Averages around 28-29gb per hour, still.
Thought I'd put the time in to test it myself.
Edit: paper-napkin mathematics based on the Tom's Hardware article that covered the drop in writes from that last patch has ~3.1Tb of my current 108Tb written due to the 91 hours of Windrose that I've played.
Year old SSD, for reference.
An overview of the SSD-centric debate from u/NewMaxx is posted below, here. I'll leave the commentary in their hands.
>Hey, just for reference I'm the SSD guy and was the one who originally replied to Pixel Operative's videos. I did an analysis on the game and its saving as I noticed at launch with a dedicated server that it was having performance issues. I'm mentioned in the Tom's Hardware article, too. As someone else says here, the numbers there are a bit wonky.
>So, first of all, you can take your R5 log (most recent) and your world save and toss them (more specifically, a copy of them) into the AI of your choice (Claude or Codex) and it can read the log to see when I/O was done and at what rate. If you read my article (on my own site, not posting here in case of rules), post-patch mixed for me was ~14 GB/s but this was low on the sailing side (sailing, by far, does the most writes). However, the proper way to measure is with a real-time trace (e.g. ETW).
>Was this patched? Yes, but they did it a way different than I had anticipated (I updated my page after the patch with more findings). The improvement is not quite as much as stated by Tom's, in my experience, and the devs could improve more. Their approach (as I noted in my 2nd Reddit thread) makes a lot of sense, though, for a time-constrained team. I also did an analysis on their follow-up patch for Steam Cloud saves but that doesn't impact this issue.
>I see you quote the Tom's article as it hits on Valheim and Enshrouded saves, as from PO's video. The issue is neither game saves like Windrose at all. I say this in one of my multiple YouTube comments. So there's a lot of misunderstanding here. To cut through the noise a bit, though, yes, writing is still excessive by most accounts and can scale higher if you're hosting a server (co-op) and you should avoid running it for 8 hours a day on a crappy SSD.
>Also, not to make too fine a point of it but to be honest, host writes are not equivalent to NAND writes and with my estimated write amplification here it's closer to double what you'd see on the tin. On the other hand, manufacturers may warranty based on host writes for TBW and frankly TBW tends to be very conservative on modern drives. A 1TB TLC drive should survive up to 3PB of (NAND) writes for consumer workloads which with my traced writes would be over 12 years of continuous Windrose hosting (yes, there's OS and other apps, but you get the idea). Even a QLC drive would out-survive the normal 5 year warranty in most cases.