Question SSD Type and Bandwidth as Cache Drive for Adobe Suite

[Ro_ss]

Hi guys, here for some help and recommendations from you.

Current situation:​

My pc is a mini-itx FF with these components:

• i7-13700k
• 32GB (2x16) ddr5 6600mhz
• Asu Rog Strix B760-I GAMING WIFI
• 1st nvme ssd: 500GB 970 evo (GEN3 3,5GB/S)
• 2nd nvme ssd: 1TB Sabrent Rocket (GEN3 3,5GB/S)
• RTX 3070

These new components have been chosen cause the main use for this pc is just working with Adobe programs. Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, and After Effects. About Premiere Pro, i'll use raw 4k 60fps H264 and 1080p 60fps h.264 footage, then always export everything as 1080p 60fps (nothing so long cause these are just social media reels, stories ecc). In AE i'll use both 4k and full HD compositions.

I'm planning to add a new 2TB nvme GEN4 ssd (7GB/S) as projects/files drive but...

Questions:​

1) As this motherboard has only 2 m.2 slots, is it optimal to keep the 970 as main OS + programs drive and change the Sabrent with a new 2TB gen4 and create a 500gb partition on it as a cache drive? The remaining 1,5TB will be my projects/files drive. (The Sabrent will be sold or just forgotten in a drawer lol)
* I read around that rarely cache drive might fail or it might just happen. In this case just the 500gb partition will fail or the entire 2tb ssd?

2) Using 3 ssd nvme, the main OS + Programs drive will be the Sabrent, the new 2TB gen4 drive will be the projects/files drive and the 970 will be the cache drive BUT in an external ssd case plugged via usb type-c directly to the mobo on a 10gb/s port (1000mb/s). Is this speed enough for a cache drive in my case for editing 4k and 1080p footage?

3) Is there any actual difference in performance with a nvme gen3 3,5GB/S, a nvme gen4 7GB/S, and a nvme that runs at around 1000MB/s as mentioned above?


Thx in advance.

 

[USAFRet]

The actual user facing differences between anything NVMe PCIe 3.0 and above are infinitesimal.

Leave the OS and applications where they are on the 970. Use whatever new drive, for....whatever.

* I read around that rarely cache drive might fail or it might just happen. In this case just the 500gb partition will fail or the entire 2tb ssd?

Partitions on an SSD are NOT like they were on an HDD.
They are not physical delineations. On an SSD, the partitions are just visual representations of what you and Windows want to see.
The drive firmware shuffles data around between all the cells as it sees fit, for wear leveling.

A 'partition' can't fail on its own.

And being used as a cache drive has no bearing on fail potential.

 

[Ro_ss]

I was thinking about ssd partitioning the same, and also with a bit of searching around it's like you said.

About my 2nd question, do you think that the 970 as an external cache drive plugged with a type-c port @1000mb/s is enough? I might encounter any kind of problems? I read around that quite a few people actually use external ssd as scratch/cache drive.

 

[USAFRet]

About my 2nd question, do you think that the 970 as an external cache drive plugged with a type-c port @1000mb/s is enough? I might encounter any kind of problems? I read around that quite a few people actually use external ssd as scratch/cache drive.

It won't suck.

And since you are limited on your drive ports, you are limited in options.

I use space on a SATA III SSD as my CAD/video/Lightroom cache space.

 

[Ro_ss]

It won't suck.

And since you are limited on your drive ports, you are limited in options.

I use space on a SATA III SSD as my CAD/video/Lightroom cache space.

I mean, i have the space and the port for a SATA III SSD, but it only runs at max 500mb/s, the external nvme via type-c will run at double the speed. That's the main reason i originally avoided this option.

 

[USAFRet]

I mean, i have the space and the port for a SATA III SSD, but it only runs at max 500mb/s, the external nvme via type-c will run at double the speed. That's the main reason i originally avoided this option.

And in a blind test for a cache space, you probably would not see a difference.
Yes, really.

 

[Ro_ss]

And in a blind test for a cache space, you probably would not see a difference.
Yes, really.

This might change everything 😂 but to prove it in my particular case I can't test both options, that's the main problem... i do need to go with the (hypothetically) best one right away.

 

[USAFRet]

This might change everything 😂 but to prove it in my particular case I can't test both options, that's the main problem... i do need to go with the (hypothetically) best one right away.

The main benefit of a solid state drive is the near instant access speed.
That applies across all SSD types, incl SATA III.

The published benchmark numbers, 500MB/s or whatever, are for large sequential data transfers. For instance copying from Drive 1 to Drive 2.

The daily use and data access, incl cache use,is small 4k chunks. THey are suprisingly similar across all SSD types.

n your case, the external NVMe may be better in benchmark numbers. And if you, the human, chose the SATA III option, you would always wonder if the NVMe+external would have been faster.
So go with that external thing, and don't look back.

 

[Ro_ss]

In your case, external NVMe might be better in the benchmark numbers. And if you, the man, had chosen the SATA III option, you would always wonder if NVMe+external would have been faster.
So follow that external thing and don't look back.

I like the way you"solved" the problem ahah

My doubt is that I always see around that the nvme ssd (which goes at least 3500 mb/s) is suggested as a cache drive...this is the final question

 

[USAFRet]

English, please?

 

[Ro_ss]

English, please?

Sorry for that! I unintentionally clicked a chrome plugin that translates text