Comments on 'value' build (AMD or Intel)

[vwcrusher]

Trying to decide what makes the most sense.....probably building before year's end.

Uses include: General use, gaming and photo editing (lightroom)
Location: USA
Please note monitor: 2560 x 1440, 60Hz (1440p I believe)

Below are the two builds:
Not sure about the MBs - I do not need WiFi
On Intel build, may go with 9600K given $20 price difference.
I do plan on some mild overclocking (already did on GPU)
Would love comments and recommendations....thanks

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i5-8600K 3.6GHz 6-Core Processor ($259.89 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Scythe - Mugen 5 Rev. B 51.2 CFM CPU Cooler ($52.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: EVGA - Z370 FTW ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($119.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Team - Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($129.89 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Samsung - 860 Evo 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($86.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Black 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($0.00)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB FTW2 GAMING iCX Video Card ($0.00)
Case: Fractal Design - Define R6 Black TG ATX Mid Tower Case ($0.00)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - FOCUS Plus Gold 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($0.00)
Monitor: Auria - EQ276W 27.0" 2560x1440 60Hz Monitor
External Storage: Western Digital - My Book 4TB External Hard Drive ($0.00)
Total: $649.75


PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7GHz 8-Core Processor ($309.89 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Scythe - Mugen 5 Rev. B 51.2 CFM CPU Cooler ($52.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Asus - Prime X470-Pro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($158.45 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($134.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial - MX500 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($82.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital - BLACK SERIES 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($0.00)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB FTW2 GAMING iCX Video Card ($0.00)
Case: Fractal Design - Define R6 Black TG ATX Mid Tower Case ($0.00)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - FOCUS Plus Gold 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($0.00)
Monitor: Auria - EQ276W 27.0" 2560x1440 60Hz Monitor
External Storage: Western Digital - My Book 4TB External Hard Drive ($0.00)
Total: $739.31
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-10-30 10:21 EDT-0400

 

[Rdslw]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3744919/amd-ryzen-2700x-cooler.html
ryzen cooler is capable enough unless you go for serious OC or complete silence, there is no point in buying especially that it works just fine with stock.

Storage: Crucial - MX500 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($82.99 @ Amazon) its SATA drive.

replacing that with:
Storage: ADATA - XPG SX8200 480GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($109.99 @ Amazon)
will end up with 3 GB/s read instead of 500 MB/s
other than that, seems fine.

 

[vwcrusher]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3744919/amd-ryzen-2700x-cooler.html
ryzen cooler is capable enough unless you go for serious OC or complete silence, there is no point in buying especially that it works just fine with stock.

Storage: Crucial - MX500 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($82.99 @ Amazon) its SATA drive.

replacing that with:
Storage: ADATA - XPG SX8200 480GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($109.99 @ Amazon)
will end up with 3 GB/s read instead of 500 MB/s
other than that, seems fine.

Thanks for the reply; good suggestions!
Do you happen to have any comments on going with Intel or AMD for my specific anticipated needs?

 

[drinkingcola86]

As you push resolutions higher the difference between processors becomes less and less. What you might see is a hand full of fps for the intel system as you go higher in refresh rates. However, the likely hood of that difference being lower than 144hz is pretty slim. In most games AMD and Intel can push the 1070Ti to the rates of 144 or near it in most games.

What I would say is this, if you need the extra threads from the amd, mind you that would be a lot of threads (6 for intel, 16 for AMD), go AMD if you don't need them and are just doing gaming, Look at the Intel system.

 

[Rdslw]

they both will treat blows quite nicely. I would take ryzen as I do much heavier work, and extra threads munch though much faster for me. For games intel will win, with strong card you might end up with MAYBE 10 to 15% difference in some games, but most should be within 5 FPS from one another.

Both end up with 4k ultra quite easily.
if you work more than gaming then Ryzen will be better.

 

[vwcrusher]

As you push resolutions higher the difference between processors becomes less and less. What you might see is a hand full of fps for the intel system as you go higher in refresh rates. However, the likely hood of that difference being lower than 144hz is pretty slim. In most games AMD and Intel can push the 1070Ti to the rates of 144 or near it in most games.

What I would say is this, if you need the extra threads from the amd, mind you that would be a lot of threads (6 for intel, 16 for AMD), go AMD if you don't need them and are just doing gaming, Look at the Intel system.

Thank you for the reply; so are you saying that given my GPU and monitor it really doesn't make that much difference?
Again, I am most interested in value; I do not need to be the fastest PC on the block....

 

[vwcrusher]

they both will treat blows quite nicely. I would take ryzen as I do much heavier work, and extra threads munch though much faster for me. For games intel will win, with strong card you might end up with MAYBE 10 to 15% difference in some games, but most should be within 5 FPS from one another.

Both end up with 4k ultra quite easily.
if you work more than gaming then Ryzen will be better.

Hmm....it seems like the decision is more perception than measurable reality.
As I am looking more for value than pure performance in any one area, I am unsure which way to go and which specific CPU to choose. And trying to compare apples to apples is difficult given the endless variety of apples.

 

[Rdslw]

As you push resolutions higher the difference between processors becomes less and less. What you might see is a hand full of fps for the intel system as you go higher in refresh rates. However, the likely hood of that difference being lower than 144hz is pretty slim. In most games AMD and Intel can push the 1070Ti to the rates of 144 or near it in most games.

What I would say is this, if you need the extra threads from the amd, mind you that would be a lot of threads (6 for intel, 16 for AMD), go AMD if you don't need them and are just doing gaming, Look at the Intel system.

Thank you for the reply; so are you saying that given my GPU and monitor it really doesn't make that much difference?
Again, I am most interested in value; I do not need to be the fastest PC on the block....

very close to one another with "slight" skew to AMD

 

[vwcrusher]

As you push resolutions higher the difference between processors becomes less and less. What you might see is a hand full of fps for the intel system as you go higher in refresh rates. However, the likely hood of that difference being lower than 144hz is pretty slim. In most games AMD and Intel can push the 1070Ti to the rates of 144 or near it in most games.

What I would say is this, if you need the extra threads from the amd, mind you that would be a lot of threads (6 for intel, 16 for AMD), go AMD if you don't need them and are just doing gaming, Look at the Intel system.

Thank you for the reply; so are you saying that given my GPU and monitor it really doesn't make that much difference?
Again, I am most interested in value; I do not need to be the fastest PC on the block....

very close to one another with "slight" skew to AMD

Ah Ha! Now we are getting somewhere......and this is with the 2700X? I understand that it almost doesn't make sense to overclock this particular CPU.....

 

[Rdslw]

As you push resolutions higher the difference between processors becomes less and less. What you might see is a hand full of fps for the intel system as you go higher in refresh rates. However, the likely hood of that difference being lower than 144hz is pretty slim. In most games AMD and Intel can push the 1070Ti to the rates of 144 or near it in most games.

What I would say is this, if you need the extra threads from the amd, mind you that would be a lot of threads (6 for intel, 16 for AMD), go AMD if you don't need them and are just doing gaming, Look at the Intel system.

Thank you for the reply; so are you saying that given my GPU and monitor it really doesn't make that much difference?
Again, I am most interested in value; I do not need to be the fastest PC on the block....

very close to one another with "slight" skew to AMD

Ah Ha! Now we are getting somewhere......and this is with the 2700X? I understand that it almost doesn't make sense to overclock this particular CPU.....

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2018/08/13/understanding-precision-boost-overdrive-in-three-easy-steps
PBO seems to OC for you without hickups and with few more features than mediocore OC. Seems that its best way to go.
also when you will want more power, just throw AIO 240 or 360 cooler and PBO will OC cpu more

 

[jeremyj_83]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3744919/amd-ryzen-2700x-cooler.html
ryzen cooler is capable enough unless you go for serious OC or complete silence, there is no point in buying especially that it works just fine with stock.

Storage: Crucial - MX500 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($82.99 @ Amazon) its SATA drive.

replacing that with:
Storage: ADATA - XPG SX8200 480GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($109.99 @ Amazon)
will end up with 3 GB/s read instead of 500 MB/s
other than that, seems fine.

