Question REAL performance benefits from SSD M.2 PCIe over SSD Sata drives. My doubts..

[K_Dua]

Hi,

I am a musician/architect/content creator, and i have been struggling to gather data on the issue of

--> REAL-world Performance gain from NVMEs over SATA SSDs.

I'm still to decide as to wether it should actually be beneficial to install a PCIe M.2 SSD drive instead of just going for a cheaper SATA SSD.
In a nutshell, i figure i would benefit from having my large VST libraries, on a different drive, other than the system drive.. so as to, not needing a huge system drive..and also.. not reading and writing to the same disk, when i am doing heavy tasks..

What consists of a heavy task?

multitrack session on a DAW using a lot of VSTs , ok .. ;
3D architectural rendering , check.. ;
4k video (big files) video editing.. check!

Since i do ALL of the above.. i ask :

Would it really matter if i went NVME ??
When exactly, is the system benefiting from accessing the NVME ??

On the music side of things.. Ableton Live's site, advises us on using a 2nd drive, for those heavy VST libraries.. and also advises on having a 3rd separate drive for recording and caching those temporary files.
On my PC Desktop i've got that diversity covered.
On a live gig, using the Macbook Pro (with single NVME drive) that's a different matter...

So, i was thinking of going external drives, with USB 3.0 and thunderbolt (gen2 - older Mac) .
Those two drives would be :

1. A cheaper (and smaller) SATA drive to using through USB 3.0 (as a faster drive would bottleneck anyway through USB 3.0) on the REC&cache files.
2. a better & faster NVME (preferably PCIe 3.0 x4) for those big libraries to being stored and accessed.

Again..
Would it matter going NVME ?

OK,
Its all fine & good.. but actually WHAT Defines.. a large file.. ?

And WHERE (or..from what real speeds) does one draw the line between being worthile going with a faster SSD.. ?

I mean.. i am thinking of buying a used Macbook Pro mid2014..
I know its internal NVME is PCIe 2x.. but it features a couple of Thunderbolt gen 2 ports.
Does anyone know if i would be able to have PCIe 4x over thunderbolt ? If i did.. i'd get an external NVME and plug it in using Thunderbolt.

On the PC Desktop.. i would have to go, at least with those 4x lanes on PCIe 2.0... because..if one goes lower that that, it won't matter when comparing with SATA III . Maybe a 200..300MB/s in real speeds.. increase, over SATA.

If i go with the next Macbook Pro, the 2015 model.. the PCIe channels are 4lanes.. so i almost triple the speed .. of a SATA III drive. That might convince me..

Still...
WHEN is that performance-gain REALLY being utilized ??

A Drums VST library could be 30GB..60GB.. but.. when u access the actual VST on your DAW session, the files are not 30GB big. Plus.. a lot of the data gets accessed through RAM... AND.. (i assume) it is not truly Writing.. It is mostly Reading.. those files.
Correct ?

When is one benefitting from having gone the extra mile with a faster drive, then ? ?


Thanks very much for any light on theses matters.
much appreciated.

K_Dua



PS: plus..
On a 3D architectural rendering.. for eg.. which drive would benefit more from being the fastest.. ?
The one where the software doing the rendering is installed;
The one where the file, you're working on, is saved on.
The one where the rendered file is being saved to ??

 

[USAFRet]

Read between the lines in this article.
Ignore the article contents of difference between Intel and AMD...instead, look at the difference between an 860 EVO (SATA), and a 970 EVO (NVMe).
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-vs-amd-storage-performance,6178.html

tl-dr : In a LOT of use cases, not a lot of difference.

 

[kanewolf]

The biggest performance increase is from spinning SATA to SSD SATA. After that is IS a diminishing returns situation. The trade off of adding more RAM also has to be considered. But a pair of SATA MX500 1TB disks is a very good option for most of the use cases you list.

