I was running out of space on my 2TB XPG 3400 MB/sec gen 3 nvme (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07TY2TN64/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1) ,

so i opted to go for the 4tb 7400 MB/sec version upgrade. (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B2FSKTHK?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details&th=1)
I run the sim exe on the C OS drive, which is also a 3400 MB/sec nvme (perhaps a factor here, being the os is gen3).

Su12 load times on the old 3400 drive are 2min 21 sec for what is basically 1.4TB of MSFS data on a fresh win 11 install.
Su12 load times on the new 7400 drive are… the SAME. Nearly exactly the same.

I guess its not surprising as often with simulators, the load times for files arent optimized to match the hardware (i think) or the ssd isnt the bottleneck.

Has anyone else made the upgrade in this manner and seen the same? (I was able to verify with crystal diskmark v8 the 7400 speed on reads is accurate)

**my hardware:  i9-12900k at 4.9ghz, 6400mhz ddr5 ram, 4090 Gigabyte  OC, mb msi z690 meg unify-x

**or has anyone found that if you do both the OS and the area where MSFS files are located then the speeds jump (so the OS has to be the same speed)

Edited April 7, 20233 yr by theskyisthelimit

Why would there be any difference? Your computer can't load faster than your RAM can process.

1 minute ago, Farlis said:

Why would there be any difference? Your computer can't load faster than your RAM can process.

True, but when i went from a previous gen to gen3 at least, i saw a bit of an increase, maybe 40 seconds or more shaved off.  But was prob not subject to a bottleneck then

 

Just now, theskyisthelimit said:

True, but when i went from a previous gen to gen3 at least, i saw a bit of an increase, maybe 40 seconds or more shaved off.  But was prob not subject to a bottleneck then

 

Well if you are using DDR4 RAM then the max speed is 3200, so you already had 200 that went to waste. 

51 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Well if you are using DDR4 RAM then the max speed is 3200, so you already had 200 that went to waste. 

True back on gen3.

Currently using ddr5 6400 which is around 52 GB/sec which is 6400 MB/sec (vs the ram which is 7400 MB/sec), since the old nvme was around 3400 MB/sec now its fully on par and then some with gen4 7400.  Perhaps that added bandwidth just isnt being utilized like it should  edit actually the ram is dual channel so it should still be much faster (the ram).

Edited April 7, 20233 yr by theskyisthelimit

Those speeds are usually obtained with benchmarks and those usually have nothing to do with regular real life usage. The numbers only tell you the maximum the hardware can reach under certain perfect conditions and the differences between various pieces of similar hardware usually won't be noticed at all when you are simply using the hardware with a game or whatever. It's mostly marketing. Going from an old fashioned hard disk to an ssd is noticable but differences between various ssd's (specially if they are the same kind) are hardly noticable. The same goes (and perhaps even more so) for ram.

On 4/7/2023 at 5:00 PM, Farlis said:

Why would there be any difference? Your computer can't load faster than your RAM can process.

So you think the whole Sim folder is loaded into the RAM? RAM Speed has nothing to do with loading times and 100% nothing with the SSD speed. DDR5 6000 can transfer 48 Gigabyte / second. But this is between CPU and RAM. The SSD is limitied by the PCIe bus or PCIe lanes for the M.2 slot. And even this limit is not reached by SSDs. There’s a lot of variables and steps between the single hardware components. 
 

It’s not as simple as you think. 

Edited April 8, 20233 yr by MySound