AMD vs Intel CPUs for Game Loading

Sad to see games stil not taking advantage of faster storage. It seems we'll really need next gen consoles to force game developers to take advantage of this fascinating new technology, just like multi core CPUs /sigh

And WTF is up with planet coaster? What could be taking 5+ minutes to load?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs, Phylop and fb020997
Games are mostly developed on machines with Hard Drives. Many of them haven't been designed to take advantage of SSD drives because the developers know that HDD are mainstream and SSD hasn't fully taken over yet.

SSD are becoming the norm in computers as prices drop.
Fortunately, we are moving to the day that a 2TB SSD becomes the norm - or maybe a 4TB SSD and more people can afford them.

I REFUSE to be suckered by marketing gimmicks trying to tell me that I have to spend ridiculously on SSD. I pay for CAPACITY most of all, and buy from brands I feel I can trust for reliability until newer/less expensive technology is developed.

I replaced multiple 2TB drives with a single Samsung 8TB SSD. Eventually I'll replace that with a bigger, newer SSD.

And before anyone says something: YES I backup important files to a HDD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs and Avro Arrow
Theinsanegamer said:
Sad to see games stil not taking advantage of faster storage. It seems we'll really need next gen consoles to force game developers to take advantage of this fascinating new technology, just like multi core CPUs /sigh

And WTF is up with planet coaster? What could be taking 5+ minutes to load?
Click to expand...

Yup, its the lowest common denominator on why games are still coded that way. Look at Steam stats for a good indication of systems out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs
Theinsanegamer said:
Sad to see games stil not taking advantage of faster storage. It seems we'll really need next gen consoles to force game developers to take advantage of this fascinating new technology, just like multi core CPUs /sigh

And WTF is up with planet coaster? What could be taking 5+ minutes to load?
Click to expand...

Well, it has to load a whole planet after all...
 
QuantumPhysics said:
Games are mostly developed on machines with Hard Drives. Many of them haven't been designed to take advantage of SSD drives because the developers know that HDD are mainstream and SSD hasn't fully taken over yet.

SSD are becoming the norm in computers as prices drop.
Fortunately, we are moving to the day that a 2TB SSD becomes the norm - or maybe a 4TB SSD and more people can afford them.

I REFUSE to be suckered by marketing gimmicks trying to tell me that I have to spend ridiculously on SSD. I pay for CAPACITY most of all, and buy from brands I feel I can trust for reliability until newer/less expensive technology is developed.

I replaced multiple 2TB drives with a single Samsung 8TB SSD. Eventually I'll replace that with a bigger, newer SSD.

And before anyone says something: YES I backup important files to a HDD.
Click to expand...
Yep, I'm of the same mind as you. I use hard drives for mass-storage of media and for backing up data. For my day-to-day use, it's all SSD, in fact, it's all M.2 SSD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuantumPhysics
Hi,
Can you make the same test for different generation of ryzen and different generation of intel processors?

Am especially interested in ryzen... Like how do it differ when 1600,2600 and 3600 is compared...and similar other chipset.
 
Why do I see an i5 with a ryzen 3900K but no i9 in these tests? Seems a bit unfair tbh, I run a 3900K but don't see why an i9 is missing, 3 AMD vs 1 Intel cpus lol
 
Gotta call it like I see it... Your methodology for graphing, that of always graphing the CPU's in the same order gives a perceived 'slant' towards AMD as Intel is always in the 3rd position even when its score put it in 2nd place. Fanboism has no place in journalism. Avoid even the perception.

For a 'technical' web site you don't seem to really get very technical. You don't dig deep enough, or thorough enough. You tend to 'gloss over' the underlying details. Am I whinging? No, not really. Look at Igor's lab for inspiration., or to see where my point of view is coming from. Igor is the true successor to Dr. Thomas Pabst, the founder of Tom's Hardware, in my opinion.
 
DonquixoteIII said:
Gotta call it like I see it... Your methodology for graphing, that of always graphing the CPU's in the same order gives a perceived 'slant' towards AMD as Intel is always in the 3rd position even when its score put it in 2nd place. Fanboism has no place in journalism. Avoid even the perception.

For a 'technical' web site you don't seem to really get very technical. You don't dig deep enough, or thorough enough. You tend to 'gloss over' the underlying details. Am I whinging? No, not really. Look at Igor's lab for inspiration., or to see where my point of view is coming from. Igor is the true successor to Dr. Thomas Pabst, the founder of Tom's Hardware, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think it is rather you the one not able to put aside his "fanboism". Maybe you shouldnt look only
at graphics which tell you that "intel is the fastest" but also read the what is written under every
graphic. If only graphs are your way of consuming an article, even Igor is not going to help you...
 
franticfrosty said:
Why do I see an i5 with a ryzen 3900K but no i9 in these tests? Seems a bit unfair tbh, I run a 3900K but don't see why an i9 is missing, 3 AMD vs 1 Intel cpus lol
Click to expand...
Why is it "unfair" xD The comparison "amd vs intel" is carried out by the two 6cores, not 3900K vs i5.
That is just to show how a "topdog" (while the 3400G represents the lower bottom) would fare.
 
