Just bought an SSD

And was wondering how much faster an SSD was for 1.0? By that I mean how much faster was the install times and general gameplay time and load screens. Also how much better do you think it will be with ARR?

Seeing how FFXIV ARR was build around low end pc i think it would help better load times and such. But you wont see much different if what they say the engine can do is right. For 1.0 people said it made a hell a lot of different but i guessing that due to the shit engine crystal tool was not build around for mmo.

Having a SSD in ARR i see better loading when going to zone to zone and loading npc/char better. Not sure if you see much of a different tho but it helps ;)

A SSD is only limited my the lowest common speed. As a note, installing a game via a Disc drive will see very minimal increase in instal speed. Why? Because disc drives have a rather low read speed compared to even a 7200 rpm HDD. blue-ray is much faster then DVD but still doesn't compare to read and write speeds of a SSD. As for loading speeds, well that will depend on how many files the PC will have to load off the SSD. SSD have the advantage of reading a whole file faster then a HDD however it's seek times are about the same as a 7200RPM drive. a 10000RPM drive will read lots of small files faster then a SSD but pales when it has to read large files; SSD win on large files. So how much of a change you'll see will depend on the new ARR client. So other then this little knowledge I've acquired from reading tech blogs like GIZMODO, it's really hard to say if you'll see any benefit at this point.

iirc 1.0 game folder had like 250,000 files in it, SSD would have really helped there
I remember copying it to a USB 2.0 hd.. took forever

HDD vs SSD is night and day difference during load times. Install times will be faster if installing from SSD, if you're installing from blu-ray/dvd you won't notice a difference. After loading general gameplay won't be any different. Edit: you can get stuttering during game play with a HDD if it's loading data during gameplay, it really depends on the design of the game.

Here's a video I found comparing load times with GW2(I couldn't find one with FFXIV):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R23LH6uf_eA

Aside from Windows' start up time being much shorter, during actual gameplay with a HDD I used to get background scroll stuttering while running around Thanalan and La Noscea. After switching to an SSD the stuttering was completely gone.

I didn't do any direct comparisons on loading times, but loading of instances still took a bit of time even with an SSD. Maybe they give a buffer so everyone can start up at about the same time?

well, in 1.0, animation lag changed with about a second when changing from ssd to hdd, and considering how much of a pain in the *** animation lag was, every second counted ^^

In 2.0 we will load between every area, using ssd it might feel more seemless, you will load often afterall.
Tried final fantasy 12 before? If you have tried it, think about having an mmo with loading like that, and on the ps2, that was slow! xD

you made the best decision Kirito, welcome home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirito

And was wondering how much faster an SSD was for 1.0? By that I mean how much faster was the install times and general gameplay time and load screens. Also how much better do you think it will be with ARR?

---

SSD was much faster loading everything in 1.0 compared to the 3 HDD's (sataII & sata III) i had at times running it. The SSD was also alot smoother & got rid of a "little" bit of movement lagg which was noticeable for the first few hours after install. Install times are faster but limited to the speed of the dvd/blu ray drive.
I cant answer how it'll affect ARR because of well you all know
But i can tell you with every game i've played with it since Tera/GW2/DCU a few others i cant remember off the top of my head, It's made a big, faster, smoother difference!

I upgraded to an SSD during 1.0 from a 10k RPM WD Velociraptor. The improvement was phenomenal. Not only that, your computer is much more silent due to the lack of a spinning HDD, and your boot times and overall load times of ANYTHING are vastly improved. I could never go back to an HDD for anything.

Easily one of the best improvements you can make for your computer is an SSD if you're currently using an HDD. Well worth the price. If you're an individual who somehow needs 1TB of storage, just get an external or an internal HDD that you won't use frequently.

I recently upgraded to an SSD myself and jesus...I'm kicking myself for not doing it sooner.

It's helped me tremendously with my digital applications (Adobe suite and 3d modeling/rendering stuffs). I ended up retiring my 2TB HDD to internal storage space, where most of my 1.0 cutscenes and music are now :p

Outside of Ul'dah where most PCs gathered I can't say there was much difference in performance.


Out of curiosity which brand/controller SSD did you get?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhalmel

Outside of Ul'dah where most PCs gathered I can't say there was much difference in performance.


Out of curiosity which brand/controller SSD did you get?

---

I bought the sandisk 128gb ssd. I originally planned to get the 64 gb for $80 but I saw that the 128gb was only $20 more. I'm thinking of running windows 7 ultimate or windows 8 on it. I'm leaning towards windows 8 since I saw a slight improvement on game smoothness when I played 1.0 on windows 8...

