Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

Q About SSD hard drives Follow

#1 Sep 14 2010 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
***
2,815 posts
Ive been improving the game's performance quite a bit since installing it. And have reached a point where remaining stutter lag spikes I get in-game seem directly tied to my hard drive spiking.

Because of this I'm thinking about updating my system to run the OS/key programs off a super fast SSD. But can anyone confirm if this is a good or bad idea, since it seems FFXIV makes very very frequent use of the HD?

I'm not sure if it's reading or writing when i get these spikes in disk usage. But if it's writing, I wouldn't think that's good for an SSD at all. Also if it is reading that's causing the lag, that would mean i need to install all FFXIV files onto the SSD rather than separate storage drive yes?

Also would it be a waste to use an SSD with XP? I have a copy of windows 7 but not sure if it's been a reliable OS or as riddled with problems as Vista.

Anyway any insight into an SSD(OS/Programs)/HD(storage) setup for FFXI would be nice.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 12:06pm by RattyBatty
____________________________
Minecraft : My anti-MMO
Terraria : My anti-Minecraft
#2 Sep 14 2010 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
windows 7 is very reliable, its the new XP. nothing like vista garbage.


Anyways, I'd like to know if SSD will decrease stuttering. anyone?
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#3 Sep 14 2010 at 10:08 AM Rating: Default
**
782 posts
Quote:
Also would it be a waste to use an SSD with XP? I have a copy of windows 7 but not sure if it's been a reliable OS or as riddled with problems as Vista.


Yes you should upgrade to 7.
ME : XP :: vista : 7

As for the SSD until recently benchmarks have all shown SSD to simply be on par with traditional drives and the price per GB is still much higher. I'm personally holding off until the next system build (year and a half or so) before I do anything with SSD. I think the price and performance gains will then be worth the price then.

Currently the best way to increase storage speed is by adding more and more drives. Try getting another like drive and stripe them. Or get 3 more like drives and go all out with striping+mirroring. I had four inexpensive drives that matched the performance of my current much more expensive drive.

New single drive = 300gb = 250$
Four inexpensive drives = 160gb and $160

I'm thinking of getting a second and stripping the new drives but waiting till after my final car payment in October!

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 11:13am by windexy
#4 Sep 14 2010 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*
246 posts
I absolutely love windows 7, but get the 64-bit ultimate version. It is definitely worth the extra money.

Using Windows 7 a couple of menu items get moved around a little bit, but overall you will feel as if you are using XP again but with Vista+ graphics.

Anyone whom I have recommended Win 7 to has not had any complaints.

Oh, it also consumes less processes than Vista.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 12:11pm by LordMethos
#5 Sep 14 2010 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
378 posts
Just want to toss out my agreement that 7 is way better than vista... Better than xp too for that matter. I hated both xp and vista.

You also might wait til after the release to see how your performance is... the beta client has alot of weird crap in it that SE has stated was in there just for monitoring whatever they think they need to monitor. One hopes that most of it will be removed when its not beta anymore.
____________________________

Retainer: Ferthmart
FFXI: Ferth - Cerbereus Nee Hades Nee Leviathan.
#6 Sep 14 2010 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,675 posts
LordMethos wrote:
I absolutely love windows 7, but get the 64-bit ultimate version. It is definitely worth the extra money.

Using Windows 7 a couple of menu items get moved around a little bit, but overall you will feel as if you are using XP again but with Vista+ graphics.

Anyone whom I have recommended Win 7 to has not had any complaints.

Oh, it also consumes less processes than Vista.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 12:11pm by LordMethos



I agree.

Windows 7 is much much better than Vista and even better than XP.

The Windows 7 taskbar is great, libraries are great, there is support for TRIM, and overall despite its 'bloat' compared to XP, it still is a clean, functional, superior OS.

Windows 7 should also automatically turn off things like defragging on your SSD so it's one less thing to worry about.
#7 Sep 14 2010 at 10:24 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
DirectorCobbs wrote:
windows 7 is very reliable, its the new XP. nothing like vista garbage.