 

[freercurse]

sata ssd's shows performance difference bwteen three main factors.
Read }
} these two are based upon sequencial speeds as in mean a single file. (without any breakages a folder would not count
Write }
Random: Random however will be more akin to reall world performance, (this is where the more the different the better the value also tied in with the warrenty.

the main thing you need to know is how often you will need to read form a 30gb 40 gb file if it is once in a project and then it cache' for the entire day it may have less of a case.
however if it is everysingle time you access that particular product then i would 100% go for the faster drive you will nmotice the difference.

as for reading and writing a NVMe SSD will be a lot faster than a SATA SSD there is no doubt. the difference you will be looking for is the random IOPS score.

i would also say that NVME SSD's have really come down in price. it would be more safe to get the faster drive and it not be 100% neccersary than get the SATA SSD and not get the performance you were for.

if it was a graphics card and £600 up 1000s it would have more of a case not to over spend

 

[K_Dua]

Read between the lines in this article.
<...>, look at the difference between an 860 EVO (SATA), and a 970 EVO (NVMe).

tl-dr : In a LOT of use cases, not a lot of difference.

Well,....
1st of all,

THANKS very much for such prompt replies gentlemen.
It was great to feel that i too can be helped when participating, other than just trying to find the right thread to read from. This Forum is a classic, but is feels so much better to actively PARTICIPATE.. 😉

As for the hardware issues..

I learned quite a lot, with that linked article. Again!..thanks.

SATA III really holds, in real world circumstances.
What kills me about it.. is investing in 'old' tech.
I'm one of those ppl that really believes in investing in the nearly-best tech, when spending the $...so as to being able to keep the same machine(s) for longer time.

I also learned that.. pretty soon with the PCIe tech advancing quickly.. one will soon have storage speeds rivalring DDR4 RAM speeds.... which..to me.. is just incredible.
I've read several articles about Intel lowering their prices..due to really heavy AMD competition.. and i guess they ought to.. because.. 'team red' hehe.. is breaking ahead.

I had never considered getting an AMD CPU .. but that might change on my next Desktop upgrade.
Plus.. with my current setup -> i've got an Intel i5 (6500) .. 960GTX GPU and 32GB of RAM.. and Lightroom is just unbearable to work with.. as.. (according to task manager) the CPU bottlenecks BIG-time.. all the time.
With Affinity Photo it behaves a little better...but still....
I'm actually considering getting an iPAD pro..so as to take advantage of its hardware&architecture on Affinity .

That's why machine performance is so important imo..
I hate to invest and then have the computer not allow me to doing what i need to do.

Diverging from the main thread, a little... .. i'm guessing that .. i'd gain more from going with a higher frequency CPU, than a higher lane SSD M.2. :

. 2.8GHz i7 2014 Macbook Pro (PCIe x2)
than a similar priced
. 2.5GHz i7 2015 (same gen CPU) Macbook Pro (PCIe x4)

What do you reckon ?


As for the main issue..

the external NVMEs or SATA drives..
(prices are not very far apart.. but enclosures for NVMEs are way more expensive, though.. Plus, in order to take advantage of their speed advantage one needs to jump from USB 3.0 to sth else.. sth more expensive..)

Although not as in the past.. the sweet spot for ext drives still seems to be on SATA drives.

So.. i guess i'll just forget Thunderbolt and focus on USB 3.0 and SATA SSDs.. for Music VST libraries.. and maybe.... maybe USB 3.1 with a cheaper Crucial P1 in a cheap enclosure when i start to struggle with bigger/4K video files, transfering between the Desktop and other platforms (eg. Laptop).

In the mean time.... @freercurse

gathering info from the VST brands that sell the instruments i am looking for, so as to understand the way the DAW software and CPU accesses their libraries...seems paramount.
Superior Drummer 3 samples are over 230GB . Still .. it is hard to gather how much memory is actually used while having a patch loaded. I believe the library is cached in RAM.. hence the reason i got 32GB in the 1st place.. but i might not be entirely right....
It only seems natural that .. if the CPU keeps sending the software.. access commands, in order to constantly read that data.... that NVME should be a game changer..


All in all .... it only serves to show how all the fuss on 'new' hardware is often just hype, and the Market-Economy moto.

Thank you again guys!

 

[K_Dua]

the difference you will be looking for is the random IOPS score.

i would also say that NVME SSD's have really come down in price. it would be more safe to get the faster drive and it not be 100% neccersary than get the SATA SSD and not get the performance you were for.

Yeah.. if one is transferring data...sure.. NVME is in deed faster.

