FAT32 vs NTFS

Locked
Guest

FAT32 vs NTFS

Post by Guest »

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?
Tormentius
Posts: 4108
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:00 am

Post by Tormentius »

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.
Kills On Site
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 7:00 am

Post by Kills On Site »

[size=92][color=#0000FF]Hugh Hefner for President[/color][/size]
axbaby
Posts: 3424
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 1999 8:00 am

Post by axbaby »

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
[color=#FF0000][WYD][/color]
Tormentius
Posts: 4108
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:00 am

Post by Tormentius »

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
:lub:
User avatar
Foo
Posts: 13840
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 7:00 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by Foo »

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.
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
Locked