The time from the end of the previous test period to the final texture pop (called “Menu Load” above) was reduced by a few seconds, but most of the time saving happens before the character appears on screen. The easiest place to measure this is in the main menu, but our avatar’s three second transformation from oily hot dog man to fully-textured human wasn’t improved enough to be reliably measured. PUBG doesn’t have a save file to load, but it does have something we’ve complained about in the past: obnoxiously slow texture pop-in.
#As ssd copy benchmark Pc
FFXV load times are notoriously bad, and this doesn’t bode well for PC players that don’t have 100+ GB to spare on their SSDs. FFXV clearly has the most to gain from an SSD, with a load time reduction of 65.5% that saves 44.2 seconds-not counting the time saved launching the game. For the “farm” test, we timed launching into the farm hub level from orbit. For the Destiny 2 “campaign” test, we used a character that had partly completed the first mission of the campaign so that they would load directly into gameplay.
On the other hand, Destiny 2’s launch times were extremely reliable, and the SSD shaved off nearly nineteen seconds (33.7% reduction).įour of the games we tested had save files that could be loaded, and all of them benefitted from an SSD. Some variance can be expected depending on how long server connections take for the multiplayer games, and test-to-test variance for Monster Hunter and PUBG was a bit higher in this test than the others. “press A to continue”), except for Destiny 2, which was measured until the “SELECT CHARACTER” text appeared. Launch times were measured from the time the game was selected to the first onscreen button prompt (e.g. We tested five games, a mix of titles we’ve already benchmarked and ones we might in the future. USB 3.0 technically has a lower transfer rate than SATA III, but an SSD using USB 3.0 is still far faster than a 5400RPM HDD using SATA III. The next-best choice would be to plug an external SSD into one of the the USB 3.0 ports on the console as Microsoft intended, so that’s what we did. So, to summarize: logically the best-performing scenario would be to completely replace the HDD with an SSD, but that goes beyond a casual upgrade. We can revisit this in the future if there’s enough interest, but an external SSD still offers significant benefits. It’s absolutely possible to replace an Xbox One’s boot drive with various other solutions, like 1:1 cloning onto a drive of equal or greater size (1TB for our Xbox), or experimenting with the scripts that iFixit links to, but we didn’t pursue them-the whole point of a console is that it’s cheap and convenient, and anyone brave enough to tear apart their Xbox and stick in $300 of flash storage is exiting the core audience. We tried manually partitioning the SSD and copying files over-there wasn’t much chance of this working, but it’s easy to attempt. We use Acronis for cloning, which is usually capable of handling transfers from larger to smaller drives, but it wasn’t cooperating. Cloning is necessary because there’s no official method for transferring and, unlike the PS4, it’s not possible to simply stick in an empty drive. The stock and external SSD tests were easy enough, but cloning the Xbox boot drive proved a problem.
Initially, we had planned to do three tests: one stock, one with the games running off an external SSD, and one with the entire system installed on an internal SSD. texture pop-in), Assassin's Creed: Origins, and more. This benchmark tests game load times on an external SSD for the Xbox One X, versus internal HDD load times for Final Fantasy XV (FFXV), Monster Hunter World, PUBG (incl. The SSD is up against SATA III (or USB 3.0 Gen1) limitations, but will still give us a theoretical sequential performance uplift of 4-5x - and that’s assuming peak bursted speeds on the hard drive. Even taking the 140MB/s peak transfer rate listed in the drive’s data sheet completely at face value, it’s nowhere near bottlenecking on the internal SATA III interface. This is absolutely, positively a 5400RPM drive, as we said in our teardown, and not a 7200RPM drive (as some suggest online). The 1TB drive that was shipped in our Xbox One X is a Seagate 2.5” hard drive, model ST1000LM035. We’ve seen some abysmal load times in Final Fantasy and some nasty texture loading in PUBG, so there’s definitely room for improvement somewhere. HDDs in various SKUs of the Xbox One, but not so many with the Xbox One X-so we’re doing our own. Since 2013, there have been quite a few benchmarks done with SSDs vs.
#As ssd copy benchmark upgrade
Consoles don’t offer many upgrade paths, but HDDs, like the ones that ship in the Xbox One X, are one of the few items that can be exchanged for a standard part with higher performance.
0 kommentar(er)
