Question External SSD 2tb options: Samsung 970 Evo plus or Crucial p5 plus ?

[buster108]

Looking to get a 2tb nvme as an external drive, for film and TV files. Current pc has a solidigim p44 pro with a usb 3.2 gen 2 connection on the motherboard. So the speed if want to transfer files is covered on the pc side. I've bought a ugreen nvme enclosure, max 10gbs also usb 3.2 gen 2. Question is, if I was copying quite a few files over, would the differences between say the 970 evo plus and the p5 plus mean much?

The p5 plus for 2tb is now £100. And the Evo plus 2tb will probably go on sale again for £80 most likely. Is the £20 more worth it?

I know the fact one is gen 3 doesn't mean much as unlikely to get to those rated speeds anyway. However, does the difference in controllers, layers or endurance ratings make the £20 more worth it?

Also I know future proof is a misnomer but is there a chance buying a top spec gen 4 nvme will prove to be better option over time?

Thanks!

 

[USAFRet]

for film and TV files

Why an external NVMe for such a low throughput use?

ANY SSD would work.

Any solid state, from SATA III on up. Just get a reliable brand.

For that, even an (OMG junk!!) an HDD.

 

[buster108]

Why an external NVMe for such a low throughput use?

ANY SSD would work.

Any solid state, from SATA III on up. Just get a reliable brand.

For that, even an (OMG junk!!) an HDD.

I already am using a external HDD. Moving files about is unbelievably slow. I'd like it to be quicker, some files are 4k and 20gb+. Figured may as well utilise speeds that p44 pro and usb 3.2 could offer. So, any insight into the original question?

 

[USAFRet]

I already am using a external HDD. Moving files about is unbelievably slow. I'd like it to be quicker, some files are 4k and 20gb+. Figured may as well utilise speeds that p44 pro and usb 3.2 could offer. So, any insight into the original question?

Performance here depends on the slowest device in the chain.
Typically, that would be the USB interface, and the composition of the data.
Not the drive type.

ANY SSD would be "faster" than whatever USB connection you have.

 

[buster108]

Performance here depends on the slowest device in the chain.
Typically, that would be the USB interface, and the composition of the data.
Not the drive type.

ANY SSD would be "faster" than whatever USB connection you have.

Ah I see thanks for the insignt.

So how come usb c 3.2 gen 2 is marketed at max 10gbs. What makes it so it can't get anywhere near that?

 

[USAFRet]

Ah I see thanks for the insignt.

So how come usb c 3.2 gen 2 is marketed at max 10gbs. What makes it so it can't get anywhere near that?

That is the theoretical laboratory max, good for marketing purposes.

Also, the composition of the data to be moved.
A lot of tiny files, or fragmented data, WILL move much slower than the same cumulative size of a single block of sequential data.

 

[buster108]

That is the theoretical laboratory max, good for marketing purposes.

Also, the composition of the data to be moved.
A lot of tiny files, or fragmented data, WILL move much slower than the same cumulative size of a single block of sequential data.

What is it about usb c that makes it the bottleneck? How come it can't even gain from having nvme over sata at all?

 

[Lafong]

What is it about usb c that makes it the bottleneck? How come it can't even gain from having nvme over sata at all?

The data is flowing through the same restricted pipe..............regardless of a SATA destination or an NVMe destination.

 

[buster108]

That is the theoretical laboratory max, good for marketing purposes.

Also, the composition of the data to be moved.
A lot of tiny files, or fragmented data, WILL move much slower than the same cumulative size of a single block of sequential data.

The data is flowing through the same restricted pipe..............regardless of a SATA destination or an NVMe destination.

Confused then because the rating for the enclosure and usb 3.2 gen 2 on my motherboard is 10Gbs. That's 1.25 GBs no? Don't sata max out at like 500MBs? surely a nvme could beat that over this interface

 

[USAFRet]

Confused then because the rating for the enclosure and usb 3.2 gen 2 on my motherboard is 10Gbs. That's 1.25 GBs no? Don't sata max out at like 500MBs? surely a nvme could beat that over this interface

In the theoretical world, you are correct.

In the real world where our data lives, not so much.

To your original question, any reliable solid state drive will work.
If it makes you sleep better at night, any reliable NVMe drive will work.

 

[buster108]

In the theoretical world, you are correct.

In the real world where our data lives, not so much.

To your original question, any reliable solid state drive will work.
If it makes you sleep better at night, any reliable NVMe drive will work.

Why is that? Surely there must be some use cases that I might encounter where the transfer speeds could go above the sata 500MB~ limit ?

 

[USAFRet]

Why is that? Surely there must be some use cases that I might encounter where the transfer speeds could go above the sata 500MB~ limit ?

Its your data and your system. You tell us where that would really make a difference.

 

[buster108]

Its your data and your system. You tell us where that would really make a difference.

Transferring say a 30GB 4k video file from the local drive to the external or vice versa. Or even say multiple video files of say 5GB size. Would the extra MBs from the nvme not add up over time?

 

[Lafong]

The caching capability of the drive can play a significant part.

Average file size means a lot......10000 files totaling 100 GB will be a LOT slower in elapsed time than 100 files totaling 100 GB.

I've seen cases where the specific chipset driver can make a noticeable difference.

I've done quite a bit of testing on this to external drives using my own data files. I can't make sense of all the differences I noted, but elapsed time in the real world can vary quite a bit............never mind theoretical specifications sheet maximums.

 

[USAFRet]

Transferring say a 30GB 4k video file from the local drive to the external or vice versa. Or even say multiple video files of say 5GB size. Would the extra MBs from the nvme not add up over time?

Local drive....
How often do you really do that?

Personally, I just start a copy like that, and let it run until it is done.
10 minutes or an hour...no real impact on my life.

The "saved time" doesn't add up. You can't bank that for next week.

 

[buster108]

Fair points. Well considering sata 2tb SSDs are pretty much around the same price I as the Samsung nvme on sale I'll probs go for that instead. Regardless it beats HDD, that's been rough recently. So for all SSDs, sata or nvme, in the use cases I've outlined, do things like controller, DRAM or layers matter at all? I could just get a QLC dramless drive and it'd perform pretty much the same as say the 970 Evo plus as external drives?

 

[USAFRet]

Fair points. Well considering sata 2tb SSDs are pretty much around the same price I as the Samsung nvme on sale I'll probs go for that instead. Regardless it beats HDD, that's been rough recently. So for all SSDs, sata or nvme, in the use cases I've outlined, do things like controller, DRAM or layers matter at all? I could just get a QLC dramless drive and it'd perform pretty much the same as say the 970 Evo plus as external drives?

In my system, I have 6x SSDs internally. (see Viper in my sig specs)
1x PCIe 4.0
1x PCIe 3.0
4x SATA III

All 1TB, each with mostly their own use case.

It is actually hard to tell the difference.

Any large data downloads go directly to the NAS, and its bank of spinning drives.

 

[buster108]

In my system, I have 6x SSDs internally. (see Viper in my sig specs)
1x PCIe 4.0
1x PCIe 3.0
4x SATA III

All 1TB, each with mostly their own use case.

It is actually hard to tell the difference.

Any large data downloads go directly to the NAS, and its bank of spinning drives.

So there'd be no difference if I got say a crucial P3, dramless and QLC or the Dram TLC 970 evo plus. In terms of speed, reliability and endurance over the years?

 

[USAFRet]

So there'd be no difference if I got say a crucial P3, dramless and QLC or the Dram TLC 970 evo plus. In terms of speed, reliability and endurance over the years?

Between Crucial and Samsung, flip a coin.
I probably wouldn't get a DRAMless drive of anything, but reliability and endurance between those brands...identical.

 

[buster108]

Between Crucial and Samsung, flip a coin.
I probably wouldn't get a DRAMless drive of anything, but reliability and endurance between those brands...identical.

Cheers. So DRAM still relevant for external? What about QLC Vs tlc? That relevant much or not too worry about?

 

[USAFRet]

Cheers. So DRAM still relevant for external? What about QLC Vs tlc? That relevant much or not too worry about?

DRAM or not has an implication when copying large amounts of data.
DRAMless can slow down quite a bit once the cache fills up.

QLC vs TLC?
Irrelevant.

 

[Lafong]

Controller can definitely matter....particularly as regards DRAMless drives.

WD does a good job on controllers for their DRAMless drives...such as SN770.

BUT BUT, I don't know how much that would matter in an external drive through USB situation.

 

[Nighthawk117]

So there'd be no difference if I got say a crucial P3, dramless and QLC or the Dram TLC 970 evo plus. In terms of speed, reliability and endurance over the years?

You won't notice a difference between the Crucial P5 Plus and the Samsung 970 Evo for your application.

I would be more concerned with endurance rating if your doing lots of writes. The above both have the same rating though.

Write performance is also going to depend on what your actually writing. Thousands of small files is going to be a lot slower than one big file. In such a case it's not going to matter which drive you have.

 

[MWink64]

Fair points. Well considering sata 2tb SSDs are pretty much around the same price I as the Samsung nvme on sale I'll probs go for that instead. Regardless it beats HDD, that's been rough recently. So for all SSDs, sata or nvme, in the use cases I've outlined, do things like controller, DRAM or layers matter at all? I could just get a QLC dramless drive and it'd perform pretty much the same as say the 970 Evo plus as external drives?

Yes, those things can matter. Remember, those pretty numbers companies love to advertise are peak sequentials. Even then, the writes may slow down greatly once the pSLC cache is full. In some cases, you can end up with speeds FAR below that of even a hard drive. I've seen a DRAM-less, TLC SATA drive (Team Group CX2) drop to about ~70MB/s after the ~7GB pSLC cache was exhausted. I've seen a DRAM-less, QLC SATA drive (Silicon Power A55) average less than 40MB/s when it's (admittedly massive) pSLC was filled. Some modern hard drives have peak sequentials upwards of 275MB/s. So, yeah, if you plan to do large writes, you probably don't want the cheapest drive available.

 

[dwd999]

Looking to get a 2tb nvme as an external drive, for film and TV files. Current pc has a solidigim p44 pro with a usb 3.2 gen 2 connection on the motherboard. So the speed if want to transfer files is covered on the pc side. I've bought a ugreen nvme enclosure, max 10gbs also usb 3.2 gen 2. Question is, if I was copying quite a few files over, would the differences between say the 970 evo plus and the p5 plus mean much?

The p5 plus for 2tb is now £100. And the Evo plus 2tb will probably go on sale again for £80 most likely. Is the £20 more worth it?

I know the fact one is gen 3 doesn't mean much as unlikely to get to those rated speeds anyway. However, does the difference in controllers, layers or endurance ratings make the £20 more worth it?

Also I know future proof is a misnomer but is there a chance buying a top spec gen 4 nvme will prove to be better option over time?

Thanks!

If I were doing this I would get an Orico M2PVC3-G20 and another Solidigm p44. Not sure what your cost there would be but I would go with this for speed and quality.