Anyways, I'd like to know if SSD will decrease stuttering. anyone?
No. All it will do is decrease load times (i.e.: how much time you spend on the black "Now Loading" screen).
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#8 Sep 14 2010 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
***
2,815 posts
But if my lag is directly tied to periods of my HD use spiking, wouldn't that count as loading?.. This is why I was thinking SSD might help (although if FFXIV writes to some kind of temp folder, from which it constantly loads/writes, that would be bad news for SSD).

Quote:
Currently the best way to increase storage speed is by adding more and more drives. Try getting another like drive and stripe them.

What is 'striping'?

One way or another I've been wanting to grab a new fastHD for a clean OS/program install, rather than formatting my old drive that's got too much stuff to bother backing up. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to set up for fast HD access for programs like FFXIV (which is the only one that seems to lag because of the HD really).

I don't want to wait to test retail FFXIV because I dont want to install/6gig update it 2 more times. One way or another I am adding a HD to my PC and reinstalling everything, the question is what setup to go with.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 12:37pm by RattyBatty
____________________________
Minecraft : My anti-MMO
Terraria : My anti-Minecraft
#9 Sep 14 2010 at 10:42 AM Rating: Default
**
782 posts
Quote:
What is 'striping'?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID_0#RAID_0
#10 Sep 14 2010 at 11:12 AM Rating: Good
*
88 posts
Windows 7 is designed to work with SSDs as XP and others keep options like ready boost and defragmenting enabled. Constant writes to the SSD shorten it's life span. Win7 automatically disables features that will do this. And it's a good thing because it's not needed.

I love my SSD it's boots win7 in 10 seconds(after cmos post)

#11 Sep 14 2010 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
sparkytenks wrote:
I love my SSD. It boots win7 in 10 seconds(after cmos post)


Same here (Win7 64-bit on SSD), though I'm booting off a smaller SSD while using a plain 750GB 7200 RPM WD HDD for my data until I find a suitable gigantor SSD Smiley: grin
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#12 Sep 14 2010 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
***
2,815 posts
I'm wondeing though, since a lot of games write frequently to 'my documents', if that was at its default location on your SSD OS, wouldn't that dramatically tear into your drive's lifespan?

But then here's the kicker, if you move your 'my documents' to the standard HD, then wouldn't the game be reading(/writing?) just as slow as it is right now? This is why I'm on the fence about SSD, the lifespan issue. I'm not sure how much writing FFXIV does (maybe to a massive temp file?), but it's certainly interacting with my HD a WHOLE LOT. Sounds like an antivirus scan the whole time I play.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 2:03pm by RattyBatty
____________________________
Minecraft : My anti-MMO
Terraria : My anti-Minecraft
#13 Sep 14 2010 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
*
183 posts
If you are going for SSD, I would recommend an SSD capable of SATA 3 with an SATA 3 mobo. This HD is insanely fast. My boot is about 5 to 7 seconds, and it raised my benchmarck about 600 points.
#14 Sep 14 2010 at 12:07 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,675 posts
RattyBatty wrote:
I'm wondeing though, since a lot of games write frequently to 'my documents', if that was at its default location on your SSD OS, wouldn't that dramatically tear into your drive's lifespan?

But then here's the kicker, if you move your 'my documents' to the standard HD, then wouldn't the game be reading(/writing?) just as slow as it is right now? This is why I'm on the fence about SSD. I'm not sure how much writing FFXIV does, but it's certainly interacting with me HD a WHOLE LOT. Sounds like an antivirus scan the whole time I play.


Well that's the point of a drive; to be used. With typical read and writes I'd expect the a newer SSD to last at least 20-50 YEARS. Though honestly I don't see a benefit in an SSD if you're just using it for FFXIV. With superfetch (another awesome Windows 7 thing) my 7200rpm HDD can often times obtain the same seek times of an SSD (over time). Now of course it's definitely not as fast in general but Windows 7 has done a good job in this regard to speed up things as they can.

And you're right about the separate folder for my documents on a HDD. The HDD will bottleneck whatever read or writes to have to do on it, that is, if you are swapping back and forth from SSD to HDD.

