Question PCIe M.2 adapter ?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jimmernick

Commendable
Jul 8, 2022
38
0
1,530
Hey I am looking to add a new ssd to my pc. My motherboard only has one m.2 slot which is already being occupied. I know they make adapters for the pcle port which allow you to add a second m.2 slot. Would this be better than me just getting a regular sata ssd for my motherboards sata port. Or will the fact that I am connecting it through an adapter slow the m.2 drive down/ cause any other issues to the point where I should just forget that idea and go for sata ssd. For reference I have the b450 tomahawk max. In short, what do i need to know about using an m.2 drive through a pcle adapter port in terms of the drawbacks.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jimmernick said:
Hey I am looking to add a new ssd to my pc. My motherboard only has one m.2 slot which is already being occupied. I know they make adapters for the pcle port which allow you to add a second m.2 slot. Would this be better than me just getting a regular sata ssd for my motherboards sata port. Or will the fact that I am connecting it through an adapter slow the m.2 drive down/ cause any other issues to the point where I should just forget that idea and go for sata ssd. For reference I have the b450 tomahawk max. In short, what do i need to know about using an m.2 drive through a pcle adapter port in terms of the drawbacks.
Click to expand...
What are the full system specs?
What do you use this system for?

The actual difference between an NVMe and SATA III SSD may not be as much as the advertising suggests.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
USAFRet said:
What are the full system specs?
What do you use this system for?

The actual difference between an NVMe and SATA III SSD may not be as much as the advertising suggests.
Click to expand...
really, the speeds on sata lll seem to be about 500 mbps while the nvmes have speeds of 3000-4000 mbps. I stream, game, and program on my pc. full specs are ryzen 5 3600, 16 gb ddr4 ram, rtx 2060,
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Jimmernick said:
really, the speeds on sata lll seem to be about 500 mbps while the nvmes have speeds of 3000-4000 mbps. I stream, game, and program on my pc. full specs are ryzen 5 3600, 16 gb ddr4 ram, rtx 2060,
Click to expand...
What specific motherboard?


The "speeds" you refer to are the moving of large blocks of sequential data.

For games, almost NO difference.
Programming, same.

This is like comparing the published Top Speeds of two cars.
One at 170mph, the other at 140mph. All other performance is the same.
When was the last time you went to the track to see that difference?

In my current main system, I have 6x SSD.
1 PCIe 4.0 (OS and applications)
1 PCIe 3.0 (photo work)
4x SATA III (CAD, video, games, and everything else)

It is actually hard to tell the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SyCoREAPER
Upvote 0 Downvote
USAFRet said:
What specific motherboard?


The "speeds" you refer to are the moving of large blocks of sequential data.

For games, almost NO difference.
Programming, same.

This is like comparing the published Top Speeds of two cars.
One at 170mph, the other at 140mph. All other performance is the same.
When was the last time you went to the track to see that difference?

In my current main system, I have 6x SSD.
1 PCIe 4.0 (OS and applications)
1 PCIe 3.0 (photo work)
4x SATA III (CAD, video, games, and everything else)

It is actually hard to tell the difference.
Click to expand...
i have b450 tomahawk max. When you say pcle 4.0 and 3.0 , you are referring to m.2 drives right? and what you are saying is no matter if i have a game saved on an m.2 drive, or a sata lll drive, i wont be able to tell the difference even though the advertised speeds are drastically different between the 2? you are saying i am never going to even be taking advantage of the advertised speed of 5000 mbps on the m.2 and 500mbps on a sata lll is likely all i will need for what i use my pc for?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jimmernick said:
i have b450 tomahawk max. When you say pcle 4.0 and 3.0 , you are referring to m.2 drives right? and what you are saying is no matter if i have a game saved on an m.2 drive, or a sata lll drive, i wont be able to tell the difference even though the advertised speeds are drastically different between the 2? you are saying i am never going to even be taking advantage of the advertised speed of 5000 mbps on the m.2 and 500mbps on a sata lll is likely all i will need for what i use my pc for?
Click to expand...
Right.

Most of our regular use does not matter between different flavors of SSD>

If and only if you were copying a large block of data between 2x 3.0 or 4.0 drives would you see a real difference over SATA III.

When we made the move from HDD to SSD, huge impact.
Between various flavors of SSD? Not so much.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YoRKQy-UO4

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DKLA7w9eeA

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9LyNXpsOo
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmernick
Upvote 0 Downvote
USAFRet said:
Right.

