By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
NATO on 16 March 2017
Edit Thread
exdeath said:
NATO said:

There is little benefit beyond occasionally shorter load times for SSD's in games consoles, and the price for large capacity is atrocious compared to the relatively cheap mechanical hdd.

SSD's strength is in multitasking data load, the one area consoles don't really have problems with because most to all of their multitasking occurs in memory.

So take your SSD tech and keep it, i'll stick to capacity over saving a few seconds in load times.

I'll stick with computers that can run at GB/s instead of KB/s. 

Nonvolatile storage IOPS and access time has been the Achilles heel of computers for decades since DRAM was invented.

Maximum throughput for consoles if they used SATA3 would be 600 MB/s even with an SSD, both Xbox one and PS4 use SATA2 which is a maximum throughput of 300MB/s  PS4 pro uses a SATA3 controller but throughput is bottlenecked by the data bus.

meanwhile my mechanical drive achieves a maximum of 120 MB/s, costs $65 for 2tb.

so again, you can take your ssd and put it on a dark shelf where the sun doesn't shine, and you can take the claim of GB/s over SATA and take a hike because it's nonsense.

either that or you can't tell the difference between gigabyte and gigabit, neither outcome paints you in a good light.

And if for whatever reason you're harping on about PC, we're talking about games library storage here, and as I've already said , the additional price for less space in exchange for slightly faster load times isn't worth it, I'll take capacity over speed for anything but an OS install any day of the week, people who use SSD's for all of their game installs are idiots.