The benefits of having a swapfile on a faster SSD seem a bit questionable to me. You'll still be taking a performance hit either way when accessing data that has been offloaded to the swapfile, so it would likely be better to have more RAM if optimal performance is a concern.
Even the benefits of having an SSD that maximizes the throughput of PCIe 3.0 still seem a bit tenuous. Certainly there are use-cases involving large reads and writes where that extra throughput could help, but the vast majority of users currently won't see much difference in real-world performance between a $200+ 1TB SSD, and one that costs half as much for the same capacity but lower sequential performance.
Seven years ago, SATA3 (6Gbps) was considered useless since no HDD could come anywhere close to SATA2's peak bandwidth and what few SSDs were available were stupidly expensive. Today, the ability to hook up spacious, fast yet affordable SATA3 SSDs is the saving grace of many of those systems.
Except you can still get most of the benefits of a SATA 3 SSD on a SATA 2 port. Sure, sequential performance will be limited to under 300MB/s, but most of the performance benefits of an SSD over a hard drive come down to low access times improving the performance of random reads and writes, not sequential performance, and SATA 2 will still handle that pretty well.
As a counterpoint, how about PCIe 3.0 vs 2.0? 3.0 similarly doubled bandwidth back when it first appeared on mainstream motherboards over 7 years ago. But how much benefit is it actually providing today? The vast majority of current graphics cards still see little to no performance benefit from running on a 3.0 x16 slot over 2.0 x16. And even if you were running one of those top-end cards that could potentially show some benefit, the rest of that 7-year old system would then be holding performance back.
And as I pointed out before, as far as real-world storage performance is concerned, most won't even notice any significant benefit from PCIe 3.0's additional bandwidth over 2.0. Plus, even if one bought a PCIe 3.0 motherboard to "future proof" themself back then, they would still need an adapter card to run modern NVMe drives, and booting from the drives might not be guaranteed. Likewise, there's no telling whether the storage devices of 5+ years from now will be fully compatible with current motherboards.
Perhaps PCIe 4.0 will be different, and there might be some tangible benefits down the line from getting a motherboard that supports it now, but I'm not sure the case is really there based on past hardware adoption trends. Either way, we're talking about mid-range motherboards here, not $200+ models, so its not like there is as sizable an investment to consider.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram