Game Load Time Performance
Horizon Forbidden West (DirectStorage)
We are using the full retail game Horizon Forbidden West, with patch 1.0.43.0. This game supports DirectStorage for saved game load times. We are using an AMD Radeon RX 6800 16GB video card for testing and all components are shown to support DirectStorage. We enable the highest graphics settings in the game at 4K for testing. We will show loading a saved game file and how long it takes to load into the game. All results are performed manually with a stopwatch.
In the graph above, we are testing the time it takes to load a saved game, this directly tests DirectStorage on the SSD and how long it takes to load a saved game. The Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD takes 7.35 seconds, which is an average load time among the other SSDs. In fact, the Netac NV7000-Q loads our saved game 1.4% faster than the Netac NV7000-t. The Netac NV7000-Q is on par with the NV7000 on game load time here. The Samsung 990 PRO is the fastest, but also again a much more expensive SSD, the Netac NV7000-Q has a respectable result in this game.
Forspoken (DirectStorage)
We are using the full retail game Forspoken, which supports DirectStorage to test game loading time. Forspoken was released on January 24th, 2023, on the PC and uses the Luminous Engine. We are using an AMD Radeon RX 6800 16GB video card. We enable the highest graphics settings, including Ultra High Texture Memory, and run at 4K. We use the built-in benchmark and report the scene load times. We add the sum of all seven scene load times and run the benchmark three times. We then take the average of the three sums from each run. We graph the average result.
While the Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD had a respectable result in Horizon Forbidden West, the same wasn’t true for Forspoken, which also utilizes DirectStorage. It is possible both games utilize a different revision of DirectStorage, but regardless, this was the result, and we tested and re-tested several times to make sure. The Netac NV7000-Q falls behind the Netac NV7000-t by 15% and behind the Netac NV7000 by 16%.
This result did take us by surprise, we made sure to format, run TRIM, clear system files, and reboot several times, and no matter what, it did provide consistent results. The Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD was the slowest in-game load times in Forspoken’s testing. This game does give accurate results, as it shows load times per scene, nothing has to be calculated by hand or by stop-watch, it is all in-game, and therefore very accurate reporting of load times.
Final Fantasy XIV: Endwalker Benchmark
We use the Final Fantasy XIV: Endwalker Benchmark which benchmarks the load times of several game scenes. The benchmark calculates the sum load time of the scenes and reports the number. We run the benchmark three times, and take the average of the load times. This provides consistent, objective game load testing data we can use for comparison in a game scenario outside of DirectStorage. This benchmark uses DX11.
Final Fantasy XIV: Endwalker benchmark does not use DirectStorage and offers a unique perspective on pure game loading performance, and also uses accurate timers to provide accurate results. In this DX11 benchmark, the Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD provides an above-average load time of 6.162 seconds. Here we find the load times only 1% slower than the Netac NV7000-t and 9% faster than the Netac NV7000 offering a good bump in loading speeds.
Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail Benchmark
We are now including the Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail Benchmark as well which benchmarks the load times of several game scenes. This new and updated benchmarks utilizes a new updated engine with updated and improved graphics textures and fidelity. The benchmark calculates the sum load time of the scenes and reports the number. We run the benchmark three times, and take the average of the load times. This provides consistent, objective game load testing data we can use for comparison in a game scenario outside of DirectStorage. This benchmark uses DX11.
In Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail benchmark the Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD also produces an average result load time of 6.721 seconds. It is 6% faster than the Netac NV7000 and on par with load times on the Netac NV7000-t.
Discussion (2 replies)
Join Discussion →More options are obviously great, but I have to admit, I am a little bit paranoid about losing my data, which is why I view drives from new brands with a lot of skepticism.
Heck, even more established brands have problems sometimes.
I mean yes, I backup all of my non-replaceable data. At least most of it, but it is still a real pain in the ass to have to re-install windows and reconfigure things when things go wrong.
I periodically dump drive images to my NAS, but realistically this does not happen every day, every week or even every month. When my 2TB Sabrent Rocket 4 died, I didn't lose any files (those were all on the NAS) but I had to revert to an 8 month old drive image. I had done some config changes since, and had some game progress in my user folder that I ultimately lost.
The biggest annoyance was the downtime. I decided to not wait for Sabrent's RMA, and just went and bought a Samsung 990 Pro at Microcenter to get myself going again immediately. When I got the Sabrent Rocket 4 back, I had some trust issues, so I only used it as a Steam library drive, figuring that if it died, worst case I'd leave my machine on overnight and download everything again. That was a good call, as that RMA drive started failing as well, and is no longer in use.
Which brings me back to Netac. Maybe they are good, maybe they aren't. This review isn't bad, but who knows what will happen after 2 years of use? I don't know. Some might trust them just because they use established Phison reference drives, but so was the Sabrent Rocket 4....
Back before I bought eh Sabrent Rocket 4 I had a philosophy of only trusting two SSD brands. Samsung, and Intel. Every other drive from every other brand I had tried (especially OCZ) had failed on me within two years. This was back in the SATA era though. The companies and controllers have changed since then, and this dataset is likely no longer relevant. Especially since Intel sold its SSD brand to SK Hynix, and Samsung has had some high profile firware bugs in its 980 Pro and 990 Pro drives causing extremely premature drive ware. (Some have also had some real problems with Samsung NVMe drives in Windows Server for some reason)
This requires establishing a new rule of thumb, which is still maturing for me.
If I require a drive that is high performance, I will probably stick to a brand that designs, develops and uses their own controllers.
Crucial/Micron, SK Hynix, WD/Sandisk, and yeah, Samsung (though with less confidence than in the past).
Samsung drives still perform better than anyhting else out there on the market (other than discontinued Optane drives) likely in large part due to very high 4k random read performance.
If Intel's Optane DC 5800x drives ever come down in price to more sane levels, I'll be snapping up one of those too.
I have yet to test any Crucial/Micron or SK Hynix drives, though I want to at some point. I have been putting a pair of 4TB WD Black SN850x drives through their paces, and they seem very reliable and perform well. This may become a go-to brand for my NVMe buying in the future.
As for these budget brand engineered Phison reference design drives, they have their place.
I've actually had really good luck with my twelve old Inland Premium drives ranging in size from 256GB up to 2TB. I have absolutely hammered them without ever having a bad issue, and no eexcessive drive wear. They appear to be reference Phison E12 drives manufactured by Team for Microcenter (Inland is Microcenters in house brand) The Inland Premium drives had a very good reputation out there on the forums though, which is why I was willing to give them a chance. Sadly, while there are other rebadged Inland branded reference drives, the "Inland Premium" models which were well regarded seem to ahve been discontinued.
As for other budget unknown brand reference Phison design drives, I'd probably only use them as a Steam library drive on a cheap gaming system. At least unless associated with the large volume of positive long term reviews from actual users on forums I trust the Inland Premiums got. That minimises risks.
Brent, this looks like both the flash and the controller (and its firmware) are produced in China by a Chinese company, correct? They've got the whole stack in house, a la Samsung?
Also nice to see QLC flash being mostly competitive outside of sustained high-speed write scenarios, which is useful for most consumers when price is a factor.