For a casual computer user (one who doesn't do anything resource heavy, but rather just uses it for basic stuff), a SSD is the single upgrade that will have the most noticeable effect. All that really needs to be there is the OS.

At least on Linux (this should be true for sufficiently modern versions of Windows or Mac OS, but it's not true of Windows XP), there isn't that much reason to put a game on the SSD, unless the computer is rebooted frequently.
* If the game is reasonable sized, it should be able to fit in RAM, and the OS will put the read files into the filesystem cache.
* If the game is not reasonable sized, it is impractical to store it on an SSD, and the developer should be criticized for making the game too much space. (I have a hard time seeing why games need to have their sizes measured in gigabytes.)
* Save files should not be big enough to matter, unless you have a game which stores a lot of data (like games that save the state of every NPC and every item you've dropped) and you have a large number of saves. Also, if the OS properly caches the file system, loading a save you recently made should be quick, and you probably aren't loading non-recent saves that often.

You don't go much for modern games, then? The ones with ultra detailed graphics and massive amounts of voiced files?

That's how it was in late 2000s. In modern times, however, there is absolutely zero reason to have games (or any software really) sitting anywhere other than the OS drive.

Assets. But if you have invented a breakthrough compression algorithm that will instantaneously compress and uncompress images, music, and videos, I am certain you are about to become ridiculously rich. Or ridiculously famous if you release it as OSS.

Graphics doesn't, or shouldn't, effect RAM usage. It's loaded into the video card RAM instead of the main RAM.

dtgreen is happy with Wizardry. A floppy disk would be enough ;-)

On topic: I have my system drive still on "classic" HDD. Firing up the system takes a while, yes, but I rarely do that (either running or sleep). For me it's more important to have huge games like Witcher 3 or Kingdom Come on SSD. Makes a real difference in enjoyment.

I think we are talking about the practicality of storing games on an SSD.

They pass through RAM and can be cached there.

Unless you have an integrated GPU. Then part of your RAM becomes the VRAM.

My bad. I thought the point being made was that games should fit into RAM (thus making searches/retrievals on any hard drive whether it be HDD or SSD moot) and was just pointing out that the newer games with insane graphics shouldn't affect that. It's loaded into the video card memory... unless your video card doesn't have enough in which case it then does use RAM or virtual RAM. But it's often the case that if you have a video card that doesn't have enough RAM it also doesn't meet the minimum requirements for the game at hand.

I was referring to one of the reasons games are measured in GBs, which dtgreene seems to have trouble with.

Thanks all. It sounds like SSD is the way to go. They were really expensive when I looked at them a year or two ago, however; they seem to be coming down.

NVME's are very interesting and are likely the reason the older version SSD's are dropping.

Anyway, thank again

"ultra detailed graphics": Comes at a cost in performance and system requirements, as well as space and load time requirements regardless of the storage device used. Also, since screens only can show so much resolution, past a certain point more detail is wasted. Then there's also the limits of human vision. I really don't think the cost is worth it.

"massive amounts of voice acting": I consider voice acting to be a net negative: A game with voice acting is IMO worse than a similar game without it. (Yes, that means I prefer the non-voiced version of Might and Magic: World of Xeen.) Therefore, by including these files, there is a significant cost in both space and how good the game is.

Except for a couple things:
1. The graphics have to, at some point, be loaded into RAM from disk; you can't just directly load from disk into VRAM. (The disk cache can then store the graphics so they can be reloaded from there, but that's still RAM.)
2. On some systems, particularly those with integrated graphics, VRAM is actually part of main RAM. so using more VRAM means using more RAM. (If a game is made that doesn't work with integrated graphics, the developer is really limiting their audience.)

It seems you misspelled my username. Also, floppy disks are too slow; even for a game of that vintage, I would at least like a hard drive or some form of solid state storage (like what's used on the NES and cartridge MSX versions).

(I am actually playing Timespinner right now, which has low system requirements and doesn't overheat my machine with broken cooling.)

I got my first one when I was eighteen. It was herpes.


No wait, that was my first STD.

One thing to keep in mind is that if you use an SSD for anything important that it's imperative that it be constantly backed up because when one of those goes tits up you lose all of your data, not just some of your data like you'd have wtih a typical HDD.

Probably not a dealbreaker, but it is something you have to plan for and really, you ought to have proper backups anyways. Just that you don't necessarily get that last chance like you often do with HDDs.

Whatever mode of storage one is using, SSD, HDD, tape, floppies, mosaics, data crystals, shrunken heads ... if one is not backing up critical data regularly — one is asking for it and fully deserves the utmost catastrophic of consequences.