Silent_Buddha
Legend
You need to use a heat cure epoxy, it's designed for this.
I wish Silverstone and other companies would use it. Grrrrrrrrr.
Regards,
SB
General external expansion discussion? *spawn*
- Thread starter goonergaz
- Start date
I wish Silverstone and other companies would use it. Grrrrrrrrr.
Regards,
SB
Hi,
You guys think a Seagate One Touch SSD with USB 3.0 interface with measured 400MB/s read is sufficient as an external SSD for XBOX, XBOX 360 and XBOX One games? It is the cheapest external SSD I can find locally. Are the more expensive 3.1. Gen 2 a better fit in the long run? I can only afford 500GB for the time being. Thanks in advance.
You guys think a Seagate One Touch SSD with USB 3.0 interface with measured 400MB/s read is sufficient as an external SSD for XBOX, XBOX 360 and XBOX One games? It is the cheapest external SSD I can find locally. Are the more expensive 3.1. Gen 2 a better fit in the long run? I can only afford 500GB for the time being. Thanks in advance.
I'd personally would want the speed offered by ssd.
But does depend on how someone is planning to use it.
Example 1TB compared to having a 4TB.
how much ?
Have you thought of buying a standard ssd and a 2.5 inch usb enclosure ?
https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-SSD-...ild=1&keywords=2tb+ssd&qid=1601572710&sr=8-14 $190 for a 2TB ssd
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073QN8KL4/ref=twister_B07D5WJS81?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1 $90 for 1TB
https://www.amazon.com/ORICO-Extern...fix=2.5+inch+usb,electronics,138&sr=1-19&th=1 enclosure for $10
not sure the country your in , amazon has prime day in 2 weeks and then we go into black friday in the states. Might be able to find really good deals then even in your country
One thing to keep in mind when shopping for an SSD, some of them have extensive write penalty where performance tanks majorly as soon as you're writing more than 50 GBs or the drive is more than 50% full. This is the situation on a few that go for the cheapest price and use DRAMless controllers and very low proportions to SLC write cache.
Also, saving $10 (~10%) may not be worth it if you may get pulled into a warranty claim a year or so down the line. So going with larger and stable name brand may ease any potential headaches down the line.
Also, saving $10 (~10%) may not be worth it if you may get pulled into a warranty claim a year or so down the line. So going with larger and stable name brand may ease any potential headaches down the line.
I am not in US. I am in EU. Roughly 70USD for 500GB Seagate One Touch. I believe 1TB is a bit too expensive right now, 110USD or so for that Seagate which may very well be one of the slowest around with USB 3.x? I am not aware of its write speed. if the penalty is huge I may re-consider. I need to finance the XSX too so that is why I am cheaping out a bit. I plan to run the games off the external drive. I have considered internal SSD with enclosure but have not really looked at them. I will have a look. Black Friday is also smart.. Thanks for the advices.
You can also get a 3.5 inch desktop drive and put it in an enclosure or even just a pre made one. It will be faster than the drives in the xbox one x but not as fast as an ssd. The trick is you can get really high capacities for cheap
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Desktop...DAM2BWGXSA4J&refRID=2ASSVERWDAM2BWGXSA4J&th=1
Writes don't really matter for games however. Its about the read speed and reading doesn't affect the life span of the drive really. Most gaming websites would recommend a ssd with cache for your OS drive or somethign with a lot of writing like video editing or file transfering. But most will say a cache less drive is fine for gaming
Mostly correct. But quick resume will hammer in writes depending on how often your family is swapping titles in given sessions.
Yea but
https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead/
The Intel 335 240gig died around 700TB of writes .Even the TLC drives hit 200TB of writes before wear accrued and a 300TB writen it failed a hash check for unpowered data retention. They continued to use it up to 800TB when it finally started having more issues and died between 900TB and a Petabyte of rights . It was a 240gig ssd btw
I don't think your going to do enough writing for any of these drives to actually die out
Btw the drive i linked to has a 256M cache
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Writes in relation to Quick Resume isn't only about write endurance, it's also about write speed. As Brit mentioned, if the drive is DRAM-less or doesn't have enough so called "SLC" cache (which isn't really SLC) then your write speed will drop to 1/10th or more of what it could be once the drive fills up enough that you have to delete the contents of cells in order to write new data. This can happen even at 50% or less capacity used due to wear leveling if the drive isn't provisioned for it. TLC and QLC drives suffer heavily from this. It's why many enthusiasts weren't thrilled about the 980 PRO switching to TLC NAND from the MLC used on their previous PRO drives.