As for going with SATA, (again_ i hate investing in dated tech) ..yes!... it might be worth it to invest on cheap NVMEs , even if i would not take advantage of them right now.
So .. an NVME SSD bottlenecking through an USB 3.0 bus might not be a bad investiment.. because..later on i might just change/update the bus and keep the disk,

😉

cheers!

 

[geofelt]

The main benefit of nvme/pcie is faster sequential access.
I would think that would be of great benefit to you.
As to random access which windows does 90% of the time, there is very little difference between sata and pcie access.
The main drawback to pcie devices is the higher cost.
A second possible drawback is a limited number of m.2 ports on the typicsl motherboard.
With sata devices you can have many.

With hard drives, there was a benefit to processing using separate drives.
That was because the mechanical arm would get stolen one from the other.
With a ssd there is no latency issues. so that is not a benefit for ssd devices.

With ssd devices, there is a benefit to having a large ssd. That insures that there will be plenty of free nand blocks available to do a direct update.
If a ssd is near full, the device needs to work harder to free up available blocks and may well resort to doing a read/write process to handle a simple output.


My thought would be to use a single large pcie drive for everything.
Use an external HDD drive for backups.

 

[USAFRet]

Not directly related to your particular use case, but...

I recently added an Intel 660p NVMe drive to my lineup. PCIe adapter in a PCIe slot.
The Intel is a slow performer in the NVMe world, but still (in theory) faster than a typical SATA III SSD.
Comparison between a Samsung 860 EVO and the Intel 660p:

So, the Intel is almost OMG! 4x faster than the top ranked Samsung.
NOT REALLY.

My primary CPU/drive intensive use is Adobe Lightroom. RAW pics directly out of my Fuji X-T1, into Lightroom, processing as needed, blah blah blah.

Exporting.
Writing out to 3 different drives individually.
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SATA III - 5 years old
Samsung 860 EVO 1TB SATA III - 6 months old
Intel 660p 1TB NVMe - 5 days old
(other PC specs listed in my sig)

Reboot between each iteration to prevent any caching issues.

Adobe Lightroom, 5 files directly out of my camera.
Edits applied to them as a group, writing out as a group.
Native resolution of 4896x3264
Initial file size of ~33MB each (RAW), resulting file size of 6.4MB each (jpg)
Exporting/saving as .jpg.
The same 5 original files and edits.

You would assume that the Intel kicks the other 2 to the curb.

HA.
Zero difference between the 3 drives - approx 15 seconds to complete the process.

Conclusion?
NVMe drives are good, but don't expect magic.

 

[mdd1963]

If your MB has M.2 NVME slots, as the Intel 660P is virtually at SATA prices, and, at least 2-3 times as fast on sequential reads/writes... there'd be zero need for even considering sticking with SATA at standard capacitites... (certainly agree that booting 1/2 second quicker or launching a game 1/2 second quicker is no earth shatteringly noticeable improvement,,,; but, for folks that might be routinely tinkering with large files and that have deep pockets...a couple of 2 TB NVME drives might go a long a way, allowing the content creators to resort to spinning 4-12 TB drives for media archiving purposes after project is complete.

 

[USAFRet]

Right.
As prices drop, NVMe drives are becoming more viable vs SATA III SSD's, especially for new builds with multiple M.2 ports.

Just like SATA III SSD vs spinning HDD. All my systems in the house are 100% SSD, except for the big NAS box.

 

[hang-the-9]

Long post, but the general thing between drives is "If you have an SATA SSD, it's not really worth to swap to PCIe SSD" "If you don't have an SSD then you may as well get a PCIe SSD unless your motherboard does not support it naively." A lot of people go around buying add-in cards, PCIe drives, then spend hours trouble-shooting boot issues, etc..

Benchmarks are one thing, but unless you are running a large company that makes money of speed of services or running a particle accelerator, there is no need to get PCIe over SATA for normal use.

Really boils down to two sentences. Most usage scenarios could use a faster CPU, more RAM or a faster video card over SATA or NVME drive. Would I care if my PC booted in 7 seconds instead of 8, or a game loaded in 8 seconds instead of 10? Nope. Would I want to get another 20fps from a faster CPU or video card? Much more likely.

 

[K_Dua]

Adobe Lightroom, 5 files directly out of my camera.
Edits applied to them as a group, writing out as a group.
Native resolution of 4896x3264
Initial file size of ~33MB each (RAW), resulting file size of 6.4MB each (jpg)
Exporting/saving as .jpg.
The same 5 original files and edits.

