comanderBARNIK

Honorable
Aug 6, 2012
37
0
10,530
Hello guys, as the title says, I have EVO 970 plus plugged into Gigabyte X99 UD4 and I'm stuck at pci 2x2, thats what samsung magician says. The performance is abysmal, I'm seeing people posting over 3000 MBps read/write values for this kit, whle I'm getting 800/600 R/W, my other SSDs (both 840 Evo) report around 500/500 MBps. The boot is noticably slower than from regular EVO ssd.

For the record:
my mobo is rev 1.1 and got latest F23 uefi
win10 is installed as UEFI obviously, no worries boot each time (just slow)
uefi configured as other os, drives as AHCI (IDE being only alternative)
got NVMe drivers installed, OS reports they work fine
M2 drive partitions were cloned from previous SSD instalation, then OS partition formated and clean installed from scratch
(499MB oem + 100MB efi system + 232,28GB win10)



Would I get pcie 3.0 x4 (and speedup it brings if I plugged the 970 through adapter to pcie slot, and not dedicated M2 slot?
Can anyone guide me through setting the bios up so it works as it should?
Any explanations why It won't run faster?

I'm in your care,
Thank you in advance
 
As far as I can tell that is all the M.2 slot on the x99 UD4 can deliver. PCIe 2.0 at 2x, or about 10Gbps vs the 6Gbps of SATA III.

That was pretty early days for NVMe, they didn't really make drives that fast back then. PCIe 3.0 and up to 4x lanes is where SSD manufacturers started catering to them.
 

comanderBARNIK

Honorable
Aug 6, 2012
37
0
10,530
As far as I can tell that is all the M.2 slot on the x99 UD4 can deliver. PCIe 2.0 at 2x, or about 10Gbps vs the 6Gbps of SATA III.

That was pretty early days for NVMe, they didn't really make drives that fast back then. PCIe 3.0 and up to 4x lanes is where SSD manufacturers started catering to them.
Thank you, 10GBps is what the print on th mobo says.. Now that this is cleared up - would I get more than that when I plug 970 into pcie via adapter?
 
Agreed. The biggest difference I notice is game load times with an NVMe drive. But we are talking about the difference between 20 seconds to load vs 25 seconds with a normal SSD. (It is kind of neat, you can tell who has what drive by how long it takes them to get in matches)
 
The question is how heavy. As mentioned the sustained output of SSDs varies by the drive size and available cache. Benchmarks are one thing, real world use is another matter.

Hooking it up via a PCIe adapter will certainly be the faster solution, but it may not matter all that much. I suggest monitoring throughput during use to make that determination. You can ignore the 100% disk utilization, look at the actual data rate, Windows can be very misleading.
 

comanderBARNIK

Honorable
Aug 6, 2012
37
0
10,530
The question is how heavy. As mentioned the sustained output of SSDs varies by the drive size and available cache. Benchmarks are one thing, real world use is another matter.

Hooking it up via a PCIe adapter will certainly be the faster solution, but it may not matter all that much. I suggest monitoring throughput during use to make that determination. You can ignore the 100% disk utilization, look at the actual data rate, Windows can be very misleading.
Say I have a character/item that I need to render, its texture files are about 15GB, they gotta load, convert into engine proprietary format, and be used, the textures itself are exported from source files wchich weight from 1 to 30 gb a piece. This kinda stuff. Should I ignore the numbers in resource monitor and use a 3rd party one for veryfying speeds?
 
Agreed. The biggest difference I notice is game load times with an NVMe drive. But we are talking about the difference between 20 seconds to load vs 25 seconds with a normal SSD. (It is kind of neat, you can tell who has what drive by how long it takes them to get in matches)
It's nice being first or 2nd into a level of BF1 with 32 player games! :) (But then sort of useless as well, as you sit waiting for everyone else to rejoin before the level begins) :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS