Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[vivster]

JEMC said:

vivster said:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/samsung-980pro-2tb
So the 980 Pro 2TB surfaced and it got me thinking about my storage setup.

The 2TB one will probably be around 500€ when it launches, which is pretty much on par. The 1TB version is 200€.

Then I got thinking about maybe using 2x1TB in RAID0 instead to have a cheaper and faster solution.

Then I realized my future mainboard only has 2 m.2 slots, which would mean I'd have to either use SATA or another PCIe slot for my system drive.

Then I checked if there is even a performance gain of putting a 7000MB read SSD in a RAID0 and I came to the conclusion that it's probably gonna be heavily bottlenecked by the onboard RAID controller.

Then I also realized that I only have 20 PCIe lanes on my CPU, which would mean one of the 2 SSDs would have to go through the chipset, which sucks.

So after going through that whole rabbit hole I have decided to stick with the 1TB version for games and 250GB for the system unless the 2TB are noticeably faster.

Do you really need the extra speed of the 980Pro?

I'm just saying because while it's only Gen3 and the speeds are limited to 3400MB/sec read and 3,000MB/sec write, the Corsair P400 4TB is just a bit over the price of the 2TB 980Pro, and while I'm sure you'll notice the extra space, I'm not sure you'll notice the extra speed.

I actually will not notice a difference between 2TB and 4TB. I do not have that many games. I've been on 500GB for 4 years now and I don't have any issues. I will notice faster loading times even if it's just a second.

Captain_Yuri said:

Alright so we have our first Raster comparison between PS5 and PC and the showing is quite impressive for the PS5!

With Similar settings, PS5 runs as fast as a RTX 2080. Alex does note that this is one of those games on PC that favor AMD over Nvidia so it might not be the case for other games in Raster. And as we know, the Series X runs slower than Ps5 on this game as well which is kinda weird. Ps5 also has a setting that is higher than PC high which Alex thinks it's an oversight as the performance impact is minimal even if visually, it looks quite good. The rest are running high-very high with some being low on Ps5.

So the console performance overall looks to be like this:

On games with Raster, the performance should land around 2070 Super-2080 Performance depending on the game.
On games with Ray Tracing, the performance should land around 2060 Super.

Certainly quite an upgrade in hardware from the Ps4/x1 days. I would think you will need a 3060 Ti this generation to be ahead of the consoles in both Raster and obviously Ray Tracing for now.

The interesting thing is, this might be the first generation where the performance has such variation depending on the game. In games that are pure Raster, it can achieve up to 2070 Super-2080 performance. In games that's Ray Tracing, 2060 Super.

Stop using ancient units of measurement. Just say 3060 and be done with it.

I'm actually quite relieved that the new consoles are already only midrange at launch, that means the world is still normal.

Captain_Yuri said:

Conina said:

So exactly as expected due to the PS5 specs... no secret sauce yet.

Well personally, I was expecting it to be more so in the middle of 2070 and 2070 Super. Not 2080 levels. Although considering how poorly Asscreed performs on Nvidia gpus with 6800XT even killing 3090 in Raster, on average, it may still be the case outside of one offs like this.

The thing I don't quite understand is why the Series X is performing so low. In fact, Ps5 and Series X has switched spots in that aspect as the Series X is more so in between the 2070/2070 Super and Ps5 is 2080 for this game. Although Series X is performing worse in every game against the ps5.

RDNA2 seems to benefit more from clocks than cores. Seems like Sony was smart enough to notice that early.