You would assume that the Intel kicks the other 2 to the curb.

HA.
Zero difference between the 3 drives - approx 15 seconds to complete the process.

Conclusion?
NVMe drives are good, but don't expect magic.

Interesting 'study' on the Exporting speeds.

My use is very centered on Adobe too.
I've switched to Affinity Photo, very recently..so..still making the transition.

My main problem with these matters is not so much the exporting..as you might have guessed..and actually aluded to.. but rather the performance DURING operation.. Editing.
And with Ableton, the issue is maintained.
What pisses me off is not taking a few seconds, even minutes longer.. transfering files.. but rather.. trying to work and the PC lagging & freezing...
VERY often.. i'm .. for eg.. raising the exposure on a zone on the photograph.. and as i zoom in.. or apply the brush.. BAM.. 15secs stall..
I gathered that it is 95% CPU based.. but i bring it just to illustrate that i do NOT want any similar problem with disk issues.. specially when recording (god forbid playing in a live gig) when using VSTs on Ableton.

I might be overreacting here.. but i've done a few quick tests with my MAcbook Pro, and.. with 2 tracks.. a couple of VSTs and a couple of effects.. the CPU load is already @ 80+ %. I wonder what i'd get if recording a drumset, with 12 to 15 tracks...

I understand i can tweek Ableton to load stuff into RAM..but still..

What are my options.. on the Macbook Pro 2015 (Retina).. if i go NVME on a USB 3.1 gen2 enclosure?
Its seems like the the most cost effective way to take advantage of an NVME as an external drive.

However.. The Retina Mac doesn't feature USB 3.1 gen 2 support, other that using an expensive dock. (and even then, i've read the bus is pretty limited..)
It only features USB 3.0 ports which.. will bottleneck the hell out of that connection..down to basically SATA III speeds..

Adapting USB 3.1 gen 2 to Thunderbolt (gen 2) seems like my only option.. but i am unable to find a viable solution.. with any kind of adapter or adapted cable..at a reasonable price.

So...back to square 1...with acquiring an NVME (probably the Crucial P1 1TB) and sticking it into an USB 3.0 enclosure until i get some other option, in the future, that doesnt cost an arm & leg.


Anyone have any data on this... perhaps some kind of suggestion ??



Thanks very much !

 

[K_Dua]

The main benefit of nvme/pcie is faster sequential access.
I would think that would be of great benefit to you.
As to random access which windows does 90% of the time, there is very little difference between sata and pcie access.

I believe that using heavy VSTs on, Ableton, for eg.. i still wouldn't be using too much sequential processes.
I assume that its way heavier on the RAM.. than on the disks.. Other than when recording.. or playing back a really big Multitrack song.. with a lot of data being read.
So .. i agree with you .. I might be some benefit on these types of scenarios/usage.

The main drawback to pcie devices is the higher cost.
A second possible drawback is a limited number of m.2 ports on the typicsl motherboard.
With sata devices you can have many.
Yep.
1 slot on my Desktop mb ; 1 (only) slot on the Macbook Pro, and as many as i want/need as external drives.

True.. 2TB SSD NVMEs are really expensive.. I might consider going to a Samsung 960 or 970,, (1TB) but right now i am on the more budget Crucial P1's (1TB) . . because i have got to buy at leat 2 of them _ Macbook system drive upgrade ; Desktop upgrade ; external disk in enclosure.

With hard drives, there was a benefit to processing using separate drives.
That was because the mechanical arm would get stolen one from the other.
With a ssd there is no latency issues. so that is not a benefit for ssd devices.

 

[K_Dua]

Long post, but the general thing between drives is "If you have an SATA SSD, it's not really worth to swap to PCIe SSD" "If you don't have an SSD then you may as well get a PCIe SSD unless your motherboard does not support it naively." A lot of people go around buying add-in cards, PCIe drives, then spend hours trouble-shooting boot issues, etc..