The HP EX920 is a near clone of the SX8200 and a bit cheaper https://pcpartpicker.com/product/7stQzy/hp-ex900-500mb-m2-2280-solid-state-drive-2yy44aaabc

 

[vwcrusher]

As you push resolutions higher the difference between processors becomes less and less. What you might see is a hand full of fps for the intel system as you go higher in refresh rates. However, the likely hood of that difference being lower than 144hz is pretty slim. In most games AMD and Intel can push the 1070Ti to the rates of 144 or near it in most games.

What I would say is this, if you need the extra threads from the amd, mind you that would be a lot of threads (6 for intel, 16 for AMD), go AMD if you don't need them and are just doing gaming, Look at the Intel system.

Thank you for the reply; so are you saying that given my GPU and monitor it really doesn't make that much difference?
Again, I am most interested in value; I do not need to be the fastest PC on the block....

very close to one another with "slight" skew to AMD

Ah Ha! Now we are getting somewhere......and this is with the 2700X? I understand that it almost doesn't make sense to overclock this particular CPU.....

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2018/08/13/understanding-precision-boost-overdrive-in-three-easy-steps
PBO seems to OC for you without hickups and with few more features than mediocore OC. Seems that its best way to go.
also when you will want more power, just throw AIO 240 or 360 cooler and PBO will OC cpu more

Thanks, but this seems to be related to the commercial Threadstripper CPU; does it also apply to the consumer R series?

 

[King_V]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3744919/amd-ryzen-2700x-cooler.html
ryzen cooler is capable enough unless you go for serious OC or complete silence, there is no point in buying especially that it works just fine with stock.

Storage: Crucial - MX500 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($82.99 @ Amazon) its SATA drive.

replacing that with:
Storage: ADATA - XPG SX8200 480GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($109.99 @ Amazon)
will end up with 3 GB/s read instead of 500 MB/s
other than that, seems fine.

I would stick with the MX500. On paper, sure, a SATA III SSD is slower than M2, but in most normal consumer use cases (gaming, etc) there's no real difference.

It's only for very specific types of tasks that the full advantage of the M2's extra bandwidth can come into play.

Granted, it's only a $27 difference, but you're not going to see a huge performance gain in normal, real-world usage for that $27.
(EDIT: Jeremy's suggestion of the HP version of the M2 ddrive makes it only a $12 premium, which is worth considering)


Also, vwcrusher - the 1070Ti is well matched to the monitor, with a little extra headroom. You probably could get away with a 1070, as that's generally the 2560x1440 @ 60fps max details card, but the 1070Ti gives you a bit of extra breathing room.

 

[Rdslw]

As you push resolutions higher the difference between processors becomes less and less. What you might see is a hand full of fps for the intel system as you go higher in refresh rates. However, the likely hood of that difference being lower than 144hz is pretty slim. In most games AMD and Intel can push the 1070Ti to the rates of 144 or near it in most games.

What I would say is this, if you need the extra threads from the amd, mind you that would be a lot of threads (6 for intel, 16 for AMD), go AMD if you don't need them and are just doing gaming, Look at the Intel system.

Thank you for the reply; so are you saying that given my GPU and monitor it really doesn't make that much difference?
Again, I am most interested in value; I do not need to be the fastest PC on the block....

very close to one another with "slight" skew to AMD

Ah Ha! Now we are getting somewhere......and this is with the 2700X? I understand that it almost doesn't make sense to overclock this particular CPU.....

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2018/08/13/understanding-precision-boost-overdrive-in-three-easy-steps
PBO seems to OC for you without hickups and with few more features than mediocore OC. Seems that its best way to go.
also when you will want more power, just throw AIO 240 or 360 cooler and PBO will OC cpu more

Thanks, but this seems to be related to the commercial Threadstripper CPU; does it also apply to the consumer R series?

at least 2600x and 2700x i'm almost sure it works on all 2xxx cpus with 4xx mobos

 

[drinkingcola86]

As you push resolutions higher the difference between processors becomes less and less. What you might see is a hand full of fps for the intel system as you go higher in refresh rates. However, the likely hood of that difference being lower than 144hz is pretty slim. In most games AMD and Intel can push the 1070Ti to the rates of 144 or near it in most games.

