Question Kaili2 MSI mobo (in HP) - add NVMe?

[rumplestilts]

As the title implies, I have an HP with a Kaili2 mobo (HP ENVY Desktop - 750-055xt). It has one PCI Express x16 (Gen 3.0) and one PCI Express x1 (Gen 3.0). Assuming I can find an NVMe card for the x16 slot (which is probably the fastest slot available on this mobo), and populate the card with the appropriate NVMe SSD, would I even be able to boot? I've read that if the mobo wasn't built for it right from the get-go, I'm pretty much stuck with SATA3 SSDs (which are a ton better than spinning HDs).

 

[QwerkyPengwen]

to help clarify for your understanding, even if you got an adapter for PCIe slot, then put the NVMe on the adapter, the reason it can still not work is because of the BIOS.

A motherboard BIOS has to have the support for NVMe drive booting.

from what I can tell, that motherboard does not have support for NVMe drives.

also, NVMe is not worth your money unless you're doing more specific things on your system that would benefit greatly from NVMe such as server stuff where you are always needing to move files to and from drives constantly and getting as much speed as possible is key, or super hardcore video editing with crazy CPU action like a threadripper and you want a drive that can handle being written to as fast as the CPU can handle during encoding so that you aren't limited by write speeds but just CPU performance.

There's a few other cases but pretty much all use cases are high end and not relevant to the general consumer and/or gamer.

There is literally like 2 games that you will see any kind of worth while improvement on loading times for when it comes to NVMe VS. SATA SSD, and one of them is Rust, the other is a game I can't remember the name of.

Other than that, there is like at most 1-2 second difference in loading times between NVMe and SATA SSD in pretty much any game.

And when it comes to general day to day use, you aren't going to see any crazy improvements in drive speed, even for loading Windows.

Especially when it comes down the fact that while the drive may be able to handle all this data read/write action, seeing as how your motherboard is a Z97, that would mean you have at most a 5th gen Intel CPU, and even if you have the most top of the line 5th gen CPU you can get in that system, the CPU won't be able to do things so fast and intense that you'd somehow be able to maximize the NVMe's potential in the smaller use cases that you would see some kind of benefit compared to a standard SATA bases SSD.

And so with that long rant out of the way, I will sum it up to this.

A quality SATA based SSD is more than enough for anything you do on that system. So save your money.
My personal recommendation for a quality drive that doesn't cost too much is the Crucial MX500 series drives.

Hope this information was useful and helpful to you. Take care.

 

[rumplestilts]

to help clarify for your understanding, even if you got an adapter for PCIe slot, then put the NVMe on the adapter, the reason it can still not work is because of the BIOS.

A motherboard BIOS has to have the support for NVMe drive booting.

from what I can tell, that motherboard does not have support for NVMe drives.

also, NVMe is not worth your money unless you're doing more specific things on your system that would benefit greatly from NVMe such as server stuff where you are always needing to move files to and from drives constantly and getting as much speed as possible is key, or super hardcore video editing with crazy CPU action like a threadripper and you want a drive that can handle being written to as fast as the CPU can handle during encoding so that you aren't limited by write speeds but just CPU performance.

There's a few other cases but pretty much all use cases are high end and not relevant to the general consumer and/or gamer.

There is literally like 2 games that you will see any kind of worth while improvement on loading times for when it comes to NVMe VS. SATA SSD, and one of them is Rust, the other is a game I can't remember the name of.

Other than that, there is like at most 1-2 second difference in loading times between NVMe and SATA SSD in pretty much any game.

And when it comes to general day to day use, you aren't going to see any crazy improvements in drive speed, even for loading Windows.

Especially when it comes down the fact that while the drive may be able to handle all this data read/write action, seeing as how your motherboard is a Z97, that would mean you have at most a 5th gen Intel CPU, and even if you have the most top of the line 5th gen CPU you can get in that system, the CPU won't be able to do things so fast and intense that you'd somehow be able to maximize the NVMe's potential in the smaller use cases that you would see some kind of benefit compared to a standard SATA bases SSD.