Yeah, thanks for reading 😉
This whole thing started (for me) when i decided to get back into Music.. and decided to getting a macbook Pro. The Retina models feature a SSD NVME as the system drive.. and i decided to upgrade from 512 to 1TB.
Then.. as it is the only drive.. i started struggling to find room to store all the VSTs.. which have HUGE libraries.. average 50..60GB.. and some with 200GB _ a 2TB drive is easily 90% full) .
So i decided that storing those large libraries on a fast external drive would be optimal.. as it would be cheaper, and practical. I'd be able to even use the same VSTs when swapping beween working on the laptop AND Desktop.

Benchmarks are one thing, but unless you are running a large company that makes money of speed of services or running a particle accelerator, there is no need to get PCIe over SATA for normal use.
That's why i titled the question as -> real world use.. and not peak benchmark readings. 😉

Really boils down to two sentences. Most usage scenarios could use a faster CPU, more RAM or a faster video card over SATA or NVME drive. Would I care if my PC booted in 7 seconds instead of 8, or a game loaded in 8 seconds instead of 10? Nope. Would I want to get another 20fps from a faster CPU or video card? Much more likely.

Yes... i am also interested in getting opinions on what be preferential _ 2 equivalent machines.. with the same gen CPU, but having 2.8GHz frequencies.. with a slower PCIe x2 drive, and a 2.5GHz with a faster PCIe x4 drive.

thanks

 

[USAFRet]

"during editing" there is again zero difference. That all happens in CPU/GPU/RAM. Not the drive.

 

[K_Dua]

"during editing" there is again zero difference. That all happens in CPU/GPU/RAM. Not the drive.

Sure,

The question remains though :

scenario #1 - Macbook Pro:

During editing using VST libraries.. one's got to access the huge libraries.. which i have stored on a dedicated external 2TB HDD (7200rpm SATA III 128mb cache WD Gold drive).
i will access that disc via USB 3.0, when on the MacBook Pro.. but i might be able to come up with a faster Thunderbolt 2 'converted' to USB 3.1 gen2 setup..... or sth of that nature, if it proved to be worthy...as a pure thunderbolt setup humongously expensive.

Do you think the USB 3.0 will hold well ?
Or should i move up ?
(i reckon the USB 3.0 will bottleneck any drive faster than that HDD i've got. Would you guys agree?)


scenario #2 - Win 10 Desktop
(Asus z-170 gaming pro MB)

I can access the same libraries (Win version) , in a similar scenario.. with the same external drive.
On the Asus MB however, i have a USB 3.1 gen 2 port, AND an internal M.2 slot PCIe x4 slot .

My Win 10 desktop system drive is in an Samsung EVO Sata SSD (256GB)

I can either go with the a Crucial P1 1Tb M.2 NVME to install the VST libraries internally..
OR
i can keep them on the same NVME (but on an external enclosure) and use the aforemented USB 3.1 port .


What do you guys reckon ??
The same for VIDEO editing, and the same for 3D Architectural renderings. (mainly on Artlantis).

Thank you !

 

[USAFRet]

Personally, I wouldn't try to shove NVMe drive performance through a USB port. 3.0 or 3.1.

 

[proactivematter]

Interesting 'study' on the Exporting speeds.

My use is very centered on Adobe too.
I've switched to Affinity Photo, very recently..so..still making the transition.

My main problem with these matters is not so much the exporting..as you might have guessed..and actually aluded to.. but rather the performance DURING operation.. Editing.
And with Ableton, the issue is maintained.
What pisses me off is not taking a few seconds, even minutes longer.. transfering files.. but rather.. trying to work and the PC lagging & freezing...
VERY often.. i'm .. for eg.. raising the exposure on a zone on the photograph.. and as i zoom in.. or apply the brush.. BAM.. 15secs stall..
I gathered that it is 95% CPU based.. but i bring it just to illustrate that i do NOT want any similar problem with disk issues.. specially when recording (god forbid playing in a live gig) when using VSTs on Ableton.

I might be overreacting here.. but i've done a few quick tests with my MAcbook Pro, and.. with 2 tracks.. a couple of VSTs and a couple of effects.. the CPU load is already @ 80+ %. I wonder what i'd get if recording a drumset, with 12 to 15 tracks...

I understand i can tweek Ableton to load stuff into RAM..but still..

What are my options.. on the Macbook Pro 2015 (Retina).. if i go NVME on a USB 3.1 gen2 enclosure?
Its seems like the the most cost effective way to take advantage of an NVME as an external drive.