I don't think Techspot are biased towards AMD, however having just one single Intel CPU isn't useful in determining whether it's actually CPU horsepower alone, or perhaps other contributing facts such as Intel vs AMD / ASMedia SATA controller chipset differences. If you included a low-end Intel chip (eg, i3-9100F that's half the price of a 3400G), that would better highlight any platform SATA controller differences regarding the surprising poor performance of the 3400G.

Also QLC drives are a cr*p choice for performance testing anyway (the 325MB/s sequential writes of the 870 QVO being the obvious red flag that's far worse than 5 year old MLC / TLC 850 EVO / MX100, etc, that were often tested on much slower Haswell CPU's. Eg, Anandtech's 850 EVO review was done on a stock 3.3GHz i5-2500K (link) and it still scored better than the 870 EVO + 3400G here. In fact it's on par with a 9 year old Samsung 830 drive also tested on a Sandy Bridge (link). So something's screwy enough that you could do with both a low-end Intel CPU and a significantly less cr*p SATA drive choice to better explain the poor 3400G results.
 
Well I guess I won't concern myself about anything faster than a Sata SSD, except I don't want one based on QLC. Unless, it's a laptop, might as well stick with the normal HDD. For that matter, with HAMR and MAMR drives on the horizon, you can short stroke them and wouldn't have to be concerned about allocating the slower sections since you'll have plenty of drive space to work with.
 
Itwasntme said:
Why is it "unfair" xD The comparison "amd vs intel" is carried out by the two 6cores, not 3900K vs i5.
That is just to show how a "topdog" (while the 3400G represents the lower bottom) would fare.
Click to expand...

Lets just say when I see comparisons its not cheap vs cheap but a range of pricey, budget, cheap af but ya, whats next, GPU battle for frame rates - GT 720, GTX 1050Ti vs AMD RX 5700XT
 
QuantumPhysics said:
Games are mostly developed on machines with Hard Drives. Many of them haven't been designed to take advantage of SSD drives because the developers know that HDD are mainstream and SSD hasn't fully taken over yet.

SSD are becoming the norm in computers as prices drop.
Click to expand...

Developer workstations are all SSD with bulk assets off on shared storage. As for HDD vs SSD en masse, the crossover point has already happened per link below.

The reason developers aren't "taking advantage of SSD" is because in this context, it would require a significant architecture shift, and honestly it needs to be driven by Microsoft. Now that the consoles are going this way, Microsoft will update the relevant Direct X APIs and have something like "DirectDataStream" (or whatever), and we'll start to see things change. The PC isn't a game console, it's a general purpose platform. Most users *aren't* gaming, so there isn't a significant need to change any of this without some other motivation (ie - consoles). For any kind of productivity use, you immediately realize the full benefits of the faster storage subsystem and the traditional "load from storage to RAM once" approach applies nearly every time.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/285474/hdds-and-ssds-in-pcs-global-shipments-2012-2017/
 
Great article, thanks!
It would also be interesting to repeat this test for Windows 10 boot/load times.
 
Theinsanegamer said:
Sad to see games stil not taking advantage of faster storage. It seems we'll really need next gen consoles to force game developers to take advantage of this fascinating new technology, just like multi core CPUs /sigh

And WTF is up with planet coaster? What could be taking 5+ minutes to load?
Click to expand...

They will soon, now that "next gen" consoles have NVME SSD storage.

PC games have been held back for years because of console with HDD, sadly.

I have a PS4 Pro, replaced the HDD with a SSD after a few days and loading times were like night vs day.
Bloodborne for example, took like 90-120 sec to load with HDD, 15-30 sec with SSD (still too long haha).

On PC I pretty much never wait more than 5-10 seconds for a game to load.
I hit the desktop within a few seconds of hitting the power button with Fastboot + UEFI/NVME/GPT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechSpot
  • Locked
AMD Ryzen 7800X3D vs. 7900X3D vs. 7950X3D: Gaming Benchmark
2
Replies
28
Views
546
Squid Surprise
Squid Surprise
TechSpot
CPU Cache vs. Cores: AMD Ryzen Edition
2 3
Replies
50
Views
789
Strawman
S
TechSpot
GeForce RTX 4070 Super vs. Radeon RX 7900 GRE: Rasterization, Ray Tracing, and Upscaling Performance
Replies
17
Views
234
BigMeatyClackers
BigMeatyClackers

Latest posts

Back