Basically if it's a cheap drive and MS somehow decides to let you use an external USB SSD for quick resume and you hit a situation where the write penalty kicks in, instead of quick swapping to another game taking just 6-10 seconds, it might now take over a minute just to write the contents of memory to the SSD...at which point it's no longer quick resume.
However, I'd be surprised if MS allows for this use case. So instead it'll just potentially take you hours to copy a game to external USB SSD from the internal or external NVME drive...or to install a BC game to the external USB SSD.
This is happening with the internal NVME SSD in my Asus Surface Clone that I got a few years back. They cheaped out on the drive and now after more than around 10 GB of writes, it'll suddenly take multiple minutes to copy just 1 GB of data. Not fun.
So even NVME drives aren't immune if you buy a cheap budget brand drive.
Regards,
SB
Yep, confirmed by Mr Beard Guy on Major Nelsons podcast yesterday.
I wonder if the XSX internal drive might have a TLC partition (rather than all just QLC) for quick resume states.
Enough room for 3 XSX resume states would be 3 x 13.5 GB, so 40.5 GB total. Saved using cells configured for TLC rather than QLC this would be about 54 GB worth of QLC equivalent room taken up. The plus side would be many times the write endurance and presumably better worst case writing speeds.
A 1TB (decimal) drive should equate to about 950 GB binary. Reports show 802 GB useable for XSX, so about 148GB is taken up by the system. That would appear to be plenty of space for storing resume states at a level better than QLC.
Even a single SLC level slot for writing the last game to, as you load in the next, could be possible. That way you can always write at max speed, then compact it down to TLC or QLC later as the next game is being played, freeing that slot up again.
I think that would make most sense, especially in light of a hot swappable external drive. It would also mean that the system wouldn't have to reserve space on the external drive unnecessarily, and that the user would see the entirety of the new drive available to expand storage. And given how bloomin' expensive these things are that's probably a good thing.
Enough room for 3 XSX resume states would be 3 x 13.5 GB, so 40.5 GB total. Saved using cells configured for TLC rather than QLC this would be about 54 GB worth of QLC equivalent room taken up. The plus side would be many times the write endurance and presumably better worst case writing speeds.
A 1TB (decimal) drive should equate to about 950 GB binary. Reports show 802 GB useable for XSX, so about 148GB is taken up by the system. That would appear to be plenty of space for storing resume states at a level better than QLC.
Even a single SLC level slot for writing the last game to, as you load in the next, could be possible. That way you can always write at max speed, then compact it down to TLC or QLC later as the next game is being played, freeing that slot up again.
I think that would make most sense, especially in light of a hot swappable external drive. It would also mean that the system wouldn't have to reserve space on the external drive unnecessarily, and that the user would see the entirety of the new drive available to expand storage. And given how bloomin' expensive these things are that's probably a good thing.
From what I remember its approx:
800GB free after format and OS (internal)
900GB without OS (cartridge)
I'll try and remember who reported it.
So 100GB for OS and QR didn't actually sound to bad to me.
I do wonder if QR is now compressed. Hence could explain speed difference compared to when DF saw it earlier in year.
Edit:
Actual figures
Internal free: 802GB
Cartridge free: 920GB
3min in
Last edited:
Interesting! Then I guess the external (and perhaps also internal) drive must have less than 1TB (decimal), or have some kind of over provisioning, or maybe have some kind of permanent SLC cache. Or maybe it's a combination of these things.
Yeah, 100GB (or even 118GB) for OS and QR sounds fine to me too. You're getting a lot of functionality and convenience in exchange for that.
Depending on the exact version of the prototype kit, it may be slower than retail kit, at least according to the leaked June/July GDK Release notes. But then again they saw it at MS around March, right? Not sure if that was a patched up and fixed special unit and not one of the general Prototype Kits. *shrug*
Well the thing is the xbox series x only allows for 12 gigs ram for the game section correct ? So i don't think a dram-less ssd is going to have an issue. As for MS letting you use an external drive for quick resume. I doubt it will ever happen as MS will have a difficult time insuring speeds through USB and diffrent drives.
The only side effect is slower transfer rates of course , but i doubt it will be very noticeable in practice anyway.
right so i don't think a cache-less ssd is going to slow down much while transferring 13.5GB into system ram. But i mean you can look for sales and get a ssd with cache for low price. Like i said the one i linked had it and there have been some 1TB drives under $70 usd with cache. Price keeps goign down. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few $50-$60 1TB ssds for black friday and even some sub $150 2TB ssds