In short, if you have an SSD use it. If you are just thinking about purchasing one for FFIXV, I might hold off until they become a bit better for price per GB. OR hold off until you're sure that the beta isn't all the cause of the stuttering.

OH I just remembered.

I have two 7200 drives, and have placed my swap file (page file) on my secondary drive. This might be what's causing the excessive use/stuttering. So in this case (if you were going to buy an SSD anyway) I'd consider putting the page file on the mechanical drive as well.
#15 Sep 14 2010 at 12:16 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
It's sort of been said, but the short and sweet is that SSDs are amazing for read purposes.

XIV will be a read/write program due to updates over time. In the short term the SSD will help a ton, in the long term with a low end SSD not so much because writes deteriorate them. Long term is 5+ years. So in short a dedicated SSD with TRIM support would be worthwhile IF you are ok with "wasting" 100ish dollard.

The ideal situation with the current drives is boot system only, directing your program files folders etc to a D: or other named normal drive.

You're better off with a RAID 0 for an MMO IMO. I'm new to RAIDs though so I'm not positive, but I just set up a RAID 0 with 2 7200rpm drives on my wifes PC and they only score a few points lower on Windows 7 than my SSD boot drive does on mine, granted I have a budget 64gb SSD on mine and it doesn't have Sandforce.

Castrophany wrote:
If you are going for SSD, I would recommend an SSD capable of SATA 3 with an SATA 3 mobo. This HD is insanely fast. My boot is about 5 to 7 seconds, and it raised my benchmarck about 600 points.


Honestly, IMO until Intel or AMD have native support for SATA 3 (which I have) it's not worth it. Boot up is delayed by separate drivers loading in the BIOS portion of bootup, which SSDs have nothing to help with.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 6:18pm by PerrinofSylph
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#16 Sep 14 2010 at 12:34 PM Rating: Decent
PerrinofSylph wrote:
It's sort of been said, but the short and sweet is that SSDs are amazing for read purposes.

XIV will be a read/write program due to updates over time. In the short term the SSD will help a ton, in the long term with a low end SSD not so much because writes deteriorate them. Long term is 5+ years. So in short a dedicated SSD with TRIM support would be worthwhile IF you are ok with "wasting" 100ish dollard.

The ideal situation with the current drives is boot system only, directing your program files folders etc to a D: or other named normal drive.

You're better off with a RAID 0 for an MMO IMO. I'm new to RAIDs though so I'm not positive, but I just set up a RAID 0 with 2 7200rpm drives on my wifes PC and they only score a few points lower on Windows 7 than my SSD boot drive does on mine, granted I have a budget 64gb SSD on mine and it doesn't have Sandforce.

Castrophany wrote:
If you are going for SSD, I would recommend an SSD capable of SATA 3 with an SATA 3 mobo. This HD is insanely fast. My boot is about 5 to 7 seconds, and it raised my benchmarck about 600 points.


Honestly, IMO until Intel or AMD have native support for SATA 3 (which I have) it's not worth it. Boot up is delayed by separate drivers loading in the BIOS portion of bootup, which SSDs have nothing to help with.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 6:18pm by PerrinofSylph


You're absolutely right, a normal fast HDD would be best for an MMO.

But you're missing the point. With a normal fast HDD, many people are experiencing skipping and stuttering in cities and at camps. We are considering the possibility that this is because FFXIV's coding doesn't like our harddrives, for whatever reason. So we're considering a SSD, which is why we're asking if a SSD will help.

So yes, for an MMO, get a normal drive. But for FFXIV, a normal drive may be holding us back for some arcane reason
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#17 Sep 14 2010 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
***
2,815 posts
Well I've been reading up on newegg, in the reviews for both types of HD. And I'm at a loss.

On the one hand, SSD loads fast, but seems plagued with sh*tty manufacturers, drives arriving dead, or dying after 3 boots. And aparently many of the SSD drives use some kind of components that are notorious for not getting along with games (severe stuttring etc). It's not easy to find out which drives use this component because manufacturers don't publish that information.