How can you live with only 128GB @.@ I feel cramped as it is with my 180GB.

I've made identical PCs one with SSD one without, bout $700-800 builds, the one with SD had noticeable boot up times, seconds. Other than that on XI zone loading time was no different, since its 'downloading data' not loading it from your SSD. That was also about a year ago and his SSD has since died, they def don't last long.

They do last if you take care of them, ie. disable defragging and enabling TRIM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vilhem

How can you live with only 128GB @.@ I feel cramped as it is with my 180GB.

---

I'm using my old 500gb hitachi hdd as my storage drive. But I'll make sure to install ARR on my sdd.

I had a SSD for the past 2 years now, and it is night and day, not just for games. Turning on my PC is like 10 seconds and windows is loaded fully, my HDD 10krpm would take about 1min. I been bored since the servers went down to I been playing skyrim a lot, and I decided to install it on my HDD 10krpm raptor and it ran ok, but had some stutters when running around the open world, small stutters but I did notice them. I than started a new character and deleted ff14 1.0 making room on my SSD so I decided to install skyrim on my SSD and wow what a difference. Before on my HDD when playing skyrim I could read the little tips you got or messages during loading, and skyrim has a lot of loading screens, but on my SSD during the loading screens the game loaded so fast that I could not even finish reading half a message or tip. I would say took 1-2 seconds during loading screens in skyrim VS the usual 10-15 seconds using the HDD. Also no stuttering when exploring the open world at all, smooth as it can be.

I played 1.0 on both my HDD and later my SSD and I can tell you there was a huge difference how the game played. Like someone else said, on the HDD I got insane amount of stuttering when I started the game but on the SSD it was completely gone. Loadtimes was of course faster as well.

ARR engine is different, even if playing of a slower laptop drive, the caching, ect is utilized better. SO you won't see the stutter mess of 2.0

Unless you are made of money a sufficient SSD for gaming isn't going to be easy. It's actually better all around, to have a ssd act as the direct load cache to windows. It will speed all around performance up for common used applications. Havign sufficient main memory is also a main step.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vilhem

They do last if you take care of them, ie. disable defragging and enabling TRIM

---

And don't write to them more often than really needed, since that's the primary reason for SSD wear. One reason why I have the SSD for OS + programs and a HDD for data and folders frequently written to, like tmp

As for games, I can only concur with what was said before, it removed microstuttering in 1.0 and decreased loading times for nearly everything else I tried.

Prices have dropped significantly over the past year, so a SSD isn't that expensive anymore. It's well worth its money.

SSD was better for 1.0 because 1.0 liked to do a lot of time-stamping of files, making it stutter quite a lot when it was on a standard HDD. Hopefully it wont be a problem with ARR, and it will simply help with load times.

SSD haven't dropped fast enough.

Cheap slow write unit, are still expensive per gig. Decent ones 500/sec writes or higher wil lstil lcost you aroun 99.99 for 128gig. at which hpoitn better off skipping to 240+ gig for around 169.99-190.00 THe average peson isn't sticking in 500gig. Unless you have around a grand.

They are better utilized for either OS use, or Fast cache use. Fast caching means the OS should be on a main drive and the SSD as a cache to drive for common used programs, to offset memory. Once your main OS is loaded it isn't as big an issue, having FFXIV cached for common loaded data will speed it up, as well as most other programs.

Poppign one in a laptop with dual drive support makes a world of a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kazaran

SSD haven't dropped fast enough.

Cheap slow write unit, are still expensive per gig. Decent ones 500/sec writes or higher wil lstil lcost you aroun 99.99 for 128gig. at which hpoitn better off skipping to 240+ gig for around 169.99-190.00 THe average peson isn't sticking in 500gig. Unless you have around a grand.

They are better utilized for either OS use, or Fast cache use. Fast caching means the OS should be on a main drive and the SSD as a cache to drive for common used programs, to offset memory. Once your main OS is loaded it isn't as big an issue, having FFXIV cached for common loaded data will speed it up, as well as most other programs.

Poppign one in a laptop with dual drive support makes a world of a difference.

