Quantcast
Pics/list of your current gen library (includes hand helds/Switch)

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Pics/list of your current gen library (includes hand helds/Switch)

okr said:
There was a physical release of The Book of Unwritten Tales 2 on Wii U? Color me suprised.

Why shouldnt there be?



Around the Network



NATO said:

The hell is that thing? Looks like one of those old mechanical tape drives in those old 1950s computers that ancient civilizations used  for storage devices when computers were first invented.

Data storage circa 2006:

 



I always wondered if we could do an annual "Show us your gaming setup" like on Gaf. I think it would be fun to see other VGCharterz's (?) setups.



It'll be awhile before I figure out how to do one of these. :P 

exdeath said:
NATO said:

The hell is that thing? Looks like one of those old mechanical tape drives in those old 1950s computers that ancient civilizations used  for storage devices when computers were first invented.

Data storage circa 2006:

 

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.



Around the Network
NATO said:
exdeath said:

The hell is that thing? Looks like one of those old mechanical tape drives in those old 1950s computers that ancient civilizations used  for storage devices when computers were first invented.

Data storage circa 2006:

 

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.



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.



(Open in separate window for bigger size)

Ordered Gears of War 4 yesterday, so add that to the physial colletion.
Also about 100 digital games without GwG or EA Access stuff. Mostly indie stuff though.



NATO said:
exdeath said:

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.

I'm talking about human technology being IO kneecapped by shitty storage contraptions for 6 decades in general.

 

I'm just laughing at how you think 120-300 MB/s is acceptable (and even then only sequential...Not real world where IOPS drops to KILOBYTES /s as in 1980s speeds in 2017!) when CPU/RAM are able to run 60,000+ MB/s.  It's pathetic.

3D X Point and other non volatile universal main memories cannot come fast enough.

I dabble in ECE, VHDL, and love assembly coding, it would be amazing if I did that not knowing the difference between a bit and a byte lol.



exdeath said:

I'm talking about human technology being IO kneecapped by shitty storage contraptions for 6 decades in general.

 

I'm just laughing at how you think 120-300 MB/s is acceptable (and even then only sequential...Not real world where IOPS drops to KILOBYTES /s as in 1980s speeds in 2017!) when CPU/RAM are able to run 60,000+ MB/s.  It's pathetic.

3D X Point and other non volatile universal main memories cannot come fast enough.

I dabble in ECE, VHDL, and love assembly coding, it would be amazing if I did that not knowing the difference between a bit and a byte lol.

On consoles that don't even utilize higher than 230MB/s even with an SSD installed? yes, it's perfectly acceptable.

Get your head out of the stinky cave dude.