Is Ultra M.2 worth it?

Barrjos

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2011
26
0
18,530
Hello All,

I've tried to do my own research on this topic, but I'm unable to find the answer to my specific questions. Thanks in advance for any help.

1. Understanding that the Ultra M.2 socket uses 4x PCI-E lanes from the CPU, would it be worth the increased SSD bandwidth to drop my single card down to 8x? My gaming is currently 1080P, so no immediate plans to deviate from a single GPU setup.
On this note, I currently have 2x SSD's in RAID-0, would the performance increase be apparent switching to a single M.2 Ultra at 32 GPS?

2. I also understand on this board that the Ultra M.2 port and the SATA-E share bandwidth. Is this true also for the SATA 3 ports associated with the SATA-E? Bottom line, does using the SATA3 ports for my SSD's reduce GPU PCI-E to 8X, or is this only when using the SATA express or M.2 specifically?

Thank you!

 
Solution
Naw using PCIe 3.0 8 lanes is still enough for a single graphics card.

performance would increase dramaticly if you pick the right M.2 like the samsung 950

an not it doesn't. Just the SATA express because they do use PCIe lanes but there are very VERY few Sata express stuff out there and M.2 is taking over the market and SATA Express is more than likely going to die off.
Naw using PCIe 3.0 8 lanes is still enough for a single graphics card.

performance would increase dramaticly if you pick the right M.2 like the samsung 950

an not it doesn't. Just the SATA express because they do use PCIe lanes but there are very VERY few Sata express stuff out there and M.2 is taking over the market and SATA Express is more than likely going to die off.
 
Solution
Yes, the M.2 with the PCI-E interface has about twice the speed as the SATA3.0. However, people that have bought the double priced SSD's to try it say the speed is not really noticeable. Maybe if you do a lot of huge files it will really help, but just think. How much time do you wait on your SSD now? Not much I imagine.

The new Z170 chipset, which you have, has an additional PCI-E 3.0 X4 available above and beyond the PCI-E 3.0 X 16 for the graphics cards so you don't have to worry about them. Even so, as of now X8 gives plenty of speed anyways. Yes, using that extra PCI-E 3.0 X 4 will take away some SATA-E and/or SATA ports, but you should have plenty extra.

I hear that you should not do RAID 0 with SSD's since they are so fast anyways. Yes, you increase the max throughput 2X, but you add extra overhead which bites into that increased throughput. Plus you halve the reliability.
 
Interesting...

I'm wondering where on this x4 chipset lanes are used for on this board? I know most Z170 use them for M.2 sockets, but the ASROCK has the M.2 ultra using CPU lanes.

I also never heard that about RAID-0 on SSDs. I do know the risk for failure, but I only keep OS and games on those drives, so reliability isn't a huge concern. As for the rest of your argument, I'm not really sure I understand what it means.

Thanks for the replies!
 


No Idea, honestly. I've always used RAID, and I guess it just continued into SSD gen. I would think there would be some performance gain though.
 


Some things don't scale as you think they should.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485.html
realworld_Win8andPhotoshop-after-startup.png

realworld_MultiAppStart.png
 
Well looks like i might have to rethink my setup. Thanks for the benchmark info, I'll look into it.

It'll be a while until my wife lets me spend any more on this thing, so the M.2 will have to wait. Thanks for all the help and Advice!
 



Agreed. Raiding SSDs is virtually pointless. The speed increase is so little noticeable it's not worth the risk of possibly losing everything as opposed to keeping a backup of one on the other (or some other 3.5" platter backup drive. You gain nothing to raid ssds. And risk losing all data instead of just some if a mirrored setup. SSDs are fast enough it's simply not worth the hassle to make the raid then manage it etc. Very little pay off at all...