So I looked up 10krmp HD's, they look too unstable and noisy for the minimal improvement over 7200

So I looked up 7200's And most of them seem to also have high error/faliure rates. Many stories of people buying 2 for RAID, and 1 is already busted on install. Seeing that story many times, can't help but imagine they have a 50% manufacture error rate! So I don't know which brand to trust anymore...

Ideally I'd like a 72krpm HD, that's around or under 100$, and storage is not a big issue since I don't run too many big programs. Even 100 gig is fine. I'd only use it for OS and programs I want to run fast (FFXIV!!). Any suggestions I can look up?

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 2:45pm by RattyBatty
____________________________
Minecraft : My anti-MMO
Terraria : My anti-Minecraft
#18 Sep 14 2010 at 12:48 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,675 posts
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152244

Two of these in RAID-0 would be awesome. OR just one. I really only buy Samsung drives, mainly because I need quiet drives. The F3 and now F4 series are very, very good.

#19 Sep 14 2010 at 12:50 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Anyone have any advice on laptop SSDs from quality manufacturers?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#20 Sep 14 2010 at 1:02 PM Rating: Decent
I haven't had any problems with my SSD. I haven't had any problem with micro-stutter in XIV, either. SSDs are like any other computer hardware...some manufacturers build good ones, and some manufacturers don't.
#21 Sep 14 2010 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,675 posts
bsphil wrote:
Anyone have any advice on laptop SSDs from quality manufacturers?


http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=636&name=SSD&Order=RATING

Most SSDs are by default laptop format (2.5"). And Intel is the one of the best performing but also the most expensive per GB.

Kingston and OCZ make good drives, but the former are a bit slower and the latter can be a bit flaky.
#22 Sep 14 2010 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
***
2,815 posts
Quote:
I haven't had any problems with my SSD. I haven't had any problem with micro-stutter in XIV, either.

Which are you using
____________________________
Minecraft : My anti-MMO
Terraria : My anti-Minecraft
#23 Sep 14 2010 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
DirectorCobbs wrote:
You're absolutely right, a normal fast HDD would be best for an MMO.

But you're missing the point. With a normal fast HDD, many people are experiencing skipping and stuttering in cities and at camps. We are considering the possibility that this is because FFXIV's coding doesn't like our harddrives, for whatever reason. So we're considering a SSD, which is why we're asking if a SSD will help.

So yes, for an MMO, get a normal drive. But for FFXIV, a normal drive may be holding us back for some arcane reason


Funny, I had none of these issues with my "ancient" 7200rpm 500gb Toshisba HDDs. I had none of those issues with my crappy laptop HDD. I had none of those issues with my new WD caviar black 1TB 7200rpm HDD.

The 2 non-laptop were driven by a Q6700 at stock or sub 3ghz clocks with 4 and 8 GB ram at 1066 and 1067mhz.

Unfortunately I only just completed my i7 950 build that my WD is attached to now (I won't install anything other than OS or boot programs on my SSD) so I didn't get to test Beta on it.

However like I said, no stuttering issues. The only problems I've had have dealt with internet lag.

I'm stationed in the UK at the moment and my internet connection is netting me no greater than 500kbs and usually around 250ish kbs downlaods with all other devices removed from my server. I only met lag at aerethytes or upon fist entering the begining instances of a story line where there were way more than a handfull of players.

____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#24 Sep 14 2010 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
strange, im using a WD black 500gb ;\
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#25 Sep 14 2010 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
***
3,825 posts
RattyBatty wrote:
Well I've been reading up on newegg, in the reviews for both types of HD. And I'm at a loss.


IMO more than half the folks on Newegg reviews shouldn't legally be allowed to own a computer. Having said that, people do get bad drives, The problem is as with any service, folks are more likely to leave a review for a bad or sub-par experience as opposed to a good experience.

Do a search on apartments, if you ever lived in one. It's a great example if you have. (if you haven't, look at a high commodity service that you have used with a good experience and read the reviews). I use this example because apartment ratings or whatever the website is called is a perfect example of people rarely rating good things.