Most of our regular use does not matter between different flavors of SSD>

If and only if you were copying a large block of data between 2x 3.0 or 4.0 drives would you see a real difference over SATA III.

When we made the move from HDD to SSD, huge impact.
Between various flavors of SSD? Not so much.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YoRKQy-UO4

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DKLA7w9eeA

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9LyNXpsOo
Click to expand...
SLC SSD
TLC SSD
nvme m.2 ssd

thank you for the info, and im guessing there isnt much of a practical difference between slc, mlc, tlc and qlc amongst the sata drives? there is a slc drive i am looking at for 4 tb which is somehow cheaper than the tlc drive i was also considering. i will link them both and i want to know why you think the slc one in cheaper and which one you think i should go with. ill also link the m.2 drive i was looking at just to confirm with you that i should not go for that one alongside an nvme adaptar. appreciate it
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jimmernick said:
SLC SSD
TLC SSD
nvme m.2 ssd

thank you for the info, and im guessing there isnt much of a practical difference between slc, mlc, tlc and qlc amongst the sata drives? there is a slc drive i am looking at for 4 tb which is somehow cheaper than the tlc drive i was also considering. i will link them both and i want to know why you think the slc one in cheaper and which one you think i should go with. ill also link the m.2 drive i was looking at just to confirm with you that i should not go for that one alongside an nvme adaptar. appreciate it
Click to expand...
I would also consider the Crucial MX500
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jimmernick said:
SLC SSD
TLC SSD
nvme m.2 ssd

thank you for the info, and im guessing there isnt much of a practical difference between slc, mlc, tlc and qlc amongst the sata drives? there is a slc drive i am looking at for 4 tb which is somehow cheaper than the tlc drive i was also considering. i will link them both and i want to know why you think the slc one in cheaper and which one you think i should go with. ill also link the m.2 drive i was looking at just to confirm with you that i should not go for that one alongside an nvme adaptar. appreciate it
Click to expand...

There are no mainstream SLC or MLC drives still on the consumer market. You're looking at the pSLC caching feature. Basically all modern consumer drives have that (whether advertised or not), though the implementation varies greatly. All the drives you're likely to come across are TLC or QLC. With cheap drives it can be hard to tell which you're getting, as many companies swap components frequently. I can tell you for certain that there are QLC variants of the Silicon Power A55. I have one. I would consider that the least desirable drive in your list. That's why it's so cheap.

TLC vs QLC can make a difference, particularly if you're writing large files to the drive. Even the Samsung QVO (one of the best QLC SATA drives) drops greatly once the pSLC cache is exhausted.

Of the drives you listed, normally the Samsung 870 EVO would easily be my pick. However, that model has had some reliability issues that may or may not have been resolved. I'm going to echo the suggestion of the Crucial MX500. It's vastly superior to the Silicon Power A55 and in the same tier as the Samsung 870 EVO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmernick
Upvote 0 Downvote
MWink64 said:
There are no mainstream SLC or MLC drives still on the consumer market. You're looking at the pSLC caching feature. Basically all modern consumer drives have that (whether advertised or not), though the implementation varies greatly. All the drives you're likely to come across are TLC or QLC. With cheap drives it can be hard to tell which you're getting, as many companies swap components frequently. I can tell you for certain that there are QLC variants of the Silicon Power A55. I have one. I would consider that the least desirable drive in your list. That's why it's so cheap.

TLC vs QLC can make a difference, particularly if you're writing large files to the drive. Even the Samsung QVO (one of the best QLC SATA drives) drops greatly once the pSLC cache is exhausted.

Of the drives you listed, normally the Samsung 870 EVO would easily be my pick. However, that model has had some reliability issues that may or may not have been resolved. I'm going to echo the suggestion of the Crucial MX500. It's vastly superior to the Silicon Power A55 and in the same tier as the Samsung 870 EVO.
Click to expand...
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/130v2jw/crucial_mx500_and_samsung_870_evo_recents/

seems like people are having issues with both drives. with that info i may just go for Samsung for the increased performance. how the top 2 sata ssds have reliability issues is beyond me
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
USAFRet said:
I have 2x 860 EVO and 1x MX500, all 1TB.

The Crucial and one of the Samsungs is ~18 months old. The other Sammy is much older.
Zero issues.
Click to expand...

The 860 EVOs were pretty bulletproof. I'm still using one myself. The issue was/is with the 870 EVO.

