[pyrocat]

I agree to a large extent but I think 80GB is an extreme on the low end. Many modern games (especially MMOs) are 20GB+. Windows 7 alone requires a huge amount of storage. I have a 120GB partition at home (just for OS+programs, not data) and I'm constantly uninstalling steam games in order to install others. If you want a modicum of breathing room, I'd say minimum 200GB.

[dragontamer]

IIRC, Assassin Creed Unity required 50GB by itself.

If Windows takes up 30GB, you pretty much need to wipe out everything just to play Unity on 80GB. I think 256GB to 512GB is the best bet for the standard consumer.

[timboslice]

I just got a 250GB Samsung EVO SSD. Filled it up in a matter of weeks by installing some of my favorite games from Steam. I'm looking to add a 500GB to my build, but I should have STARTED with a 500GB.

[signal11]

A friend of mine is looking to upgrade from a 256GB MBA to a 512GB or 1TB MBP because he needs to view medical imagery offline (the Retina display also helps). <= 128GB storage is not really adequate for people who work with photos or music. 256GB is better but many people do need more.

[madez]

This seems like a big waste. Why would you put games on a SSD?

[zanny]

They are literally the most data intensive software you have in terms of UX. Your movies, music, documents, and even non-served databases are all browsable on low bandwidth low IOPS devices just fine with sophisticated algorithms.

Your load times for a level of Call of Duty are always reflective of how long it takes to get texture data off the disk and into vram, and that is constantly being hammered. It sometimes even causes texture popping on crappy notebook hard drives.

I have 256GB SSDs in my desktop and notebook (with intents to find a nice 1TB drive next year, since we are at the tail end of SATA3) and my Steam library on my desktop is 176GB by itself.

My OS on its own (Arch) discounting pacman provided games (0ad, doom3bfg, darkplaces, doom, etc) is around 6GB, and most of that is Qt doc, Python2 site packages, 300MB of wallpapers, and 600MB of locale.

[belorn]

Not only is load time reflected by the time it takes for texture data to be copied into vram, but what constitute reasonable load time is to a degree based on developer platforms and those have a tendency to use above average hardware. If in the past 10s load time was maximum, that number will now be more likely based on SSD speeds rather than HDD.

[zaphoyd]

Same reason as you'd want an SSD for anything else? Fast loading times of lots of data? Also, some operating systems make having programs installed to volumes other than the boot volume hard.

[Rapidwire]

Which operating systems? Windows? I haven't had that problem on Windows 7 x64, but maybe that's just me.

[onli]

You are right, it is a pity that you are downvoted.

Right now, you maybe put your favorite game on the SSD, not the whole steam library - and that is what gamers often recommend themselves. FPS don't get influenced by the HDD, only loading times, and those are normally not too high. Many new games have only two loading times: loading the game and then loading the save. Afterwards, everything is streamed, and a proper HDD is fast enough for that. And that is what the people responding to your comment here miss completely.

Using a SSD is for many games a waste.

[madez]

    You are right, it is a pity that you are downvoted.

It is a pity unconditionally. I expressed a subjective impression related to the topic at hand and asked constructively for explanation. There was simply no reason to downvote.

The downvotes and the first-generation replies to my comment show that this is not the place for a discussion about the worthiness of SSD's for games.

[_khau]

Why is it a waste?

If you have the monty and the means why wouldn't you do it?

You're comment is very 'matter if fact' and baseless.

Improved loading times and better texture loading in games where it is heavy (think Fallout 3 or Skyrim) is a great reason to wack an SSD in your system.

[onli]

Skyrim and Fallout 3 are in my eyes counter-examples for using an SSD, since you basically have only the two loading times and afterwards it's streaming. Maybe if the Quicktravel takes too long on the HDD.

> If you have the monty and the means why wouldn't you do it?

Oh, sure then :) It is only a waste in the relation of price per gigabyte vs. the possible performance improvement ingame.

> You're comment is very 'matter if fact' and baseless.

See http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/12/10/hdd_vs_ssd_real_wo... if you want another source.

[paulsutter]

Because I ran out of punched cards?

[bjd2385]

I used to have roommates that were intense gamers (blew thousands of dollars on new GPUs and other desktop gaming parts per semester) and all they talked about were SSDs. SSDs are pretty big in gaming.

[simplexion]

Why wouldn't you?

[pmalynin]

Insane load speeds

[kijin]

256GB is indeed the sweet spot for typical users. 512GB if you play large games.

Windows on its own is quite capable of filling up a 128GB drive with restore points, update backups, and all sort of other junk when left in the hands of a typical user for a couple of years. I recently wiped nearly 60GB of pure OS-level junk (i.e. not caused by applications) from a family member's Windows 8.1 PC.

[toxican]

I'm curious to see what kind of space Win10 takes up. I believe one of their focuses was stripping it down to take up less space for applications such as tablet, netbooks, et.c

[ascagnel_]

Expect this to be increasingly common, now that new consoles ship their games on Blu-Rays.

[runamok]

I recently discovered a large portion of my windows 7 partition was due to space set aside for system restore. Then there is the swap space and hibernation image which if you have a lot of ram is enormous.

[segmondy]

I use a chromebook with 16gb, I also have linux on it. I do fine and have had it for 2 years. :)

[hobarrera]

I've Eve-Online and StarCraft 2 installed, which use about 30GB in total. Add another 6-8GB for the OS, and you've still got about 50GB left (which I actually fill up with even more games).

IMHO, 120GB is way more than enough.