3 ms·
Am I the only one which expected that loading from NAND would have been faster than HDD ?
by mariusmg 4y ago
Am I the only one which expected that loading from NAND would
have been faster than HDD ?
- RyanShook 4y agoIt seems like the slight speed advantage was in uncompressing the files beforehand on the HDD essentially skipping a step that had to be performed on every boot from NAND.
- masklinn 4y agoSeems unlikely, file decompression tends to be quite fast (faster than even relatively fast IO if they're using lz4, but even more expensive compression methods would be faster than an HDD, to say nothing about apparently slow NAND)
- wtallis 4y agoOne NAND chip is slow. NAND-based SSDs can only deliver high throughput by using many NAND chips in parallel. Additionally, the console's 16MB NAND chip is a far cry from today's 64GB chips used in mainstream SSDs.
- TonyTrapp 4y agoA 7200 RPM drive can easily outperform old flash memory. It wasn't always the case that flash was the fastest storage medium. Flash performance used to be measured in KB/s, not GB/s like on modern NVMe drives.