| Quake3World.com https://www.quake3world.com/forum/ |
|
| FAT32 vs NTFS https://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=590 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Guest [ 02-16-2005 06:31 PM ] |
| Post subject: | FAT32 vs NTFS |
I've heard that FAT32 is faster and that NTFS is more secure since it encrypts files or something. So I formatted into NTFS after using FAT32 for the last couple years, and made 2 partitions, one for applications and system files, and the other one for storage so that when I want to reinstall, I can format the system partition and keep all my music/movies with no need backing them up on dvd's. To make the long story short, I've ran a q3 timedemo right after I've reinstalled windows and installed the drivers (in NTFS) and I got 170fps compared to 160fps I used to get on FAT32 (I timedemo q3 every time I format to see if everything is going well). Now q3 is installed on the "storage" partition, and its in NTFS, so if its supposed to be slower than FAT32, why did I get higher fps? Also, I've heard about putting the system partition in NTFS and the other partition in FAT32 since its faster, is it a good idea? |
|
| Author: | Tormentius [ 02-16-2005 07:01 PM ] |
| Post subject: | |
NTFS isn't slower; the info you were told is wrong. NTFS is more efficient, stable, and actually has security. Unless an older OS needs to read from the local drive as well (9x) there is no reason to bother with FAT anymore. |
|
| Author: | Kills On Site [ 02-16-2005 07:06 PM ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm |
|
| Author: | axbaby [ 02-16-2005 08:12 PM ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tormentius wrote: NTFS isn't slower; the info you were told is wrong. NTFS is more efficient, stable, and actually has security. Unless an older OS needs to read from the local drive as well (9x) there is no reason to bother with FAT anymore.
your impressing me more and more each passing day ..huggle |
|
| Author: | Tormentius [ 02-17-2005 02:20 AM ] |
| Post subject: | |
axbaby wrote: Tormentius wrote: NTFS isn't slower; the info you were told is wrong. NTFS is more efficient, stable, and actually has security. Unless an older OS needs to read from the local drive as well (9x) there is no reason to bother with FAT anymore. your impressing me more and more each passing day ..huggle 
|
|
| Author: | Foo [ 02-19-2005 02:19 PM ] |
| Post subject: | |
Second point is that your hard drives have nothing to do with framerate, unless you have insufficient memory to run the game, or there's a bug in the game. Why? Because when the level is loaded and you're in the game, ALL the data being used at that point is in your graphics card's memory, your RAM, the CPU, or the GPU. That's IT. The only time when the hard drive is accessed is when the level is loading. The exception is if you have insufficient RAM to load the game into memory, the 'swap file' is used like makeshift RAM and your HD is accessed during gameplay.. frankly, if that's happening to you while playing Q3... you need an upgrade badly. Now, on the subject of NTFS vs FAT for speed comparisons.. NTFS still wins. It has a lot of extra tricks to get one over on FAT, such as loading very small files into the file allocation table (or namespace, I forget the term for it) so that the drive head doesn't have to seek for small files. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|