Personally, I run most of my games off of my nose. It'S got a lot of space and I can easily use the same files across many different computers without having to copy anything. It'S got me interested in finding out if this affects performance at all, so I've done a series of tests to see I've tested, seven different games on an SSD, hard drive and now is using both Ethernet and Wi. Fi here are the different speeds of each disk. According to crystal disk mark, the SSD is a crucial cyber 3 drive, while the hard drive is a one terabyte 5400 rpm disk. The Naza is running for 4 terabyte 7200 rpm discs in raid 6 and it will be limited by its gigabit connection. We can see here that Ethernet connectivity is much better than my Wi Fi I've also tested display tancy, as this may be a better indicator compared to road transfer speed if the game is fetching small files regularly, rather than doing a bulk transfer. Basically, this is the amount of time between requests for data and the return of that data. As expected, we can see the SSD is quickest, followed by the hard drive now as with Ethernet that nodes with Wi Fi, which is quite a lot behind just like in the speed test, results my wife, my tests were done with a laptop in the same room About 5 meters away from the access point, your results will vary based on your hardware and distance, so we can see there's quite a different range of read and write speeds here now, let's find out if these differences translate to any difference in frame rates with our Games while I'm expecting the disc speeds to affect how long it takes to the games to initially load, I have my doubts about it, making a noticeable difference once playing the games, as most of the data will have already been loaded, so let's find out Music, I'm.

Music, as originally expected there really isn't too much difference and to be honest, most difference is so subtle that, within the margin of error, some games seem to indicate that faster storage does translate to better frames per second, while others are all over the place, if it Doesn'T seem to help at all. All games were tested with their maximum settings, as I wanted as many pieces of information to load as possible. I'Ve also tested how long it took to actually load the games up with the different storage types, as I figured. This would make the most practical difference based on the type of storage, so let's check those results. So basically, if you don't want to wait around to get into your games, an SSD or even local, hard drive is usually faster than announced in most cases as expected. Of course, SSD space is more expensive when compared to mechanical hard drives so it's up to you to determine if this is worth paying for, especially as games continue to get larger in terms of the gaming experience once you've loaded the game, there really isn't that much Noticeable difference in terms of fps within the different storage types from my testing. This could, of course, vary based on the particular game. For instance, if you have a game that needs to continually load a lot of information from disk, while playing you might notice some slight hiccups, I had a few of these while testing with the Naza hawai fire from time to time.

There were a few stutters where things would pause most noticeably in watchdog's, while driving around the map. As I assume there were delays when new parts of the map would load using the NAS over Wi Fi was the only time I experienced any noticeable issues while playing the games on the different types of storage. Basically, if you can afford SSD space for your games, then go for it. Otherwise, a slower mechanical hard drive is probably fine if you don't mind waiting for your games to load. So what sort of discs do you store your games on from my tests here? It doesn't seem to matter too much in terms of FPS, but more noticeably affects overall learning time. Let me know your thoughts down in the comments and leave a like on the video.