Crysis isn't that small but the ideal that the boost software prefetched most of it isn't implausible. This might also attribute for the benchmarks being so close if every thing was running pretty close to RAM level before the whole thing started. There is a ram caching routine that could have been turned on that pretty significantly boosts performance on both SATA and NVMe in small repetitive loads. If they were Samsung drives with magician For game loading made no noticeble difference.The article from what I could see didn't go into much detail on what the drives were or more importantly what assistive technologies were used. I have an nvme and ssd and nvme sure feels a lot faster especially when copying files and compression/decompression actions. Vinay2070 said:Its surprising how the ssd manages to keep up with nvme. But for games like Crysis 3? Not so much. There are situations where a RAM disk can be more beneficial, particularly in the server realm. It would be better for games to optimize their use of memory better than to try and pre-allocate a fixed portion of memory-system or GPU-as storage, then copy over files to that drive, and maybe gain some benefit. The takeaway is that, besides being an extremely expensive storage solution, VRAM and RAM disks typically aren't necessary for games. PCIe Gen4 might help in this case, but even so, we're still generally going to end up being limited by other elements rather than storage throughput. ![]() We're using DDR4-3600 memory that provides 57.6 GBps of bandwidth, but the PCIe Gen3 bus only manages 16 GBps. Data gets copied over the PCIe bus to the system RAM when the game launches, then it gets processed there, and eventually, textures and other portions of the game get copied back to the VRAM over the PCIe bus. There's a lot of wasted resources and effort.įor the VRAM drive, it's even worse. When we launch the game, the CPU reads data out of that portion of memory, copies it into another section of RAM, then processes the data in various ways and loads some portions of the data into the GPU memory. Think about what we've done here in our testing of Crysis 3.įor the RAM drive, we've allocated a chunk of system memory as storage. This is why letting the application or game or even OS manage memory is usually a better overall solution. The issue with RAM drives is that the applications have no idea they're residing on blazingly fast storage. There were also still occasional stutters on all of the test options (particularly on the first run, where minimum fps dropped into the single digits), so extreme RAM drive storage didn't fix that. ![]() Running the game off of system RAM ended up being the slowest, which again doesn't make much sense, but it was consistently nearly 1 fps slower than the other storage options. ![]() The time to load a save game was effectively tied.Īs for actual in-game performance, there's a bit more variability between runs, with the VRAM Drive coming out just a hair ahead of the two SSDs. The VRAM Drive ought to perform as well as other storage options, but again, a few tenths of a second aren't particularly meaningful. The GPU RAM Disk ended up coming in last, perhaps just due to software overhead. No one is likely to notice a 0.2 second difference in load times, and the SATA SSD actually outperformed the NVMe SSD. Launch times varied by about 0.2 seconds in our testing, but some of that might be human error. Yeah, that earlier bit about Crysis 3 not being very storage limited? This is the result.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |