Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
theskyisthelimit

Load times gen4 vs gen3 nvme.. no change?

Recommended Posts

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 by theskyisthelimit

MSI z690-a Unify; 1000 watt evga SuperNova Platinum; 12900kf at 1.255 adaptive LLC6, auto avx, auto Pcore, E-4.0ghz, Ring-4.1ghz, PL 241watt (Cine96c, games 83c case side On); DDR5 Gskill F5-6400J3239G16GA2-TZ5RS  at 6400mhz autovolt, Kraken x73 360mm; Thermaltake v51 Case; Gigabyte 4090 OC;  VR-Varjo Aero;  AstronomicallySpeaking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 


MSI z690-a Unify; 1000 watt evga SuperNova Platinum; 12900kf at 1.255 adaptive LLC6, auto avx, auto Pcore, E-4.0ghz, Ring-4.1ghz, PL 241watt (Cine96c, games 83c case side On); DDR5 Gskill F5-6400J3239G16GA2-TZ5RS  at 6400mhz autovolt, Kraken x73 360mm; Thermaltake v51 Case; Gigabyte 4090 OC;  VR-Varjo Aero;  AstronomicallySpeaking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by theskyisthelimit

MSI z690-a Unify; 1000 watt evga SuperNova Platinum; 12900kf at 1.255 adaptive LLC6, auto avx, auto Pcore, E-4.0ghz, Ring-4.1ghz, PL 241watt (Cine96c, games 83c case side On); DDR5 Gskill F5-6400J3239G16GA2-TZ5RS  at 6400mhz autovolt, Kraken x73 360mm; Thermaltake v51 Case; Gigabyte 4090 OC;  VR-Varjo Aero;  AstronomicallySpeaking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by MySound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...