SSD for Arma 2

[AnimalMother92 10]

@W0lle

going from a decent 7200rpm hard drive to an Intel X-25M G2 SSD, I can say that the game launches faster and maps load noticeably more quickly. Makes for a pleasant experience.

[mosh 0]

BangTail is trying to say that load times are faster with SSD, but when coming to ARMA2 particulary in-game streaming RAID0 HDD's will do almost as good to a cheaper price with more storage. Load up time for ARMA2 is be better with SSD, but the in-game streaming will be almost as good with RAID. This is the reason I myself is going for that option. With a SSD for OS alone due to load-up times are fast as hell. That will make a great system for less money with more storage.

I agree. I also tested with Intel SSD (just 1, no raid) and 2 WD Blacks (Raid 0) and came to the same conclusion.

I am still using the SSD for OS and Arma, while everything else goes on the WDs. Since I spend a lot of time in editor fast load times are good, and it does run just a little better on the SSD.

RAM disk is not an option (financially) yet for me.

[bangtail 0]

I agree. I also tested with Intel SSD (just 1, no raid) and 2 WD Blacks (Raid 0) and came to the same conclusion.

I am still using the SSD for OS and Arma, while everything else goes on the WDs. Since I spend a lot of time in editor fast load times are good, and it does run just a little better on the SSD.

RAM disk is not an option (financially) yet for me.

Nice to see someone else with real world experience confirming what I've been saying for ages :)

I run A2 off the SSDs as well (and like you, that's more for the editor than anything else) but with the exception of loading times, the differences in game are almost imperceptible when compared to HDD RAID0.

Edited April 23, 2010 by BangTail

[santafee 10]

Does it fix the popping up textures?

[bangtail 0]

Does it fix the popping up textures?

No, it is slightly better IMHO but there is still some texture lag and stuttering on SSDs.

Edited April 23, 2010 by BangTail

[mosh 0]

but with the exception of loading times, the differences in game are almost imperceptible when compared to RAID0.

I also meant to point out before with my hardware versus yours (holy shit), there is probably more of a difference for me than you with the SSD. Those of us with lesser CPU, RAM, GPU, and such would probably notice more of a difference with a SSD? Maybe? Or should I put the pipe down...

But all that being said, SSD is not the all mighty savior (not that I thought it would be). And I do agree with you as I originally said.

But it is worth every penny for what it did to the overall performance of my OS.

[bangtail 0]

I also meant to point out before with my hardware versus yours (holy shit), there is probably more of a difference for me than you with the SSD. Those of us with lesser CPU, RAM, GPU, and such would probably notice more of a difference with a SSD? Maybe? Or should I put the pipe down...

But all that being said, SSD is not the all mighty savior (not that I thought it would be). And I do agree with you as I originally said.

But it is worth every penny for what it did to the overall performance of my OS.

Agreed, it's these people that try to portray them as the 'second coming' that really piss me off. It's downright misleading.

As for the hardware, well, I'm not sure about that tbh. I notice the speed in loading times - in some cases it's quite dramatic and that's what most objective people will say. In A2 for example, maybe there is a little less stuttering and texture lag than fast HDDs but it's slight IMHO and it still happens and in the same places - built up areas (like Cherno etc).

[InFireBaptize 0]

are 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 write cycles considered low or high?

The reason i'm asking is because SSDs have limited lifetimes and will often wear out, there are other disadvantages to SSDs which can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

Thanks,

[bangtail 0]

are 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 write cycles considered low or high?

The reason i'm asking is because SSDs have limited lifetimes and will often wear out, there are other disadvantages to SSDs which can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

Thanks,

Lifetime is still failry hard to predict tbh as there is a high margin of error.

The last thing I read was that the average SSD was good for about ~2,000,000 hours.

Cells will fail at some point although the technology is getting better and better. The newer drives actually have a feature that effectively disables cells that can no longer be written to.

Unless you are planning to keep them for 5 years+, I doubt you'll have any real problems.

[MavericK96 0]

Versus conventional hard drives, I'd say SSDs, even in their current form, are probably a lot more reliable and long-lasting.

[qwertz 10]

I think the benefit of a SSD or (even better) RAMdrive for ArmA is only questionable once you factor in money. Whether the couple of hundred bucks are worth it for the improvement you'll see on load times and texture streaming is a rather individual decision I guess. The game certainly *works* without it.

[bangtail 0]

I think the benefit of a SSD or (even better) RAMdrive for ArmA is only questionable once you factor in money. Whether the couple of hundred bucks are worth it for the improvement you'll see on load times and texture streaming is a rather individual decision I guess. The game certainly *works* without it.

