the speed difference is a 'wow' but more of a 'hmm, that does feel a little faster/nippier than my previous drives'

Now where I have seen a dramtic 'ooo, now that's faster' is when I'm copying files around, or just generally doing thing (e.g. installing programs).

My old HDD's were:

2 * Seagate Barracuda ES.2 500GB (ST3500320NS | GB0500EAFJH)

These are designed more for server related systems.

I have benchmarks which I'll post here (using HDTune):

---

[sEAGATE]

---

Single Seagate HDD (with 64k Block Size)

HD Tune: GB0500EAFJH Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 48.2 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Maximum : 111.2 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Average : 84.4 MB/sec

Access Time : 12.5 ms

Burst Rate : 60.5 MB/sec

CPU Usage : -1.0%

64k Block Size

---

Dual (RAID0) Segate HDD's (with 64k Block Size)

HD Tune: Intel Raid 0 Volume Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 90.0 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Maximum : 150.0 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Average : 129.8 MB/sec

Access Time : 12.7 ms

Burst Rate : 53.2 MB/sec

CPU Usage : -1.0%

---

[sAMSUNG]

---

Dual (RAID0) Samsung HDD's (with 64k Block Size)

HD Tune: Intel Raid 0 Volume Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 92.3 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Maximum : 179.6 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Average : 153.4 MB/sec

Access Time : 11.6 ms

Burst Rate : 94.1 MB/sec

CPU Usage : -1.0%

64k Block Size

---

Dual (RAID0) Samsung HDD's (with 128k Block Size)

HD Tune: Intel Raid 0 Volume Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 114.3 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Maximum : 276.8 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Average : 195.8 MB/sec

Access Time : 11.8 ms

Burst Rate : 100.1 MB/sec

CPU Usage : -1.0%

128k Block size

The last results (F3-128k Block Size) is how my current new F3's are setup.

I unfortunately forgot to run the HDTune in 128 Block Size against the old Seagate HDD's.

I also didn't get the chance to run the F3 as a single drive to perform a HDTune test on.

I think you can get a rough estimate of the above 2 missing tests mind you (as a rough comparision)

All-in-all I am happy with these new drives (until I want to switch to SSD - which I'm happy to wait another couple of years in the hope that both larger capacity HDD's appear, and the cost drops)

Hope that helps :)

Feel free to message me if you need anything further :)

Happy New Year

Edited January 2, 2010 by LondonLad

[zoog 18]

Interesting thread :)

2 days ago my normal SATA drive died so I'm now researching if I want to buy an SSD for Win7 + ArmA 2 and then wait for my old disc to be replaced under warranty for all other data.

I've been running ArmA 2 pretty well, on high settings and with 5k viewdistance. BUT, the only thing that botherd me is:

- in urban environments all these building textures "flash up" when you first look at them or just look around

- when you zoom in the tree shape takes a while to take show the "zoomed in" state which blows away the immersion

So from what I understand and by reading this thread, if you have a good SSD (with cache, TRIM support etc) those problems are most probably gone? I wouldn't be buying it for general mission load times because I couldn't care less about that. It would really be for in game texture pop-up and tree pop-up.

My current system specs:

Phenom II x4 955BE 3.2Ghz

Ati HD4890 1GB

2x2GB DDR3

MSI 790GX-G65

[Tankbuster 1746]

I still get the trees morphing a little, especially the red ones, but I never get the ulgy LODS showing, then changing to nice LODs.

Following improvements may be put to the new OS (W7U) that is on the SSD; I haven't had a CTD since, framerate is improved, no unexplained stutters.

[zoog 18]

I still get the trees morphing a little, especially the red ones, but I never get the ulgy LODS showing, then changing to nice LODs.

Any chance you can record a short video showing the trees when zooming in? Or anyone else if interested? Cause I'm unable to find something like that on youtube and really need to see with my own eyes if it warrants a way more expensive SSD :) I'm still soo on the fence right now.