nVME SSD vs SATA SSD for upgrade

[vwcrusher]

In thinking about a future (within a year) upgrade, I have been reading a bit on the above subject. My impression is that while the SATA version is more cost effective, it seems that the nVME version (mounted directly on the MB) is faster, although not appreciably so.

Therefore, it also seems that they, as most things computer related will come down in price.

The current plan calls for perhaps a 256GB nVME SSD for W10, and a 500GB SATA version for applications. I do currently utilize an older 256GB SATA SSD for both.

Does any of this make sense?

Tnx

 

[USAFRet]

A lot depends on what motherboard you have.
Unless it is a very recent one, an NVMe drive may not be used to its full extent.

 

[J_E_D_70]

Having just come from a 256gb 850 evo (sata3) to a 500gb 960 evo (nvme), I gotta say meh for gaming and daily use.

It is a bit faster, but nothing like hdd to ssd. For the same amount of $, could have gotten twice the capacity. If I had it to do over, would go bigger 860 evo in m.2 form factor.

 

[vwcrusher]

A lot depends on what motherboard you have.
Unless it is a very recent one, an NVMe drive may not be used to its full extent.

Thanks for the reply; regarding MB, I haven't fully decided on Intel or AMD.
If its an Intel I had my eye on a ASRock - Z370 Extreme4 ATX LGA1151

 

[vwcrusher]

Having just come from a 256gb 850 evo (sata3) to a 500gb 960 evo (nvme), I gotta say meh for gaming and daily use.

It is a bit faster, but nothing like hdd to ssd. For the same amount of $, could have gotten twice the capacity. If I had it to do over, would go bigger 860 evo in m.2 form factor.

Thanks for the response; I have read that seems to be a common perspective.
as @USAFRet noted, maybe it has something to do with the MB?

 

[geofelt]

From a simplicity point of view, consider a single 1tb drive for everything.
Performance differences are minimal.

 

[vwcrusher]

From a simplicity point of view, consider a single 1tb drive for everything.
Performance differences are minimal.

Thanks for the reply; are you suggesting a single 1TB nVME drive? Or 2.5" SATA?

 

[USAFRet]

Thanks for the response; I have read that seems to be a common perspective.
as @USAFRet noted, maybe it has something to do with the MB?

It's more a case of diminishing returns.

HDD->SATA SSD was a huge jump
SATA SSD -> NVMe....not so much, depending on specific use.

Both the SATA and NVMe SSD give the benefit of near zero access time. That is where you and I see the huge benefit over a spinning drive.

An NVMe drive shines in moving large sequential blocks of data. Which is not what you and I do most of the time.

For writing or reading a particular file:
HDD = 2 seconds
SSD = 0.3 sec
NVMe = 0.1 sec.

You DO see and feel a difference between 2 seconds and 0.3 or 0.1.
The SATA SSD is several times faster than the HDD. And yes, the NVMe is "3 times faster" than the SATA SSD.

But are you, the user, really going to notice that 0.2 sec difference?

People get too hung up on "OMG Faster", without realizing what that actually means.

 

[vwcrusher]

Thanks for the response; I have read that seems to be a common perspective.
as @USAFRet noted, maybe it has something to do with the MB?

It's more a case of diminishing returns.

HDD->SATA SSD was a huge jump
SATA SSD -> NVMe....not so much, depending on specific use.

Both the SATA and NVMe SSD give the benefit of near zero access time. That is where you and I see the huge benefit over a spinning drive.

An NVMe drive shines in moving large sequential blocks of data. Which is not what you and I do most of the time.

For writing or reading a particular file:
HDD = 2 seconds
SSD = 0.3 sec
NVMe = 0.1 sec.

You DO see and feel a difference between 2 seconds and 0.3 or 0.1.
The SATA SSD is several times faster than the HDD. And yes, the NVMe is "3 times faster" than the SATA SSD.

But are you, the user, really going to notice that 0.2 sec difference?

People get too hung up on "OMG Faster", without realizing what that actually means.

Hmm, I see what you are saying. But if you multiply that 0.2 sec difference by hundreds or thousands of r/w cycles....wouldn't that make a difference?

If not would you suggest one large capacity SATA SSD drive for W10 and all applications and a HDD for data?

 

[geofelt]

From a simplicity point of view, consider a single 1tb drive for everything.
Performance differences are minimal.

Thanks for the reply; are you suggesting a single 1TB nVME drive? Or 2.5" SATA?

yes.

Your choice really.
A single 1tb sata drive in either m.2 or 2.5" format will give you more total storage and be simpler to manage space.
If you have the budget, the m.2 format with pcie connection will be faster in sequential benchmarks, but not noticeably so in real apps.
I do notice the pcie speed in something like antivirus scans.

If you have the budget and don't mind the extra cost, by all means go pcie.
In practical terms, that budget is probably better spent elsewhere.

