Best SSD for gaming vs Windows 7

By Burty117
Jun 27, 2013
Post New Reply
  1. Hello All,

    I have just purchased myself a new rig:

    Corsair 600T White Edition Case
    Corsair AX760 PSU
    Asus Maximus Vi Hero Z87 MB
    Intel Core i7 4770K CPU
    Corsair H60 (2013 Edition)
    PNY Nvidia GTX780 XLR8
    Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB (4x 4GB) 1600MHz 8-8-8-24 CAS
    Asus Xonar D2X Ultra Fidelity PCI-E Sound Card

    I then ran out of money and couldn't get a CD drive or hard drives so I'm using an old 640GB WD Black.

    I'm now gaining money again, I already planned on getting the 128GB OCZ Vector for Windows to sit on but now I've decided I want a 512GB SSD for games to be installed on.

    I've read reviews for the bigger 512GB Vector and because vector limits read requests to 350mb so that it multitasks like a beast but would games benefit from that?

    Battlefield 3/4 as an example, would this awesome multiple high read speeds help or would a different SSD which just reads requests as fast as it can be a better option?

    Anyone who can steer me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it!
    misor and JC713 like this.
  2. slh28

    slh28 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,925   +170

    The Samsung 840 Pro gets my vote.

    p.s. Nice build :) bit late and probably doesn't help much but I think you spent way, way too much on that RAM for not much tangible benefit.
  3. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,491   +302

    Thanks! :)

    Yeah, I also paid too much for the graphics card as well, I game at 1080p, a 780 is overkill, but I've got a feeling it will come in handy in the future, plus the motherboard comes with RAM Disk utility's so the extra speed, although expensive was just funny how fast it is.

    so you reckon the 840 pro would be the best choice?
  4. slh28

    slh28 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,925   +170

    When it comes to SSDs reliability should be your primary concern (not that the 840 Pro is a slouch, it's one of the quickest ones out there). The components are all from in-house and Samsung is the only manufacturer of SSDs which can claim this. I'm not a fan of OCZ at all - while their recent SSD offerings have got better they have a pretty poor reputation of SSD failures and customer service.

    So are you using some of the RAM as a RAM disk? Interesting...
    JC713 likes this.
  5. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,491   +302

    Meh, my good old OCZ Vertex 3 in my old machine has been their since day one without a single issue, built several machines with Vertex 4's as well with no issues what so ever, reliability isn't really my concern as I know there are a lot of horror stories out there but I'm yet to experience any failures so I'm not really bothered by that.

    I'm more bothered whether the read request limits of the Vector would make games load faster or slower, I guess to answer this, I'll need to find a review I guess that actually shows load times using one?

    I will be using some of the RAM as RAM Disk space, the software automatically loads and unloads the programs you request, it makes things load at a disgustingly fast rate, not really using it to its full potential at the moment though! Plus it has to load and unload the data when you turn the computer on and off to and from the hard drive, makes the SSD essential.
  6. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 2,171   +510

    First off nice rig

    Second, I like the samsungs the est out of the three I have tried, my 120gb ocz vertex 3 was great but had issues with firmware on it and a few blue screens till I did an overhaul, then had no issues. I have tried a corsair on a friends laptop an he loves it, it's very quick and responsive in his asus g75. But my preference has been the Samsung 840 pro (512gb), just such a. Smooth easy experience and works beautifully.
  7. JC713

    JC713 TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 6,810   +884

    The newest 840 Pro firmware fixed a lot of the bugs from launch. These are the top 3 SSDs on my list in terms of performance and reliability (not in a particular order):
    1) Samsung 840 Pro
    2) OCZ Vertex 450
    3) OCZ Vector

    They all perform basically the same in gaming scenarios because SATA 6 limits their bandwidth to 600 mb/s I think.

    If you want raw performance (that comes at a price), then get a OCZ Revodrive. It runs on a PCIe interface and will get you >1000mb/s read and write. I think they are more unreliable though.
  8. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,287   +262

    I'm a fan of both the newer OCZ SSDs and the 840 Pro but that's not really why I'm posting right now :) I just had to say that I don't think a 780 is overkill for 1920x1080 gaming unless you only play old games. Once you get used to setting games to their highest settings you'll be spoiled and you'll see that there are still plenty of games that could use more GPU and CPU performance.
    misor likes this.
  9. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,491   +302

    Thanks Guys, Sounds like the Samsung is the pick, did a price check here in the UK and for 512GB the Samsung is considerably cheaper yet performs just as well, Guess I'll be going for that!

    Well I only say over kill because even battlefield 3 doesn't seem to get it very warm at 1080p and that is with all the settings cranked up! I'm just hoping it'll last me a fair few years to come though considering it'll run any modern game with ease at that resolution. I'm hoping Battlefield 4 will run just as well!
  10. slh28

    slh28 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,925   +170

    Time for a new monitor then! Either 120Hz or 1440p or both...
  11. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 2,171   +510

    If it does not run battlefield 4 at that resolution with 60, ill be shocked.
    Burty117 likes this.
     
  12. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,491   +302

    Well I was thinking of upping to a 1200p monitor as to be honest 1440p and 1600p I can't really tell the difference since those resolutions only exist on bigger screens so the PPI to me doesn't seem any different, I would rather a good quality 1200p, not sure what one to go for and 60 FPS is plenty smooth for me so 120Hz would probably just upset me and make me SLI xD
  13. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 2,171   +510

    A friend of mine bought a 3D monitor that refreshes at 120hz and was playing Just cause 2 on a pair of 590's at I believe 1200 resolution on it (Not sure id have to look, but I thought it was higher than 1080p), honestly the differences were not too apparent if anything at that refresh rate, but the higher quality did show a few things. I would go for higher quality 60hz over 120hz on 1080p personally, but thats just my tastes and opinion. With 3gb of memory and that much power under the hood, the card might have to pump out its power, but it will do it im betting at 60FPS no problemo!

    Plus with that samsung SSD (I agian run 840 pro 512), you will be in games before most of the teams shows up.
  14. St1ckM4n

    St1ckM4n TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 3,446   +619

    I'm just gonna pop in here and say that buying an SSD for games isn't the best spent $150+. The difference in loading times is minimal, and AAA games have very few loading parts anyway. If you're playing online, it matters even less.
  15. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,491   +302

    Thanks Ghost, I thought as much, I believe one of my friends has a 120Hz Monitor and he was showing me unreal tournament 3 on it at 120fps and I honestly couldn't see a difference, I think I'd benefit more getting a 1200p monitor.

    And St1ckM4n, I agree that it isn't the best spend of money but with my Vertex 3 I have done quite a bit of testing and some games really did load a good 30 seconds + faster by being on the SSD instead of the 640GB WD Black, below is a few results:

    World of Warcraft, 3 second difference
    Battlefield 3, 15-27 second difference
    Borderlands, 1-3 second difference
    Sims 3, 45-60 second difference
    Skyrim, 4-7 second difference
    Team Fortress 2, 3-14 second difference (the bigger the map the bigger the gap in load times were directly in comparison)

    I did a few more as well but can't find the details, but yeah, although its not the best money to spend, I'll still do it even just so that an LAN Party's I'm always one screen ahead of anyone else xD
  16. JC713

    JC713 TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 6,810   +884

    Parties* xD :D
  17. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,491   +302

    Dang it! I still wonder why my grammar corrector doesn't pick that up xD
    JC713 likes this.
  18. slh28

    slh28 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,925   +170

    Not much point upgrading to 1200p from 1080p. If you're going to get a new monitor you might as well get a 1440p. The PPI difference is apparent, I have a 27in 2560x1440 next to two 23in 1920x1080 ones. There's also the physical size difference which adds to the immersiveness of games.

    Anyway going a bit off topic, but have a look into the QNIX QX2710, by far the best monitor at the price point IMO.
    Darth Shiv likes this.
  19. JC713

    JC713 TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 6,810   +884

    Wow, that monitor for $300! That is great.
  20. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 2,171   +510

    Yeah thats a nice monitor, I kinda want a 2560x1440p monitor now, but im too attached to my dynamic trio right now Link.
  21. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 1,147   +172

    Personally I wouldn't buy a rig with less than 16GB nowadays. 8GB is cutting it too fine. 2400MHz is another story though.
  22. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 1,147   +172

    Yes running a 1440p display and absolutely love it - upgraded from a 1080p display. The 780 would make great use of such a monitor. Also the desktop screen real estate is unreal.
  23. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,491   +302

    Damn it guys! Now I'm looking at getting a 1440p monitor! If you can find me one I can get in the UK for £500 or less I would consider it :)
  24. JC713

    JC713 TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 6,810   +884

    I think 750USD can bring you a lot of options.

    Too bad you guys probably dont have this awesome deal in the UK :( : Dell Ultrasharp U2711 for $550 (originally $1000) using the coupon code: SDW7RZ4J1P20AM

    There are other great options though! According to AnandTech's review of the Dell U2713HM, it is a good monitor. The monitor is less than 500 pounds: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-Ultrasharp-U2713HM-Widescreen-Monitor/dp/B0093IW14I/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1372515870&sr=8-3&keywords=ViewSonic VP2770

    Another option is the ASUS PB278Q.
  25. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,491   +302

    Meh, I won't buy the Dell, no matter how good it is, I just hate Dell.

    But the Asus is very tempting, I've had nothing but good experiences with Asus, I think I might just have to look into the Asus, question is though, how much of a performance hit would I see at that resolution? I'm relatively happy with 1080p only reason I was after 1200p was due to the higher PPI and generally most 1200p screens are IPS so considerably better colour reproduction than my current cheap NT panel.

    If Its enough of a hit I would need to SLI in order to get 60fps in battlefield 4 with the graphics cranked up I wouldn't want to make the jump :/
    JC713 likes this.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.