I lived in my last apartment for 6 years. It wasn't amazing but it was in good condition with extremely friendly staff and the price was alot lower than comparable apartments in the area (if it matters in my case I had an 1100sq' apt for under $600 a month, 800sq' apts in my area were going for $1kish a month). The majority of ratings on the sites about the apartment complex I lived in talk about the staff being ****** or extremely rude or the facility smelling horrible etc... A few of the reviews I was able to tell who the people were, some even lived in my builiding. Those folks were ones which were evicted or chastised for infractions. 0 people other than myself left a good review for the staff or the facilities in the timeframe I lived there.

What I'm getting at is it's human nature to rant to the world (especially if the problem is of our own cause), very rarely do we ensure we tell the world about a good experience. We might rave to family or friends, but we won't take the time to tell people about a good experience, great ones yes! Good, normal, average? Nope.

I suppose another example would be movies, but tastes vary greatly so it's harder to make an example.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#26 Sep 14 2010 at 3:12 PM Rating: Decent
RattyBatty wrote:
Quote:
I haven't had any problems with my SSD. I haven't had any problem with micro-stutter in XIV, either.

Which are you using


Intel X-25M 80GB I believe. I wouldn't switch back to an old school HDD for anything. I run my OS and commonly used applications off my SSD and media storage and less frequently used applications go onto my HDDs. Very pleased with the performance and as I said, I haven't had any issues with the SSD at all.
#27 Sep 14 2010 at 3:51 PM Rating: Decent
Ive done some tests and the stuttering is most likely from HDD reading. I kept resource monitor up while running around and when i got stutters, it was when the HDD was reading heavily.
However, inreasing AA makes the stuttering occurrences worse.
Changing textures does nothing.

frustrating -.-

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 6:01pm by DirectorCobbs
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#28 Sep 14 2010 at 4:57 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
bsphil wrote:
DirectorCobbs wrote:
windows 7 is very reliable, its the new XP. nothing like vista garbage.


Anyways, I'd like to know if SSD will decrease stuttering. anyone?
No. All it will do is decrease load times (i.e.: how much time you spend on the black "Now Loading" screen).


And how much time you spend loading character models and textures, which is a ******** of time.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#29 Sep 14 2010 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
191 posts
I've been running a Crucial C300 256GB SSD since April,and I have no stutter at all.I keep all my
programs on the SSD and data on a mechanical drive.
These things are sweet but gotta be set up correctly.Depending on the manufacturer,the firmware
is the first thing that may need addressing.

I wouldn't use any OS less than Win7/64. XP for sure doesn't deal with this type of drive well at all.
Make sure BIOS is set to AHCI before installing WIn7....trust me.That way Win7 will see it as a SSD
and install it's native driver which support Trim. Seems alot of manufacturer supplied drivers kinda suck.

Disable Superfetch and Prefetch and turn off Defrag.Drive this fast don't need it.
Make you page file as small as you can without program crashes and run no less than 8GB of system memory.

IDK about the rest of you,but 4-5 yrs of life is about twice as long as I've ever kept a rig as my main machine.

After 5 months of constant use my numbers are as good as when the SSD was new.


[img=[IMG]http://i926.photobucket.com/albums/ad101/Captzee/Intel%20i7-930-Asus%20P6X58D%20Build%20%20Apr%202010/Benchmarks/WriteCachingRe-enabled.png[/IMG]]
#30 Sep 14 2010 at 5:09 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Deadgye wrote:
bsphil wrote:
DirectorCobbs wrote:
windows 7 is very reliable, its the new XP. nothing like vista garbage.


Anyways, I'd like to know if SSD will decrease stuttering. anyone?
No. All it will do is decrease load times (i.e.: how much time you spend on the black "Now Loading" screen).