---

Yea but you really dont need to have a lot of them, and an SSD isn't required to make a system run, it just makes whatever you put on it load faster. Tis the price of conveiniece. They'll never drop lower than HDD's. I only have a 128gb and really dont need any more than that. Only going to have Windows, FFXIV, and some select games that I play all the time on them. the rest gets the HDD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirito

And was wondering how much faster an SSD was for 1.0? By that I mean how much faster was the install times and general gameplay time and load screens. Also how much better do you think it will be with ARR?

---

XIV was unplayable for me on an HDD. Too much stuttering.

whats the life span off ssd these days?

My last one failed and got replaced twice and I gave up with them. never really thought about getting one since.

That said my current hdd isn't to bad. windows experience 5.9 on primary drive score. but it was super quick with 1.0. number of times i'd have whiskerwall about killed in moogle before anyone else even started moving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzian

whats the life span off ssd these days?

My last one failed and got replaced twice and I gave up with them. never really thought about getting one since.

That said my current hdd isn't to bad. windows experience 5.9 on primary drive score. but it was super quick with 1.0. number of times i'd have whiskerwall about killed in moogle before anyone else even started moving.

---

I think some of the high end Intel ones are like 3-5 year guaranteed, or X amount of writes.

Be sure to get SATA 3 SSD, SATA 2 ssd are bleh, but make sure that you have a mobo that support SATA 3. It is also better on intel boards with the intel controller as opposed to the Marvell.

ssd is super fasstest but back up you shi. because ssd only load so many times word of advice from recent exp, less then 1.5 yr on my ssd.

I got the game on the veloceraptor and so far its outlasted the ssd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vilhem

How can you live with only 128GB @.@ I feel cramped as it is with my 180GB.

---

You get a 120GB SSD and have 500GB+ HDD :) i right now have two HDD one 250GB and a 500GB but my 250gb seem to be failing. So i may end up getting a 80 or 128gb SSD for FFXIV :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenaku

You get a 120GB SSD and have 500GB+ HDD :) i right now have two HDD one 250GB and a 500GB but my 250gb seem to be failing. So i may end up getting a 80 or 128gb SSD for FFXIV :)

---

Yeah yeah, like I mentioned I have a 180GB SSD and a 2TB HDD in my desktop, but still...I have about 50% of that SSD used up on applications and Windows >.> But that's probably because I'm a digital artist and I have some of the pretty heavy programs like Adobe Suite and Autodesk Maya/MotionBuilder/Mudbox...among other stuff @.@

Only thing I don't like about SSD is that they have a rather low tolerance lifespan. The more you write to a SSD the shorter it's lifespan. Best way to use a SSD though it for commonly loaded applications and the OS. I'd also make sure games that have an auto-save function don't save to the SSD. This will kill the drive as auto-save games see to save too often. Main use of a SSD should be instal and run and all save data and common write data sits on a standard HDD. Though more expensive I think the combo HDD+SSD are good but I think they are pricey.

I like how people complain about the write lifespan of a SSD, this was a problem with the past with older controllers and shoddy quality NAND. Unless you're writing more than 1TB a day on your SSD you shouldn't worry about using up all of your NAND writes.


Stay away from crap brands like OCZ and untested/buggy controllers and you won't have to worry of such things. I own several SSDs from Intel, JMicron/Cruicial,Samsung not one has died and they've have been heavily used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhalmel

I like how people complain about the write lifespan of a SSD, this was a problem with the past with older controllers and shoddy quality NAND. Unless you're writing more than 1TB a day on your SSD you shouldn't worry about using up all of your NAND writes.


Stay away from crap brands like OCZ and untested/buggy controllers and you won't have to worry of such things.

---

Wut he said.

O noes, i'm using a OCZ Vertex 4. How long does it have left?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reika

O noes, i'm using a OCZ Vertex 4. How long does it have left?!

---

Hopfully for years, don't get me wrong not all of OCZ is crap, but they have a very bad reputation of releasing SSDs before they're ready with immature firmware, cutting quality NAND with cheaper sets to save on costs(they did this with their RAM...we all know how this turned out), and releasing firmware patches that bricked SSDs.



They seem to be doing alot better with their Octane and Vertex 4 model drives, but I would be VERY weary of their budget SSDs.