I wouldn't agree with that at all, but until they are even remotely competitive with HDDs price wise, I guess that is a pretty big factor :rolleyes:

You can buy 2 x 2 Terabyte WD blacks for the price of a 256GB SSD.

SSDs don't do much for streaming in ArmA 2 (or any game outside of load times) so you're really only left with load times which are entirely dependant on how important that is to you versus the cost.

Edited April 23, 2010 by BangTail

[Tankbuster 1746]

I see BangTail is still dissing SSDs. :)

For me, they really improved the performance of the entire system and the game itself. Texture slowloads are a thing of the past here.

I had a little money set aside for a midlife upgrade of my PC. I couldn't afford a spanky new i5 CPU and the motherboard and memory that I'd need with it, but I could afford a G2 Intel SSD and I'm certainly glad I went this way.

The unique selling point of the SSD is its seek time and its read speed, so comparing one to a pair of enormous HDDs and saying the SSD doesn't represent value for money doesn't make much sense. If the plan is, like mine, to put the OS, a few choice games and a couple of apps on the SSD, then no amount of RAID HDDs will come close for performance.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Tankbuster

[qwertz 10]

Well, until they are even remotely competitive with HDDs price wise, I guess that's a pretty big factor :rolleyes:

"Is it worth my hard earned cash?" is a very individual and entirely different question versus "Does it deliver speed ?" ...

You can buy 2 x 2 Terabyte WD blacks for the price of a 256GB SSD.

Well, you can also buy 4 family vans for the price of one Porsche - thats 32 seats versus 2. That will not win you prices on the race track, though. :rolleyes:

They don't do much for streaming in ArmA 2 (or any game outside of load times) so you're really only left with load times which are entirely dependant on how important that is to you versus the cost.

Lets just agree to disagree on this.

:cheers:

qwertz

Edited April 23, 2010 by qwertz

[bangtail 0]

I see BangTail is still dissing SSDs. :)

For me, they really improved the performance of the entire system and the game itself. Texture slowloads are a thing of the past for me.

I had a little money set aside for a midlife upgrade of my PC. I couldn't afford a spanky new i5 CPU and the motherboard and memory that I'd need with it, but I could afford a G2 Intel SSD and I'm certainly glad I went this way.

The unique selling point of the SSD is its seek time and its read speed, so comparing one to a pair of enormous HDDs and saying the SSD doesn't represent value for money doesn't make much sense. If the plan is, like mine, to put the OS, a few choice games and a couple of apps on the SSD, then no amount of RAID HDDs will come close for performance.

FFS, I'm not dissing them. Read what I've said.

Uh huh, so you get no texture lag? Not likely - Load Cherno on high details at a decent res and see if there is no lag. I'm running off 2 Crucial C300s and I STILL get it and that is using SATA 3.0.

We are talking about ARMA 2 here, or if you like, gaming in general. SSDs just don't bring much to the table in that respect. I've never bought SSDs for gaming, I wouldn't be able to justify $1400.00 on SSDs just so I could load A2 levels a few seconds faster.

Im glad you can, but lets stop trying to pretend that there is some huge difference in anything other than load times (and even there, 'huge' is probably a bit much) vis a vis A2. I think I would have noticed if that was the case ;)

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 PM ----------

"Is it worth my hard earned cash?" is a very individual and entirely different question versus "Does it deliver speed ?" ...

Well, you can also buy 4 family vans for the price of one Porsche - thats 32 seats versus 2. That will not win you prices on the race track, though. :rolleyes:

Lets just agree to disagree on this.

:cheers:

qwertz

Not a very good analogy since WD 'Blacks' beat SSDs in a number of areas.

Some people who have 980x CPUs will try to convince you that they obliterate a similarly clocked 920 in a gaming environment (the unfortunate epidemic known as 'buyer enthusiasm'). Even though I own two 980xs, I wouldn't be one of those people. The 980x will beat a 920 in other areas (encoding etc) but not in gaming. SSDs are more of the same. In the right environment, they'll kill an HDD, Arma 2 (and gaming) just isn't one of them (in anything other than loading times). Like I said before, get over it.

Edited April 25, 2010 by BangTail

[InFireBaptize 0]

since i have been defragmanting my hard drive whenever it needs one and since i setup my Xpert Drive (Asus feature like RAID0 but different controller) i have not yet experienced any texture pop ups or stutters. "finger crossed".

SSD is a new technology and very expensive, for the cost of SSDs i want to see something that outperforms or comparable to memory not another flash drive!!

[qwertz 10]

FFS, I'm not dissing them. Read what I've said.

Uh huh, so you get no texture lag? Not likely - Load Cherno on high details at a decent res and see if there is no lag. I'm running off 2 Crucial C300s and I STILL get it and that is using SATA 3.0.

We are talking about ARMA 2 here, or if you like gaming in general and SSDs just don't bring much to the table in that respect. I've never bought SSDs for gaming, I wouldn't be able to justify $1400.00 on SSDs just so I could load A2 levels a few seconds faster.

Im glad you can, but lets stop trying to pretend that there is some huge difference in anything other than load times vis a vis A2. I think I would have noticed if that was the case ;)

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 PM ----------

Not a very good analogy since Blacks beat SSDs in a number of things.

If you provide me with some proof that you get no texture lag/stuttering on your miracle SSD (at high details/resolution), then I'll agree to not continue this discussion :D

Some people who have 980x CPUs will try to convince you that they obliterate a similarly clocked 920 in a gaming environment. Even though I own a 980x, I wouldn't be one of those people. The 980x will beat a 920 in other areas (encoding etc) but not in gaming. SSDs are more of the same. In the right environment, they'll kill an HDD, Arma 2 just isn't one of them (in anything other than loading times). Like I said before, get over it.

Look BangTail, this gets a little old now, and this discussion leads to nothing. I have done (and still do) a lot of methodical testing, got very clear results and formed my opinion based on that. If you have different results, thats fine. I have no interest in evangelizing you or anyone else and have no reason to hype SSDs. I just wanted to share my experience with the OP who asked a simple question. And no, I am not part of the secret SSD conspiracy to brainwash the masses :smile: . To each his own. :cool:

Peace,

qwertz

Edited April 23, 2010 by qwertz

[bangtail 0]

Look BangTail, this gets a little old now, and this discussion leads to nothing. I have done (and still do) a lot of methodical testing, got very clear results and formed my opinion based on that. If you have different results, thats fine. I have no interest in evangelizing you or anyone else and have no reason to hype SSDs. I just wanted to share my experience with the OP who asked a simple question. And no, I am not part of the secret SSD conspiracy to brainwash the masses :smile: . To each his own. :cool:

Peace,

qwertz

I understand that.

If you've read my posts, you'll understand that I like SSDs and I am not part of a conspiracy against them. I've done my own testing as well and if you want a stutter/texture lag free experience in A2, you need to look at a RAMdrive as neither fast HDDs/SSDs in or out of RAID alleviate it.

I recommend SSDs to people on a regular basis but I would not recommend an SSD to anyone for the purposes of A2 when there are cheaper alternatives that yield roughly the same results. That is the only point I was trying to make.

In the interests of peace and quiet and because the sound of my own voice is giving me a headache, I digress :D

Edited April 23, 2010 by BangTail

[Leon86 13]

I'm with quertz on this one, after all he made the excel sheet good for 33 pages (and counting)

I'm sure if you run on normal details and textures and viewdistances an ssd will reduce stutter compared to a normal harddisk.

BTW, when I partitioned my new harddrive the first partition I made was a 40 GB arma partition, now arma has acces to the best bit of the harddrive, maybe I should put the pagefile there as well :).

[Whoatherefatty 10]

Threads like this make noobatrons like me :confused::confused::confused::confused:

Do I research and grab a somehwhat affordable SSD.... Do I spend less and crossfire my card hoping arma would use that extra memory.... Do I just buy a another HD and seperate OS from games(Hmm.... that would be the cheapest route. And yes, I have EVERYTHING on one cheap 'cuda).

The only thing for certain is two of my memory slots have 2 gigs each in them and there is no way I'm gonna get another 12 gigs on the other two slots to run RAMdisk...

And besides, I am pretty darn satisfied with my settings and performance and often I think spending a few hundred more to get rid of slight hiccups when BIS could probably just crunch crunch crunch to optimize the streaming more might be silly. The only thing that really bugs me is the trees warping beyond 300 meters. I have object detail VERY HIGH, terrain HIGH, texture detail HIGH, video memory DEFAULT, AA DISABLED, PPE low or off, view distance 2000-2500, 1920 x 1080.

[Alex72 1]

Like me mate. I have it all on 1 HDD atm, but i ordered a small "cheap" SSD (intel X25-V 40GB) for Windows, and a WD Black 500GB for ARMA2 and the rest. And i also get 6GB more RAM soon so i can use ARMA2 for RAMDRIVE. Since RAMDRIVE is the fastest (but not cheapest) i will go with it.