What I would say is this, if you need the extra threads from the amd, mind you that would be a lot of threads (6 for intel, 16 for AMD), go AMD if you don't need them and are just doing gaming, Look at the Intel system.

Thank you for the reply; so are you saying that given my GPU and monitor it really doesn't make that much difference?
Again, I am most interested in value; I do not need to be the fastest PC on the block....

Value for dollar and what you get, I would go AMD. In theory, the extra threads will become more valuable as the system ages and new programs/games take advantage of them.

For your gpu and monitor, you would see very little difference in between them like some have said maybe a 10% difference but that is usually at the very extreme range, i.e. fps fo 130 on amd, 143 on intel. Professional gamers will care but for the average user, they probably won't even notice. Since you are running a 60hz monitor @ 1440p, yep nothing different between them.

 

[vwcrusher]

Well, this is very interesting. It seems like a AMD build is in my future....thanks!
If I may, would it be preferable to stick with the 2700X or move down to the 2600X?
One additional question on overclocking; is it accurate to state that if I add more cooling (like liquid) the 2700X will perform better given the PBO functionality?
Any thoughts on motherboards?

Again, thanks

 

[vwcrusher]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3744919/amd-ryzen-2700x-cooler.html
ryzen cooler is capable enough unless you go for serious OC or complete silence, there is no point in buying especially that it works just fine with stock.

Storage: Crucial - MX500 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($82.99 @ Amazon) its SATA drive.

replacing that with:
Storage: ADATA - XPG SX8200 480GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($109.99 @ Amazon)
will end up with 3 GB/s read instead of 500 MB/s
other than that, seems fine.

I would stick with the MX500. On paper, sure, a SATA III SSD is slower than M2, but in most normal consumer use cases (gaming, etc) there's no real difference.

It's only for very specific types of tasks that the full advantage of the M2's extra bandwidth can come into play.

Granted, it's only a $27 difference, but you're not going to see a huge performance gain in normal, real-world usage for that $27.
(EDIT: Jeremy's suggestion of the HP version of the M2 ddrive makes it only a $12 premium, which is worth considering)


Also, vwcrusher - the 1070Ti is well matched to the monitor, with a little extra headroom. You probably could get away with a 1070, as that's generally the 2560x1440 @ 60fps max details card, but the 1070Ti gives you a bit of extra breathing room.

@King, I am a bit confused then....the MX500 is an m.2 SSD; why would the HP be better?

 

[drinkingcola86]

Well, this is very interesting. It seems like a AMD build is in my future....thanks!
If I may, would it be preferable to stick with the 2700X or move down to the 2600X?
One additional question on overclocking; is it accurate to state that if I add more cooling (like liquid) the 2700X will perform better given the PBO functionality?
Any thoughts on motherboards?

Again, thanks

The better the cooling system the longer it will stay at the higher clocks. Although that is within reason, spending $300 on a cooling system wouldn't make a lot of sense spend within reason and you should be pretty happy. The motherboard you have picked is one of the better ones out there, I wouldn't change it. It has 10 phase VRM which is pretty good for the r7 2700x.

And the change between 2600x and the 2700x goes back to whether you want/need the extra cores/threads.

 

[vwcrusher]

Well, this is very interesting. It seems like a AMD build is in my future....thanks!
If I may, would it be preferable to stick with the 2700X or move down to the 2600X?
One additional question on overclocking; is it accurate to state that if I add more cooling (like liquid) the 2700X will perform better given the PBO functionality?
Any thoughts on motherboards?

Again, thanks

The better the cooling system the longer it will stay at the higher clocks. Although that is within reason, spending $300 on a cooling system wouldn't make a lot of sense spend within reason and you should be pretty happy. The motherboard you have picked is one of the better ones out there, I wouldn't change it. It has 10 phase VRM which is pretty good for the r7 2700x.