However.. The Retina Mac doesn't feature USB 3.1 gen 2 support, other that using an expensive dock. (and even then, i've read the bus is pretty limited..)
It only features USB 3.0 ports which.. will bottleneck the hell out of that connection..down to basically SATA III speeds..

Adapting USB 3.1 gen 2 to Thunderbolt (gen 2) seems like my only option.. but i am unable to find a viable solution.. with any kind of adapter or adapted cable..at a reasonable price.

So...back to square 1...with acquiring an NVME (probably the Crucial P1 1TB) and sticking it into an USB 3.0 enclosure until i get some other option, in the future, that doesnt cost an arm & leg.


Anyone have any data on this... perhaps some kind of suggestion ??



Thanks very much !

Looks like you, as well as a few other here, might be interested in taking a read through the issue I am currently facing, as I am trying to use an NVMe drive with an external USB 3.1 enclosure on Mac.

I too wanted to be futureproofed, but it seems this time I took a leap too far and became an early adopter. It's a unique use case for an OS that is notoriously picky. Not a fun thing to troubleshoot.

I am about to return these components and purchase a common 2.5 SATA SSD. A shame really, got a great deal. on these. Will not be saving much money at all once I make the switch.

Also, I've been learning a whole lot about NVMe, including the fact that although the controller chip benefits from being cooled since it runs extremely hot (and will throttle), the NVMe memory chips actually operate better when hot, and will deteriorate if cooled - as in, it will loose upwards of half of its lifespan.

 

[K_Dua]

Personally, I wouldn't try to shove NVMe drive performance through a USB port. 3.0 or 3.1.

What would you do for an external hard drive scenario, then ?

 

[USAFRet]

What would you do for an external hard drive scenario, then ?

Depends on use and budget, but a regular SATA III SSD would do the trick.

 

[K_Dua]

Looks like you, as well as a few other here, might be interested in taking a read through the issue I am currently facing, as I am trying to use an NVMe drive with an external USB 3.1 enclosure on Mac.

I too wanted to be futureproofed, but it seems this time I took a leap too far and became an early adopter. It's a unique use case for an OS that is notoriously picky. Not a fun thing to troubleshoot.
Been there a few times, in several issues... I hear you .. hehe

I am about to return these components and purchase a common 2.5 SATA SSD. A shame really, got a great deal. on these. Will not be saving much money at all once I make the switch.
So, you mean.. that you're basically sending it all to hell, and sticking with an old SATA drive ?
(one of the options that i have antecipated for me, is basically going for the cheap nVME because, they're about the same price as old SATA drives.. and knowingly bottlenecking it.. with an USB 3.0 enclosure..as it is the current cost VS speed sweet-spot , and later upgrade the enclosure, keeping the disk.)

Also, I've been learning a whole lot about NVMe, including the fact that although the controller chip benefits from being cooled since it runs extremely hot (and will throttle), the NVMe memory chips actually operate better when hot, and will deteriorate if cooled - as in, it will loose upwards of half of its lifespan.

This is interesting. It sounds logic... Every material has its optimal temperature for operation..right ?
I'm gonna take a look at the link you shared 😉

Thanks 😉

 

[K_Dua]

Depends on use and budget, but a regular SATA III SSD would do the trick.

True.
i just think that the nVME is basically the same price. Unless i go for a 2TB drive, which then will be REALLY expensive on either case.
A Crucial P1 1TB nVME is 125€.. (intel 660p 234€ for a 2TB unit ; 460€ for the Samsung's EVO 970 plus 2TB)
A Crucial MX500 (SATA) 1TB is 120€. (233€ for a 2TB unit)

As i previously mentioned, i could benefit from USB 3.1 gen2 on my Windows Destkop.
Only USB 3.0 on the Macbook Pro, though.
Imo .. USB 3.1 would be a significant speed/performance bump.
USB 3.0 would be about the same speed..as SATA III.

So.. that only leaves me trying to figure out if _ the enclosures' $ difference would influence the decision.

 

[USAFRet]

NVMe and SATA SSD prices are falling like a rock.
6 months ago, the choice would have been completely different.

2 weeks ago, I bought a 1TB NVMe (Intel 660p) for less than a 1TB Crucial or Samsung SSD. And only twice the price of a 1TB HDD.
$88.

6 months from now? Who knows...😉