Ditto for the PRO versions. The marginal increase in performance is not noticeable, and the extra endurance is not worth much.
A 1tb drive will never wear out under heavy desktop activity.
It will be long obsolete before it even comes close.

If you will be storing large sequential data files such as videos, then a HDD is excellent.

 

[J_E_D_70]

A single 1tb 860 evo or Crucial mx500, both in m.2 form factor, and no hdd (unless you have a boatload of movies or something.

If you have files you need to keep safe, back them up to an external.

 

[vwcrusher]

From a simplicity point of view, consider a single 1tb drive for everything.
Performance differences are minimal.

Thanks for the reply; are you suggesting a single 1TB nVME drive? Or 2.5" SATA?

yes.

Your choice really.
A single 1tb sata drive in either m.2 or 2.5" format will give you more total storage and be simpler to manage space.
If you have the budget, the m.2 format with pcie connection will be faster in sequential benchmarks, but not noticeably so in real apps.
I do notice the pcie speed in something like antivirus scans.

If you have the budget and don't mind the extra cost, by all means go pcie.
In practical terms, that budget is probably better spent elsewhere.

Ditto for the PRO versions. The marginal increase in performance is not noticeable, and the extra endurance is not worth much.
A 1tb drive will never wear out under heavy desktop activity.
It will be long obsolete before it even comes close.

If you will be storing large sequential data files such as videos, then a HDD is excellent.

Thanks for the reply, @geofelt,
May I ask for a recommendation of a 1T SSD with m.2 format with pcie connection?
I assume this is the style that mounts directly to the MB?

 

[vwcrusher]

A single 1tb 860 evo or Crucial mx500, both in m.2 form factor, and no hdd (unless you have a boatload of movies or something.

If you have files you need to keep safe, back them up to an external.

Appreciate the suggestion; it sounds like you are recommending the same drive as @geofelt, unless I am missing something...."pcie connection?"

 

[USAFRet]

Hmm, I see what you are saying. But if you multiply that 0.2 sec difference by hundreds or thousands of r/w cycles....wouldn't that make a difference?

If not would you suggest one large capacity SATA SSD drive for W10 and all applications and a HDD for data?

0.2 sec once an hour is not cumulative. Or even once a minute.
Most of the files that we out here use and access are not large things.

For instance, opening a large complex Excel file.
I can absolutely feel the difference in opening the same file on my work system with an HDD, and opening it on my home system with a SATA III 850 EVO.
Near instant opening.

How much faster than "instant" would an NVMe drive be?


As far as configuration? Everyone has a different thought process.
Some people like a single large drive, others like to split it up.

Personally, I have 1 drive for the OS and applications, other drives for other things.
All SSD:

ALl the really large things like the movie and music collection lives on spinning drives in the NAS box on the other side of the room.

 

[vwcrusher]

Hmm, I see what you are saying. But if you multiply that 0.2 sec difference by hundreds or thousands of r/w cycles....wouldn't that make a difference?

If not would you suggest one large capacity SATA SSD drive for W10 and all applications and a HDD for data?

0.2 sec once an hour is not cumulative. Or even once a minute.
Most of the files that we out here use and access are not large things.

For instance, opening a large complex Excel file.
I can absolutely feel the difference in opening the same file on my work system with an HDD, and opening it on my home system with a SATA III 850 EVO.
Near instant opening.

How much faster than "instant" would an NVMe drive be?


As far as configuration? Everyone has a different thought process.
Some people like a single large drive, others like to split it up.

Personally, I have 1 drive for the OS and applications, other drives for other things.
All SSD:

ALl the really large things like the movie and music collection lives on spinning drives in the NAS box on the other side of the room.

Ah, so the difference is not additive...thanks.
Regarding storage options, I do currently have W10 and applications on one drive and all data on a HDD.
What I may do is plan for one 500GB in m.2 form factor (I believe that is pcie?) and a 2.5" 1TB SATA drive for data, eliminating the HDD.

Sound reasonable? Is there any advantage/disadvantage to keeping OS and Apps on one drive or not?

 

[USAFRet]

Ah, so the difference is not additive...thanks.
Regarding storage options, I do currently have W10 and applications on one drive and all data on a HDD.
What I may do is plan for one 500GB in m.2 form factor (I believe that is pcie?) and a 2.5" 1TB SATA drive for data, eliminating the HDD.

Sound reasonable? Is there any advantage/disadvantage to keeping OS and Apps on one drive or not?

OS and application on one drive is what I do.
In case of needing to reinstall the OS...any data is not affected because it lives on a different physical drive.

"m.2" is simply the form factor, not PCIe vs SATA.
m.2 drives can be had either way. A SATA based m.2 drive is exactly the same speed as its 2.5" SATA III cousin.
The PCIe/NVMe drives are faster. And generally 2x the price per GB.

 

[vwcrusher]

Thanks all for the guidance.....helps for future build planning