And the change between 2600x and the 2700x goes back to whether you want/need the extra cores/threads.

Thanks for the reply; So perhaps a liquid cooler?
Regarding 2600x vs 2700x, from what others have noted it is doubtful if I will utilize all those treads, but on the other hand what will new applications/games favor? Is there any conventional wisdom regarding buying a 'better' cpu than is needed today?

 

[King_V]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3744919/amd-ryzen-2700x-cooler.html
ryzen cooler is capable enough unless you go for serious OC or complete silence, there is no point in buying especially that it works just fine with stock.

Storage: Crucial - MX500 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($82.99 @ Amazon) its SATA drive.

replacing that with:
Storage: ADATA - XPG SX8200 480GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($109.99 @ Amazon)
will end up with 3 GB/s read instead of 500 MB/s
other than that, seems fine.

I would stick with the MX500. On paper, sure, a SATA III SSD is slower than M2, but in most normal consumer use cases (gaming, etc) there's no real difference.

It's only for very specific types of tasks that the full advantage of the M2's extra bandwidth can come into play.

Granted, it's only a $27 difference, but you're not going to see a huge performance gain in normal, real-world usage for that $27.
(EDIT: Jeremy's suggestion of the HP version of the M2 ddrive makes it only a $12 premium, which is worth considering)


Also, vwcrusher - the 1070Ti is well matched to the monitor, with a little extra headroom. You probably could get away with a 1070, as that's generally the 2560x1440 @ 60fps max details card, but the 1070Ti gives you a bit of extra breathing room.

@King, I am a bit confused then....the MX500 is an m.2 SSD; why would the HP be better?

Yikes! My bad. I didn't realize the M2 version was also called the MX500. I have an MX500 SATA SSD. In which case, stay with it.

 

[drinkingcola86]

Well, this is very interesting. It seems like a AMD build is in my future....thanks!
If I may, would it be preferable to stick with the 2700X or move down to the 2600X?
One additional question on overclocking; is it accurate to state that if I add more cooling (like liquid) the 2700X will perform better given the PBO functionality?
Any thoughts on motherboards?

Again, thanks

The better the cooling system the longer it will stay at the higher clocks. Although that is within reason, spending $300 on a cooling system wouldn't make a lot of sense spend within reason and you should be pretty happy. The motherboard you have picked is one of the better ones out there, I wouldn't change it. It has 10 phase VRM which is pretty good for the r7 2700x.

And the change between 2600x and the 2700x goes back to whether you want/need the extra cores/threads.

Thanks for the reply; So perhaps a liquid cooler?
Regarding 2600x vs 2700x, from what others have noted it is doubtful if I will utilize all those treads, but on the other hand what will new applications/games favor? Is there any conventional wisdom regarding buying a 'better' cpu than is needed today?

So Liquid cooling is a little deceptive. While it is better in the short run for a cpu but long term play, it can have negative effects. When running a cpu the water pulls the heat from the cpu and transfers it to the radiator then exchanges the heat there with the fan blowing through the fins there. While temperatures run cooler, your cpu actually stays at a higher temperature longer due to the transfer of heat into the water. A solid air cooler would be the best option in my opinion and that does come from a person who had a custom water loop before.

If you are looking for an ultra quiet pc then the Liquid cooled would be the best option because you can run the fan at a lower speed but if you find yourself with headphones on most of the time, then an air cooler would be cheaper and a better option.

 

[jeremyj_83]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3744919/amd-ryzen-2700x-cooler.html
ryzen cooler is capable enough unless you go for serious OC or complete silence, there is no point in buying especially that it works just fine with stock.

Storage: Crucial - MX500 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($82.99 @ Amazon) its SATA drive.

replacing that with:
Storage: ADATA - XPG SX8200 480GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($109.99 @ Amazon)
will end up with 3 GB/s read instead of 500 MB/s
other than that, seems fine.

I would stick with the MX500. On paper, sure, a SATA III SSD is slower than M2, but in most normal consumer use cases (gaming, etc) there's no real difference.

It's only for very specific types of tasks that the full advantage of the M2's extra bandwidth can come into play.

Granted, it's only a $27 difference, but you're not going to see a huge performance gain in normal, real-world usage for that $27.
(EDIT: Jeremy's suggestion of the HP version of the M2 ddrive makes it only a $12 premium, which is worth considering)


Also, vwcrusher - the 1070Ti is well matched to the monitor, with a little extra headroom. You probably could get away with a 1070, as that's generally the 2560x1440 @ 60fps max details card, but the 1070Ti gives you a bit of extra breathing room.

@King, I am a bit confused then....the MX500 is an m.2 SSD; why would the HP be better?

Yikes! My bad. I didn't realize the M2 version was also called the MX500. I have an MX500 SATA SSD. In which case, stay with it.

The M.2 specification specification deals with width of 22mm and a length of 40, 80, or 110mm and a key B or M. Most M.2 SSDs are 2280's that means 22mm wide x 80mm long. The key will determine the bus type. M.2's with M keys are only PCIe x4, the M.2 B's could be SATA or PCIe x2. This will also deal with which motherboards can accept the SSD. Most modern mid-high end motherboards will accept either key, however, if you have a motherboard that only supports B you need to know whether it supports SATA only or not since PCIe x2 use the same physical key but won't work in a SATA only slot. The PCIe x4 like the HP920 can most data sequentially at 3+ GB/sec whereas a SATA SSD is only about 550MB/sec. On paper the NVMe is a lot faster but in practice you won't notice a huge difference unless you are doing a lot of video editing or things that work well with high bandwidth storage.

 

[vwcrusher]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3744919/amd-ryzen-2700x-cooler.html
ryzen cooler is capable enough unless you go for serious OC or complete silence, there is no point in buying especially that it works just fine with stock.

Storage: Crucial - MX500 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($82.99 @ Amazon) its SATA drive.

replacing that with:
Storage: ADATA - XPG SX8200 480GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($109.99 @ Amazon)
will end up with 3 GB/s read instead of 500 MB/s
other than that, seems fine.

I would stick with the MX500. On paper, sure, a SATA III SSD is slower than M2, but in most normal consumer use cases (gaming, etc) there's no real difference.

It's only for very specific types of tasks that the full advantage of the M2's extra bandwidth can come into play.

Granted, it's only a $27 difference, but you're not going to see a huge performance gain in normal, real-world usage for that $27.
(EDIT: Jeremy's suggestion of the HP version of the M2 ddrive makes it only a $12 premium, which is worth considering)


Also, vwcrusher - the 1070Ti is well matched to the monitor, with a little extra headroom. You probably could get away with a 1070, as that's generally the 2560x1440 @ 60fps max details card, but the 1070Ti gives you a bit of extra breathing room.

@King, I am a bit confused then....the MX500 is an m.2 SSD; why would the HP be better?

Yikes! My bad. I didn't realize the M2 version was also called the MX500. I have an MX500 SATA SSD. In which case, stay with it.

The M.2 specification specification deals with width of 22mm and a length of 40, 80, or 110mm and a key B or M. Most M.2 SSDs are 2280's that means 22mm wide x 80mm long. The key will determine the bus type. M.2's with M keys are only PCIe x4, the M.2 B's could be SATA or PCIe x2. This will also deal with which motherboards can accept the SSD. Most modern mid-high end motherboards will accept either key, however, if you have a motherboard that only supports B you need to know whether it supports SATA only or not since PCIe x2 use the same physical key but won't work in a SATA only slot. The PCIe x4 like the HP920 can most data sequentially at 3+ GB/sec whereas a SATA SSD is only about 550MB/sec. On paper the NVMe is a lot faster but in practice you won't notice a huge difference unless you are doing a lot of video editing or things that work well with high bandwidth storage.

So am I correct in your recommendation to just stick with a SATA SSD, as the others will not provide enough of a performance increase to justify the additional cost?

 

[jeremyj_83]

Sticking with the SATA SSD is probably for the best. You can get either the M.2 or 2.5" variant and they will have near identical performance.