I'm not really complaining about the shorter life span, I was merely pointing it out as a con. I personally don't like the the SSD lifespan being based on writes, but Looking at HDDs, they both have a similar life cycle. I think for HDD after so many years, each following year has Double the chance of the drive failing. Overall if you're not constantly writing data to a SSD, it should last just as long as a HDD. Remember all technology has an expiry, even if it's not mentioned. On things like a Vid Card or the CPU, the life span is heavily influenced on it's usage and keeping within safe operating temperature as suggested on most hardware boxes.
Take care of your tools and they will last a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilksha

I'm not really complaining about the shorter life span, I was merely pointing it out as a con. I personally don't like the the SSD lifespan being based on writes, but Looking at HDDs, they both have a similar life cycle. I think for HDD after so many years, each following year has Double the chance of the drive failing. Overall if you're not constantly writing data to a SSD, it should last just as long as a HDD. Remember all technology has an expiry, even if it's not mentioned. On things like a Vid Card or the CPU, the life span is heavily influenced on it's usage and keeping within safe operating temperature as suggested on most hardware boxes.
Take care of your tools and they will last a long time.

---

It wasn't really pointed towards you but users in general, there's people who do completely unnecessary things with their OS & caching that it does more harm than good just to save those few writes.


There's also those very very few idiots who are still running XP with a SSD...who complain about poor performance after a few months of use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kazaran

ARR engine is different, even if playing of a slower laptop drive, the caching, ect is utilized better. SO you won't see the stutter mess of 2.0

Unless you are made of money a sufficient SSD for gaming isn't going to be easy. It's actually better all around, to have a ssd act as the direct load cache to windows. It will speed all around performance up for common used applications. Havign sufficient main memory is also a main step.

---

A quality SSD doesn't have to cost all that much as long as you don't demand a large capacity. 64GB is enough for your OS + related data + core software and maybe a game or two. Move your documents/pictures/etc folders to your old hard drive.

I recently got a 128GB Samsung 840 Pro series, only $120 and it came with a free copy of Asassin's Creed 3 :D. Drive has great reviews and seems to have a solid lifespan. Did I mention it's fast? Windows boots up in seconds and my PC is useable instantly, unlike before where I had to sit and wait for a minute or two after logging in before I could actually use my PC (yes, even defragged/optimized)

Go with Intel (most expensive) or Samsung (not as expensive but still very good quality). Avoid OCZ like the plague. Other brands, check customer reviews before buying to gauge reliability.

A few small tips: Your SSD may come with software that can reconfigure key Windows settings for you, but if not-

Disable your disk defragmenting utility if you have one that does it automatically or on a schedule. SSDs don't really need to be defragged as they can randomly read any block of data at the same speed, and defragmenting causes a LOT of reading and writing and can thus shorten disk lifespan a little.

Set your swap file (aka virtual memory) to a fixed size so that it isn't constantly being resized by Windows, again increasing strain on the drive.

Disable the indexing service (which speeds up file searches). With the speed of an SSD it's not really necessary and again increases strain on the drive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

A quality SSD doesn't have to cost all that much as long as you don't demand a large capacity. 64GB is enough for your OS + related data + core software and maybe a game or two. Move your documents/pictures/etc folders to your old hard drive.

I recently got a 128GB Samsung 840 Pro series, only $120 and it came with a free copy of Asassin's Creed 3 :D. Drive has great reviews and seems to have a solid lifespan. Did I mention it's fast? Windows boots up in seconds and my PC is useable instantly, unlike before where I had to sit and wait for a minute or two after logging in before I could actually use my PC (yes, even defragged/optimized)

Go with Intel (most expensive) or Samsung (not as expensive but still very good quality). Avoid OCZ like the plague. Other brands, check customer reviews before buying to gauge reliability.

---

It's not really the brand that matters but the controller that the brand name used. If intel had the displeasure of releasing a SSD using the SandForce SF-2200 controller, would you buy it? H E L L NO

Most brand besides use nearly identical make ups of SSDs off of a reference design.

Quote:

---

It's not really the brand that matters but the controller that the brand name used.

---

Intel and Samsung design and manufacture their own controllers, unlike most of the other brands that get them from a third party. This means they have more quality control over the whole product compared to those that don't make all the components themselves (e.g. The two brands I named are not "most brands")

The brand does matter because not every brand uses the same controller nor does every brand design and manufacture their own.

It's really not hard to see the difference in the customer reviews (on Newegg). Some brands you'll see a lot of 5-eggs (because it worked) and a lot of 1-eggs (either the drive worked, or it didn't / failed quickly / was DOA) Other brands you'll see mostly 4s and 5s. This isn't an end-all deciding factor, so you also need to look at the actual comments- What are the low reviews complaining about? Why are there so many of them? Is the manufacturer offering responses?

Some brands are consistently better/worse than others. It's not entirely subjective.