But if money is a real big issue then another HDD to separate the games from the OS should be better. Bit better since the mechanics works with one thing each instead of going bananas reading and writing both game and system files. I got no stats on how much better though.

[Whoatherefatty 10]

But if money is a real big issue then another HDD to separate the games from the OS should be better. Bit better since the mechanics works with one thing each instead of going bananas reading and writing both game and system files. I got no stats on how much better though.

Well my intention all along was not to go bananas. I bought a pc to play 1 game and 1 game only. I've since bought a few more but Arma 2 is mostly what I play. With that in mind I wanted to build the most cost effective bang for buck system. My rig rang in at just under $700 all told. I suppose another ~$50 wouldn't hurt but I gotta say I'm pretty well please with my performance vs what I paid so far. Especially when I wiegh the cost if all that RAM or a $400+ GPU or the notebooks I see people buying.....

[zoog 18]

It's this bullsh!t claim that it will somehow change your ArmA 2 experience exponentially that I strongly object to. The levels load faster - BFD. There is still stuttering and texture lag when using SSDs.

I just want to add that this is exactly my own experience with a Intel X25-M postville. ArmA II performance didn't increase, my texture loading times actually decreased (with sporadic 10+ seconds delay in texture loading since I have the SSD). And I didn't even had a performance hard disk before that, just a regular Samsung disk.

Like said before, it's great for Windows but I personally haven't seen any performance boost in game, except for faster loading times.

[Dead3yez 0]

I'm thinking installing a new OS over to the SSD with ArmA2, reckon this will slow down performance much?

(I will keep pagefile and as many other programs on a secondary HDD)

[pieterbaarlo 10]

Computer: Giga-Byte EX58-UD5

CPU: Intel Core i7-920 (Bloomfield, D0)

2666 MHz (20.00x133.3) @ 1619 MHz (12.00x134.9)

Motherboard: Giga-Byte GA-EX58-UD5

Chipset: Intel X58 (Tylersburg 36S) + ICH10R

Memory: 6144 MBytes @ 539 MHz, 7.0-7-7-19

- 2048 MB PC8500 DDR3 SDRAM - OCZ OCZ3G1333LV2G

- 2048 MB PC8500 DDR3 SDRAM - OCZ OCZ3G1333LV2G

- 2048 MB PC8500 DDR3 SDRAM - OCZ OCZ3G1333LV2G

Graphics: XFX RADEON HD 5770

ATI RADEON HD 5770 (JUNIPER XT), 1024 MB GDDR5 SDRAM

Drive: OCZ-VERTEX, 125.0 GB, Serial ATA 3Gb/s

Drive: SAMSUNG HD753LJ, 732.6 GB, Serial ATA 3Gb/s

Drive: SAMSUNG HD154UI, 1465.1 GB, Serial ATA 3Gb/s

Drive: SONY DVD RW DRU-V200S, DVD+R DL

Drive: ZOP H27OPMV4H, BD-ROM

Sound: Intel ICH10 - High Definition Audio Controller [A0]

Sound: ATI Juniper - High Definition Audio Controller

OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Build 7600

----------

Above you see a hwinfo32 systemdump.

i just installed the OCZ Vertex (oh boy its friggin fast) and arma2 runs WAAAAAY smoother now.

Before this new ssd disk, i runned arma from a ramdisk (4gb) and 2gb for OS.

that runned quite smooth, but not on high resolution. i saw 'slow textures' often.

Now, i have the full 6gb for the os, and all running from a superfast ssd. ( according to my first few expiriences. )

i will be testing more, and again with a smaller ramdisk for fewer pbo's.

i will post some youtube movies later on, but first i have to install the rest of my software office, fraps, cs4 etc...

For those interested : my windows performance index

Processor : 7.5

Memory : 7.5

Graphics : 7.4

GameGfx : 7.4

Harddisk :7.0

My score is 7.0 out of 7.9

Before the ssd it was 5.9

Arma2mark scores for all 5 tests

26.8338

42.0297

34.5173

46.8567

25.4942

My score 3514.63

i dont know why first test is slow, it stuttered for the first 2 seconds.

maybe because i alt-tabbed and started the mission?!

BTW: Bangtail, if your 'BLACK' outruns my ssd, i'll post a vid of me eating my shoe.

Edited April 29, 2010 by pieterbaarlo