Do SSD improve Dolphin emulator?

[scummos]

(03-02-2012, 05:57 AM)kernel64 Wrote:

Quote:Which computer on this world still uses swap? It's a legacy technology which is really, really rarely used. With 4GB of RAM, you will almost never need to use swap.

Many 3d apps, image processing apps, video apps, etc... are swap intensive because sometimes they work with huge files simultaneosly.

... which will immediately make them *extremely* slow, so you'll want to avoid that at all costs. Also, I don't see 3d apps using *that* much RAM (blender doesn't)... and for video processing you just want to buy 16G or so ;p

Quote:

Quote:For some reason, Windows sometimes seems to use swap although there's enough system memory available, don't ask me why.

Virtual memory is enabled by default, but you can always disable it if you have enough ram (8 gb or more depending on the software you use)

I don't see any case where it would make sense to swap unless the memory is full, except if you really only have like 200MB of memory.

I said that the problem would be solvable because even the article mentions it would be "expensive" to solve it. If it read "impossible", I'd still not be very impressed, but I'll dismiss the "expensive" without a blink -- who knows what will be expensive in ten years.

[Shonumi]

(03-02-2012, 06:45 AM)scummos Wrote: I said that the problem would be solvable because even the article mentions it would be "expensive" to solve it. If it read "impossible", I'd still not be very impressed, but I'll dismiss the "expensive" without a blink -- who knows what will be expensive in ten years.

Wait, what? The article I mentioned doesn't say anything about cost or anything's being expensive. The main point is that is SSDs won't get significant performance gains as their capacities increase, if manufacturers continue to use the tech that we have today. The report claims they're going to see diminishing returns.

That trade-off might be worth it to some people; it also might turn off others. Companies might not even want to bother fixing it if everyone's happy with it. Or it could be technologically infeasible to do anything about. No one knows. If the article's assumptions turn out to be correct, people might be going towards another alternative by 2024.

[scummos]

(03-02-2012, 10:22 AM)Shonumi Wrote:

(03-02-2012, 06:45 AM)scummos Wrote: I said that the problem would be solvable because even the article mentions it would be "expensive" to solve it. If it read "impossible", I'd still not be very impressed, but I'll dismiss the "expensive" without a blink -- who knows what will be expensive in ten years.

Wait, what? The article I mentioned doesn't say anything about cost or anything's being expensive. The main point is that is SSDs won't get significant performance gains as their capacities increase, if manufacturers continue to use the tech that we have today. The report claims they're going to see diminishing returns.

It did:

Quote:This makes the future of SSDs cloudy: While the growing capacity of SSDs and high IOP rates will make them attractive for many applications, the reduction in performance that is necessary to increase capacity while keeping costs in check may make it difficult for SSDs to scale as a viable technology for some applications

It might. Or it might not. You're right, nobody knows. However, this article is not enough to put up serious doubts in my head.

Quote:That trade-off might be worth it to some people; it also might turn off others. Companies might not even want to bother fixing it if everyone's happy with it. Or it could be technologically infeasible to do anything about. No one knows. If the article's assumptions turn out to be correct, people might be going towards another alternative by 2024.

Quote possible. For now, I'm quite sure they will replace hard disks over the next five years. What will replace them after that, I don't know.

[Shonumi]

(03-02-2012, 11:20 AM)scummos Wrote: It did:

Quote:This makes the future of SSDs cloudy: While the growing capacity of SSDs and high IOP rates will make them attractive for many applications, the reduction in performance that is necessary to increase capacity while keeping costs in check may make it difficult for SSDs to scale as a viable technology for some applications

I guess I overlooked that part. Yes, it mentions cost there, but it does not entail that the solution itself would be expensive, only that it might not maintain the balance that most companies like to see in their profits. It's only an assumption that if companies decided not to start "keeping costs in check" that the solution to the diminishing returns would prove expensive.

With all that said, it's not like I'm in agreement with the report (too many assumption were made, too much doom/gloom). I mentioned it to point out that there are still some things that need improving with SSDs; I don't think they're the panacea to our problems right now. SSDs are pretty useless to me, but not every technology needs to see exponential gains in performance to be useful or popular. Even if SSDs had the same performance now as they do in 2024, the demand might not fall off as the report implies.

[etking]

SSDs are in no way useless, they are the best possible upgrade for any PC. Reaction times are more than 100 times faster than any HDD and when multiple files are in accessed there is a huge increase in performance.

Any PC games that stream data in the background directly benefit from SSDs, some future games with multiple simultaneous video textures will be impossible without SSD since no HDD will be able to handle the amount of simultaneous data.

Regarding Dolphin, load times are drastically reduced. SSDs might also fix sound loop bugs possibly caused by HDD interference, like in DKC Return, but this not tested yet.

Every new SSD generation is getting faster and prices are getting constantly lower. But you will need a AHCI SATA-3 capable PC to fully make use of an SSD.

[Shonumi]

(03-02-2012, 12:11 PM)Shonumi Wrote: SSDs are pretty useless to me

Better read as "SSDs have no use to me", e.g. I don't feel the need to have one. I'm not saying that SSDs are useless period. High I/O performance just isn't on my list of what of must-haves.