[SOLVED] NVMe M2 or SATA for new SSD on older Gigabyte X79?

[psl81]

Disclaimer, I'm a relative computer newbie and much of the jargon I just learned over the last few days.

I work in music production, no graphic heavy programs. I have an older i7 3930k (though still beastly) looking to upgrade the main HD to a SSD. Of the 2 options, I've read the NVMe would be much faster, my mobo can't utilize the NVMe M2 without a PCIe adaptor. As well, is quite a bit more complicated to set up as it requires various changes in the BIOS... right?

So I'm getting overwhelmed at the process to switch to the NVMe and think maybe its just safer to get a standard SATA SSD such as a Samsung 860 EVO.

Any thoughts on this? Would it even be worth while going through the NVMe upgrade with what I'd be using it for (sound engineering)? If NVMe, does anyone have a good primer on the step by step process for dummies?

Thanks

Computer: i7 3930k, 32gb RAM, Gigabyte x79-UD3,

 

[USAFRet]

For that?
SATA III all the way.
Don't waste money and brain power on an NVMe drive.

 

[psl81]

Thanks for the quick and to the point answer. Can you explain a little more? Would my chipset not be able to take advantage of the NVMe or would it be more based on the fact I won't be using for graphic intensive applications?

 

[USAFRet]

Thanks for the quick and to the point answer. Can you explain a little more? Would my chipset not be able to take advantage of the NVMe or would it be more based on the fact I won't be using for graphic intensive applications?

In theory, the NVMe is 'faster'.
In actual use, especially on an older system...user benefit is not so much.

The difference between a spinning hard drive and SATA III SSD is huge. Between SATA SSD and NVMe, not so much.
For instance, opening something.
Going from 10 seconds (HDD) to 1 sec (SSD) is very noticeable and beneficial.
Going from 1sec (SATA III SSD) to 0.5 sec (NVMe)...no so noticeable.


Unlike a SATA III SSD, you wouldn't be able to use it as the OS drive.

On a new system that can fully utilize an NVMe drive, absolutely yes, get one.
On an older system? Not remotely worth the hassle, to no real benefit.


I have a Z97 based system (parts list below).
Last summer I added an Intel 660p NVMe drive.
In theory, 3x 'faster' than the other SATA III SSD's in it.
In actual use with my normal workflow in Adobe Lightroom...zero actual difference.

Doing the exact same function, writing out to either the NVMe drive or any one of the SATA SSD's....exact same time.

 

[Nemesia]

Just look at this and laugh at the difference between the NVMe SSD and SATA III SSD.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3AMz-xZ2VM

 

[psl81]

In theory, the NVMe is 'faster'.
In actual use, especially on an older system...user benefit is not so much.

The difference between a spinning hard drive and SATA III SSD is huge. Between SATA SSD and NVMe, not so much.
For instance, opening something.
Going from 10 seconds (HDD) to 1 sec (SSD) is very noticeable and beneficial.
Going from 1sec (SATA III SSD) to 0.5 sec (NVMe)...no so noticeable.


Unlike a SATA III SSD, you wouldn't be able to use it as the OS drive.

On a new system that can fully utilize an NVMe drive, absolutely yes, get one.
On an older system? Not remotely worth the hassle, to no real benefit.


I have a Z97 based system (parts list below).
Last summer I added an Intel 660p NVMe drive.
In theory, 3x 'faster' than the other SATA III SSD's in it.
In actual use with my normal workflow in Adobe Lightroom...zero actual difference.

Doing the exact same function, writing out to either the NVMe drive or any one of the SATA SSD's....exact same time.

Thats the exact honest answer I've been searching. THANK YOU!