And so with that long rant out of the way, I will sum it up to this.

A quality SATA based SSD is more than enough for anything you do on that system. So save your money.
My personal recommendation for a quality drive that doesn't cost too much is the Crucial MX500 series drives.

Hope this information was useful and helpful to you. Take care.

Qwerky,

Thank you for your illuminating answers to my questions. I had anticipated the NVMe non-booting issue would be there due to the age of the board. The CPU is a Core i7 4790 (the best that was available at the time of purchase). I am already using a Samsung 850 EVO SSD for booting. I will probably replace the secondary (spinning) HD with another Samsung (860 EVO this time) and add another 8GB of RAM (for 16GB total).

I am using the machine for Lightroom Classic so replacing the spinning HD with an SSD should be an improvement. The catalog has always been kept on the SSD and that won't change.

Down the road, I'll get a new box - probably with a Core i9 as a beefy config from iBuyPower with the top of the line Viewsonic 27" 2560x1440 display was almost $1000 less than an equally configured iMac. (And I can add three more hard drives!)

Bottom line: Your assistance is appreciated and, for cheap, I'll just make the unit I own better within the constraints of its mobo.

Barry

 

[QwerkyPengwen]

I would advise against adding in additional ram.

even if you go and buy the supposedly exact same model stick and it runs at the same speed and timings, the memory dies were not made at the same time and were not tested and therefore not guaranteed to work with one another, so you will run the risk of buying the RAM and having issues with it playing nice with your current stick (since you said additional 8GB I am assuming you are currently running single stick. But if you are running currently a 2x4GB configuration, buying a quote unquote "identical" kit results in the same deal, and further reduces your chances of the RAM playing nice together.)

So when it comes to upgrading RAM, it's always best to just get a new kit.

Also what comes with replacing current RAM with a new kit, is that you can keep the original stick/kit as a backup solution in the event that something happens to the new RAM.

If living in America, a new kit of DDR3 16GB can be had for quite cheap these days.

Here's a link to affordable and decent RAM for your system if you live in America, otherwise parts, their prices, and availability differs quite drastically at times if living in another country.

According to your motherboard specs it takes up to 1600Mhz speed RAM.

Here's literally the second cheapest option on PCPP (because the first cheapest is Value RAM that has no heat spreaders, and it's only about $4 cheaper)


PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Memory: G.Skill - AEGIS 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($63.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $63.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-04-22 00:01 EDT-0400

 

[rumplestilts]

Thanks, Querky. I use an iMac usually and it has a newer CPU but, when I compared the performance at the Passmark site, the HPs 4790 (no letter that I can find) and the iMac's 6700K are very close in performance; close enough that a few minor upgrades (RAM as you advised) and a couple of fast SSDs (which now are pretty cheap) should make the HP run with the big dog fairly well. The HP has an Nvidia 1050ti while the iMac has (IIRC) an AMD Radeon R9 M390 (or M395). Looks like the 1050ti is about 20% faster (in some benchmark or other ). So give or take a little and the HP should have a few more useful years in it.

Again, thanks for your suggestions. I'll save up for the 2021 models.

 

[rumplestilts]

Corrections and amplifications:

The HP has a GTX 960. The iMac has an R9 M395. The GTX benchmarks about 17% faster.
The RAM spec for the Kaili2 motherboard calls for 4x8GB max. I'll add the 16GB and see how well it works with the existing RAM modules (2x4GB).

 

[rumplestilts]

Querky,

I ordered exactly what you recommended and installed the two modules this morning. On a lark, I left the original 2x4GB modules in place. All is fine: 24GB; rock solid.

I do note Lightroom Classic seems to be faster in a number of functions so this was a cheap upgrade to a nice machine. I'm using an older 23"(?) Apple Cinema Display that a friend was discarding; it works perfectly. I swapped in a 500GB EVO960 onto which I transferred one of my LR catalog/libraries...faster still. I expect to get another couple of years out of this HP.

Thanks,
Barry