[SOLVED] 1 samsung 1tb 860 evo or should go for 250gb 860 evo for boot & 500gb 860 evo for games only ?

[eslam.topsecret66]

1 samsung 1tb 860 evo or should go for 250gb 860 evo for boot & 500gb 860 evo for games only ? which should go for



cpu : i5 7400
motherboard : gigabyte b250 gaming 3
ram : Crucial b allistix sport lt 8 gb 2400 mhz
gpu: msi gtx 1060 3gb
psu : cooler master 550W
os: windows 10 x64

 

[Diddly]

Go for the bigger drive

 

[eslam.topsecret66]

Go for the bigger drive

so no need to get two like 250 & 500 for two things small one for boot and other for games or go for 1tb and take like 150 gb for boot ?

 

[Endre]

As Diddly said:
go for the bigger drive.

The reasons for that are:
1. Caching - every drive has some kind of caching memory (512MB, 1GB DDR4 etc).
Bigger cache means faster transfers (up to a point).

1. Partition management - you’ll be able to resize partition D to larger than 250GB if you’ll need to.
2. Storage - 1TB is bigger than 250GB + 500GB.

 

[eslam.topsecret66]

thanks man for this info i was trying find some info about caching memory about ssd and i see this so important i see the 1tb have mlc nand type so it's better thqn qlc ?

 

[Endre]

thanks man for this info i was trying find some info about caching memory about ssd and i see this so important i see the 1tb have mlc nand type so it's better thqn qlc ?

Yes. MLC is better than QLC.

They are ranked in this order:

1. SLC (single level cell = 1-bit per cell) - THE BEST
2. MLC (multi level cell = 2-bit per cell) - OK
3. TLC (triple level cell = 3-bit per cell) - NOT VERY GOOD
4. QLC (quad level cell = 4-bit per cell) - WORST

The better versions aren’t only faster, but also many times more durable.

 

[eslam.topsecret66]

Yes. MLC is better than QLC.

They are ranked in this order:

1. SLC (single level cell = 1-bit per cell) - THE BEST
2. MLC (multi level cell = 2-bit per cell) - OK
3. TLC (triple level cell = 3-bit per cell) - NOT VERY GOOD
4. QLC (quad level cell = 4-bit per cell) - WORST

The better versions aren’t only faster, but also many times more durable.

wanna ask something about ssd bec this my first time are ssd life like hdd or have limited time life ?

 

[Endre]

wanna ask something about ssd bec this my first time are ssd life like hdd or have limited time life ?

SSDs are more durable than HDDs.
They don’t have mechanical moving parts.
I bought my first (SATA based) SSD, 6 years ago, and it still works perfectly today.
You’ll get rid of your SSDs not because they will no longer work, but because you’ll want higher speed ones.

 

[eslam.topsecret66]

SSDs are more durable than HDDs.
They don’t have mechanical moving parts.
I bought my first (SATA based) SSD, 6 years ago, and it still works perfectly today.
You’ll get rid of your SSDs not because they will no longer work, but because you’ll want higher speed ones.

really thanks man for help me and give me great info to choose if going buy or no now going for it to much love

 

[geofelt]

Your motherboard supports m.2 pcie devices.
My suggestion is to buy a single 1tb 970 evo.
You will get more total capacity, a faster ssd and easier space management.
Just install windows on the drive and you only have one C drive.
Very easy.
If the price seems high, the intel 660P 1 tb m.2 drive is an alternative.
No as fast as the 970 evo, but still much faster than any sata ssd devices.

In the early ssd days, longevity was an issue since a ssd does have a limited number of writes for each nand block.
But, today with 500gb and larger devices, there are so many nand blocks availavle that your ssd will be obsolete long before it wears out.
As to reliability, with no moving parts, a quality ssd is more reliable.
Particularly if you buy intel or samsung who can have better quality control over their own parts.

Do not worry about specs. What the drive does is what counts.
Do not be much swayed by vendor synthetic SSD benchmarks.
They are done with apps that push the SSD to it's maximum using queue lengths of 30 or so.
Most desktop users will do one or two things at a time, so they will see queue lengths of one or two.
What really counts is the response times, particularly for small random I/O. That is what the os does mostly.
For that, the response times of current SSD's are remarkably similar. And quick. They will be 50X faster than a hard drive.
In sequential operations, they will be 2x faster than a hard drive, perhaps 3x if you have a sata3 interface.
6X with a pcie interface.
Larger SSD's are preferable. They have more nand chips that can be accessed in parallel. Sort of an internal raid-0 if you will.
Also, a SSD will slow down as it approaches full. That is because it will have a harder time finding free nand blocks
to do an update without a read/write operation.
Larger ssd devices have more endurance.

 

[eslam.topsecret66]

Your motherboard supports m.2 pcie devices.
My suggestion is to buy a single 1tb 970 evo.
You will get more total capacity, a faster ssd and easier space management.
Just install windows on the drive and you only have one C drive.
Very easy.
If the price seems high, the intel 660P 1 tb m.2 drive is an alternative.
No as fast as the 970 evo, but still much faster than any sata ssd devices.

In the early ssd days, longevity was an issue since a ssd does have a limited number of writes for each nand block.
But, today with 500gb and larger devices, there are so many nand blocks availavle that your ssd will be obsolete long before it wears out.
As to reliability, with no moving parts, a quality ssd is more reliable.
Particularly if you buy intel or samsung who can have better quality control over their own parts.

Do not worry about specs. What the drive does is what counts.
Do not be much swayed by vendor synthetic SSD benchmarks.
They are done with apps that push the SSD to it's maximum using queue lengths of 30 or so.
Most desktop users will do one or two things at a time, so they will see queue lengths of one or two.
What really counts is the response times, particularly for small random I/O. That is what the os does mostly.
For that, the response times of current SSD's are remarkably similar. And quick. They will be 50X faster than a hard drive.
In sequential operations, they will be 2x faster than a hard drive, perhaps 3x if you have a sata3 interface.
6X with a pcie interface.
Larger SSD's are preferable. They have more nand chips that can be accessed in parallel. Sort of an internal raid-0 if you will.
Also, a SSD will slow down as it approaches full. That is because it will have a harder time finding free nand blocks
to do an update without a read/write operation.
Larger ssd devices have more endurance.

thanks man before i was planning to buy ssd i was think about m.2 evo 970 but but have over price i can only get 500gb but most of people say not going see the diff of m.2 and ssd so i thinked to get 1tb ssd better i not know or should go for m.2 500 gb and get any 120 or 240 ssd for os systm

 

[geofelt]

I do not know your prices.
In the US, a quick check on newegg shows a 1tb intel 660P for $120.
A very good deal.
A 1tb 970 evo is $150.

A 1tb 860 QVO sata 2.5" drive is $125.
1 500gb 860 evo is $60
A 250gb 860 evo is also $60!
Whatever you do, I advise a single ssd for both windows and everything else.