Jimmernick said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/130v2jw/crucial_mx500_and_samsung_870_evo_recents/

seems like people are having issues with both drives. with that info i may just go for Samsung for the increased performance. how the top 2 sata ssds have reliability issues is beyond me
Click to expand...

I've been following these issues very closely. There are widespread reports of Samsung 870 EVOs losing data and failing prematurely. Aside from one old Reddit thread, I have seen very few claims of normal users losing data on Crucial MX500s. There are/were some software/firmware issues but they're not likely to substantially impact the average user. This is why the Crucial MX500 is currently my top pick, for SATA SSDs.

On paper, the Samsung 870 EVO may be slightly superior, with more DRAM (at 1TB+) and a potentially more powerful controller but I don't think it's likely to make a noticeable difference in the real world. I'm not aware of any reviews that pit the Samsung 870 EVO against the current (M3CR04x) version of the MX500. Both drives are undoubtedly leagues above nearly everything else currently available in the SATA space. I'd still favor the MX500, on the chance that Samsung still hasn't resolved the issues with the 870 EVO. Also, I think the MX500 is usually a bit cheaper.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MWink64 said:
The 860 EVOs were pretty bulletproof. I'm still using one myself. The issue was/is with the 870 EVO.



I've been following these issues very closely. There are widespread reports of Samsung 870 EVOs losing data and failing prematurely. Aside from one old Reddit thread, I have seen very few claims of normal users losing data on Crucial MX500s. There are/were some software/firmware issues but they're not likely to substantially impact the average user. This is why the Crucial MX500 is currently my top pick, for SATA SSDs.

On paper, the Samsung 870 EVO may be slightly superior, with more DRAM (at 1TB+) and a potentially more powerful controller but I don't think it's likely to make a noticeable difference in the real world. I'm not aware of any reviews that pit the Samsung 870 EVO against the current (M3CR04x) version of the MX500. Both drives are undoubtedly leagues above nearly everything else currently available in the SATA space. I'd still favor the MX500, on the chance that Samsung still hasn't resolved the issues with the 870 EVO. Also, I think the MX500 is usually a bit cheaper.
Click to expand...
dang that sucks. i do want the 870 bc its about 150$ cheaper for 4tb version and has better read write speeds. might just take the risk as the drive failing only seems to happen to a very small fraction of people
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jimmernick said:
dang that sucks. i do want the 870 bc its about 150$ cheaper for 4tb version and has better read write speeds. might just take the risk as the drive failing only seems to happen to a very small fraction of people
Click to expand...

Where are you that the 4TB 870 EVO is $150 cheaper???

USAFRet said:
With top tier SATA III drives, "better read write speeds" is totally irrelevant.
Samsung, Crucial, SanDisk, WD....absolutely zero difference.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There's unlikely to be a perceptible difference in speed among the top tier SATA drives. However, WD/SanDisk seems to have discontinued the popular WD Blue 3D / SanDisk Ultra 3D. The new version (WD Blue SA510) is an overpriced, DRAM-less garbage drive.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jimmernick said:
ok so you reccomend the crucial mx500 or the samsung 870 evo rather than this silicon power one? which do u think is the best for the price
Click to expand...

USAFRet said:
I lean to Crucial and Samsung, because they make their own chips.

But SiliconPower is not a bad drive.
Click to expand...

The 870 evo CAN be amazing but there are actually two versions. One with a Phoenix controller and the inferior version with an Elpis controller. There are real world differences.

There was talk it could be identified by the packaging but I showed that I had the new packaging with the old/better Phoenix controller. Maybe a transitional stage?

Reddit is in such disarray I can't find my post but you can read up on the controller switch through some Google searches.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sycoreaper said:
The 870 evo CAN be amazing but there are actually two versions. One with a Phoenix controller and the inferior version with an Elpis controller. There are real world differences.

There was talk it could be identified by the packaging but I showed that I had the new packaging with the old/better Phoenix controller. Maybe a transitional stage?

Reddit is in such disarray I can't find my post but you can read up on the controller switch through some Google searches.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not talking about the NVMe 970 EVO Plus?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just a couple of notes:
1) It looks like when you're using the M.2 slot SATA 5 and 6 aren't available. Just making sure you don't already have 1-4 populated with stuff.

2) You definitely could use a PCIe to M.2 adapter in the second full length slot, but it will run PCIe 2.0 x4 so limited to around 2GB/s at best. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but just something good to be aware of.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom