[SOLVED] How many SSD's do i need? new build.

[cards1]

im building a new pc, whats the best way to use SSD's? should i get one for the OS & one for games? & how big should they be? i do have a hard drive, should i use the hard drive for games? im getting the asus rog crosshair viii hero, with 2 m.2 slots & 8 sata.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

For starters get a NVME SSD for the OS , SATA SSD for games:

Storage Comparison

pcpartpicker.com

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

It all depends on what you want. Some go for a bigger SSD and some go for a couple SSDs. I have a multiple SSD setup in my system because I collected them over time. If I were buying a new system today I'd go with one 1TB SSD for OS and games, and a mechanical drive for additional storage. Having the games on the SSD will help a LOT with loading times, and is really the only reason to have your games on it.

You don't have to go with an NVME drive unless you want to. The speed difference isn't terribly noticeable in every day usage.

I'd say the minimum size for an SSD you want to have the OS and some games on is 512GB. Anything less and you'll only be able to fit a few games on it.

 

[cards1]

For starters get a NVME SSD for the OS , SATA SSD for games:

Storage Comparison

pcpartpicker.com

considering the prices in my place, which should i pick ?
the 970 pro costs only 40$ more then the 970 evo plus. (the 970 evo plus only costs 10$ more then the 970 evo)
& the crucial you have shown costs the same as its m.2 version, & costs the same as the crucial p1 m.2 NVMe (QLC). (all 1TB)
would your suggestion change considering the prices?

 

[USAFRet]

970 Pro is not needed. Apply that $40 elsewhere.

How many? Personal preference.
Some people like a single large drive for everything, others like a drive for the OS and applications, and other drives for other things.

My system (specs below) has 7x SSD.

 

[cards1]

It all depends on what you want. Some go for a bigger SSD and some go for a couple SSDs. I have a multiple SSD setup in my system because I collected them over time. If I were buying a new system today I'd go with one 1TB SSD for OS and games, and a mechanical drive for additional storage. Having the games on the SSD will help a LOT with loading times, and is really the only reason to have your games on it.

You don't have to go with an NVME drive unless you want to. The speed difference isn't terribly noticeable in every day usage.

I'd say the minimum size for an SSD you want to have the OS and some games on is 512GB. Anything less and you'll only be able to fit a few games on it.

its a hard choice, i think two ssd's sounds better, thanks.

 

[cards1]

970 Pro is not needed. Apply that $40 elsewhere.

How many? Personal preference.
Some people like a single large drive for everything, others like a drive for the OS and applications, and other drives for other things.

My system (specs below) has 7x SSD.

i see, & do you have a prefernce between the crucial ones? a sata/m.2/or the p1 m.2 nvme QLC? all same price.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Soon some VARIATION of NVME will be the top of the market and SATA drives will go the way of HDD. Progression.

 

[USAFRet]

i see, & do you have a prefernce between the crucial ones? a sata/m.2/or the p1 m.2 nvme QLC? all same price.

Ginven the same price/size, the P1 is what I would choose.
Then, SATA SSD's for other things.

 

[cards1]

Ginven the same price/size, the P1 is what I would choose.
Then, SATA SSD's for other things.

really? i shouldnt worry about the QLC thing? the others are TLC.

 

[USAFRet]

really? i shouldnt worry about the QLC thing?

No.
Overall performance is better than the SATA III at the same price.

What, specifically, concerns you about QLC?

 

[cards1]

No.
Overall performance is better than the SATA III at the same price.

What, specifically, concerns you about QLC?

dont know, i think ive read that qlc has less endurance or its slower, im not an expert tho

 

[USAFRet]

dont know, i think ive read that qlc has less endurance or its slower, im not an expert tho

"less endurance" at the extreme end.
You're talking about the difference between 20 year lifespan and 15 years.
(not actual numbers, but that's the general idea)

Speed - Yes, slower than a top level 970 EVO, but much less $$. Faster than a SATA III SSD.

 

[mdd1963]

The 970 Pro is for the most part large a waste of money over the EVO, barring any potential anticipated use-case of 100-300 GB of writes per day...

(my own 960 EVO has but 24 TBW, or Terrabytes written in 3 years, for example, a little less than 650 GB of writes per month)

 

[cards1]

"less endurance" at the extreme end.
You're talking about the difference between 20 year lifespan and 15 years.
(not actual numbers, but that's the general idea)

Speed - Yes, slower than a top level 970 EVO, but much less $$. Faster than a SATA III SSD.

i see, & whether i have one nvme & one sata vs two nvme's shouldnt matter, right? (power or temperature wise) i think my board has pcie 4, not sure if its relevant.