And how much time you spend loading character models and textures, which is a sh*tload of time.
Load times are pretty long, yes. But that doesn't have much if anything to do with a continuous gameplay stutter.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#31 Sep 14 2010 at 5:15 PM Rating: Default
http://imagefrog.net/out.php/i117425_Untitled.png

:P I'm assuming that's normal?
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#32 Sep 14 2010 at 5:17 PM Rating: Default
**
696 posts
I'm using an IDE drive and I don't have stuttering as you are talking about. I would imagine that your processor is actually maxing out and causing the game to freeze for just enough time to notice.
#33 Sep 14 2010 at 5:31 PM Rating: Default
It goes 65-70% max. As I said, I monitored what goes on when the stutters happen. It's either the hdd or gpu drivers. I can't see it being CPU because there's no spikes or stress going on, it never reached 80%.
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#34 Sep 14 2010 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
43 posts
How full is your hard drive? If it is over 60% full your drive will be much slower when accessing data furthest out. My plan is to use MyDefrag to write a custom script to move the FFXIV directory to the beginning of the drive, right after the Windows directory.
http://mydefrag.com/

I have a Samsung F3 1TB drive and it benchmarks at 135 MB sequential reads at the beginning, but down to only 80 MB by the end of the drive. Moving the directories I care about to the beginning will keep them fast.
#35 Sep 14 2010 at 5:41 PM Rating: Default
>.-
case in point, we shouldnt be having to do this, no? is the game operating as intended, and it simply our harddrive that can't handle the game?

im confused cause ive never had to do this for a game, I dont feel like this is an actual solution to the problem

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 7:42pm by DirectorCobbs
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#36 Sep 14 2010 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
DirectorCobbs wrote:
It goes 65-70% max. As I said, I monitored what goes on when the stutters happen. It's either the hdd or gpu drivers. I can't see it being CPU because there's no spikes or stress going on, it never reached 80%.
On my i7 I've never seen the CPU usage go over ~31%, but I'm still only managing to get 25 fps at an aetheryte. I have a lot of spare CPU power but it's just not getting used, mainly because it only has a couple really demanding threads, but even then those don't really break 70% CPU usage. If I limit the game to 2 CPUs, the performance drops tremendously. Just limiting the game to 3 CPUs (out of 8) has almost no negative impact on the performance. Running just on two, they're both redlining at 95%+ usage.

DirectorCobbs wrote:
>.-
case in point, we shouldnt be having to do this, no? is the game operating as intended, and it simply our harddrive that can't handle the game?

im confused cause ive never had to do this for a game, I dont feel like this is an actual solution to the problem
I would very highly doubt that the stuttering has anything at all to do with the Hard Drive. That should be a CPU/GPU/optimization issue.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 6:49pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#37 Sep 14 2010 at 5:56 PM Rating: Default
I WOULD upgrade by q9550 and/or 250gts, but users with higher specs than me are having the stuttering as well. Which leaves me stumped


Quote:
On my i7 I've never seen the CPU usage go over ~31%, but I'm still only managing to get 25 fps at an aetheryte. I have a lot of spare CPU power but it's just not getting used, mainly because it only has a couple really demanding threads, but even then those don't really break 70% CPU usage. If I limit the game to 2 CPUs, the performance drops tremendously. Just limiting the game to 3 CPUs (out of 8) has almost no negative impact on the performance. Running just on two, they're both redlining at 95%+ usage.

Same, I get 25fps at aetheryte and busy city areas no matter what. But my memory stays with 50% being idle, and 30% of my cpu doing nothing.

And I've got a worse videocard than you, yes? I haven't heard of ANYONE getting more than 30fps at aetheryte, no matter what videocard or cpu they have, which makes me obviously think the game's engine is wonky as ****.



Edited, Sep 14th 2010 7:58pm by DirectorCobbs
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#38 Sep 14 2010 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,815 posts
Quote:
I would very highly doubt that the stuttering has anything at all to do with the Hard Drive.

Bsphil, give up. You have here 2 users that confirm stuttering that matches up with HD usage spikes in a system monitoring tool. All graphs were stable except HDD spikes every single time the game 'jumps'.

When you can HEAR your HD making as much noise as a virus scan at the same time as the game goes on a stutter spree, it's not too hard to figure out where your system is choking man.
____________________________
Minecraft : My anti-MMO
Terraria : My anti-Minecraft
#39 Sep 14 2010 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Well my HD makes no noise or anything, and it's relatively new (bought it in october). and its the same as someone else's here - a caviar black - which they claims works fine.

my disks are 0% fragmented, as well.
im gonna delete some crap and see if it helps :'(
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#40 Sep 14 2010 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
RattyBatty wrote:
Quote:
I would very highly doubt that the stuttering has anything at all to do with the Hard Drive.

Bsphil, give up. You have here 2 users that confirm stuttering that matches up with HD usage spikes in a system monitoring tool. All graphs were stable except HDD spikes every single time the game 'jumps'.

When you can HEAR your HD making as much noise as a virus scan at the same time as the game goes on a stutter spree, it's not too hard to figure out where your system is choking man.
Why is it continually loading from the HD? The necessary data should be sitting in RAM, no? I'm just not seeing the correlation when running a HD monitor and waiting for stuttering as I run to and from the aetheryte. I've actually gotten more stuttering while the HD was not currently being read from. It just appears to be unrelated.

Anyone have a recommendation on hard disk monitoring software? I'm only using the resource monitor in Win7, and I'd be willing to try a different program if it would more accurately show how much load the HD is under so I can see if it matches up with in-game stuttering.

I have a 500 GB 7200 RPM Seagate, fyi.



Edited, Sep 14th 2010 7:18pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#41 Sep 14 2010 at 6:28 PM Rating: Default
My ram sits at 50% used, meanwhile the game feels like using my harddrive. other players have commented on this, now that i remember.

Perhaps that's the problem? Constant reading from the hdd? We know many other games that have broken hardware due to excessive harddrive reading (*cough* Mass Effect 1 on Xbox 360 *cough*)

Perhaps thats the case here?
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#42 Sep 14 2010 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
DirectorCobbs wrote:
My ram sits at 50% used, meanwhile the game feels like using my harddrive. other players have commented on this, now that i remember.

Perhaps that's the problem? Constant reading from the hdd? We know many other games that have broken hardware due to excessive harddrive reading (*cough* Mass Effect 1 on Xbox 360 *cough*)

Perhaps thats the case here?
Apparently some people are seeing that, I'm not, and would like to use the program they use to see what they see for myself.

It almost feels as if the game is trying to use as little RAM as possible as if it was being modified to work with the PS3.

I realize this is not actually the case, so don't even bother commenting about how stupid that is to say.

Last time I looked I'm only using about 550k RAM for FFXIV (537 MB). That seems awfully low, especially because I still have so much RAM free, and because of how demanding the game is.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#43 Sep 14 2010 at 7:42 PM Rating: Default
That could be the case. they did the same with FFXI
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#44 Sep 14 2010 at 11:27 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Just for kicks I tested the benchmark on a flash drive and then again on my hard drive to simulate the gap in hard drive performance. The difference in score was a single point, despite the benchmark on the flash drive taking 32% more time to load. I was honestly expecting the performance to be a bit lower from the flash drive... maybe the benchmark is unique from the game in that it holds all of the necessary data for the scene in RAM, rather than swapping data in and out on the go? Not really testable with the game client. :\

EDIT: And now I just found out that my GPU core clock has been running at 3/7ths the frequency it is spec'd for. FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Aaaaand the framerate went up about 50%. I've never been so upset at good news... I can't believe it has been downclocked the entire time. Wow. Wow.


Edited, Sep 15th 2010 12:40am by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#45 Sep 15 2010 at 12:55 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
22 posts
I have two corsair sata II SSD 64gb drives in a striped array (128 gb) I use them solely for the OS swap file and games.
I've had them for almost a year now with zero problems. They do help machine speed for a number of reasons one of the biggest being page file swap speed. That is what you normally notice when you are loading things, the OS dumping the memory to disk to make room for new stuff. This happens much faster on a SSD then a mechanical HD. So they tend to help load times, and secondary loads which almost all games have since they are too big to fit entirely in memory. However, they will not make much diff if the rest of your pc isn't up to par. Putting a pair of SSDs in a wore out pc would be like pearl earrings for a pig.

My personal rig has no problems running FFXIV at all I avg 30-40 fps on max settings, save AO (which didn't work in B3 properly and I haven't retested)

My Rig:
MSI K9A2 Platinum with an AMD PHII 955 at 225*16 for 3600 MHZ
8 Gigs OCZ DDR2 at 1197 Mhz
Dual XFX 5870s 1gb
2 Corsiar SDD 64GB raid 0 OS & Games
2 250GB WD 7200 Rpm caviair Raid 0 Data
Custom water cooling for CPU and GPU

The 2nd gpu and water cooling may be a little overkill for some but I like them. Over all I feel this is a good general measuring point for a machine that will have zero problems.

Cytherea Cybele
#46 Sep 15 2010 at 1:02 AM Rating: Decent
*
109 posts
I'm using 2 SSD drives and windows 7. I noticed a much better load time with windows and some games. Aion being a big one. The 2 HDDs i had in before where 120gb 10k rpm and must say I'm very happy with the SSD.

SSD's are expensive so really think about it before diving in.

Again, I noticed a difference right from the start after putting in my 2 SSDs..
____________________________
Windows 7 (64-bit)
Thermaltake Xaser VI Full Tower
MSI 790FX-GD70
2 OCZ SSD 120GB
AMD Phenom II 965 Quad-core 3.4Ghz
2 ATI Sapphire HD5870 1gb GDDR5
8GB OCZ DDR3
#47 Sep 15 2010 at 1:02 AM Rating: Default
I've asked for videos of others walking around towns but nobody has.

Also, the game should be using more memory than it is, to give the harddrive an easier time. As it is, I've seen all the weight put on the HDD (looking at resource manager as I play)
Am I wrong to say this should be looked at by SE?
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#48 Sep 15 2010 at 1:26 AM Rating: Good
*
88 posts
I use the intel 40g just for ffxi at the moment. With only 2 gig of ram i noticed a HUGE performance difference. in towns and at camps there is no stuttering. I plan to get a larger SSD down the line. But I want to put this rig up to 4gb of ram first atleast.

4gb of ram + SSD = Win

#49 Sep 15 2010 at 1:32 AM Rating: Default
We've all got at least 4gb ram here..
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#50 Sep 15 2010 at 6:10 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Note that on LGA 1156 systems (Core i5 and i7 8xx) with SATA 6gb capability, most motherboards will rob your graphics card of PCIE lanes when running SATA at 6gbs (this is because DMI isn't fast enough). This is one of the things being addressed by Sandy Bridge, DMI is being doubled in speed so SATA will no longer need to steal PCIE lanes to run at maximum speed.

There are a few (expensive) 1156 motherboards that include chips that share the PCIE lanes rather than outright taking them from your graphics card (and which still slow down the PCIE interface to your graphics card, albeit not as much), but at that price you may as well just get LGA 1366.

Even with 1366, if you have 3 way or 4 way SLI/Crossfire it still has to take PCIE lanes from your graphics cards to run SATA at 6gbs.

Edited, Sep 15th 2010 9:10am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#51 Sep 15 2010 at 6:14 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
bsphil wrote:
Just for kicks I tested the benchmark on a flash drive and then again on my hard drive to simulate the gap in hard drive performance. The difference in score was a single point, despite the benchmark on the flash drive taking 32% more time to load. I was honestly expecting the performance to be a bit lower from the flash drive... maybe the benchmark is unique from the game in that it holds all of the necessary data for the scene in RAM, rather than swapping data in and out on the go? Not really testable with the game client. :\

EDIT: And now I just found out that my GPU core clock has been running at 3/7ths the frequency it is spec'd for. FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Aaaaand the framerate went up about 50%. I've never been so upset at good news... I can't believe it has been downclocked the entire time. Wow. Wow.


How is that even possible? Did it come that way or did you accidentally set overdrive to underclock it?
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)