News TeamGroup EX2 Elite 1TB SSD is Just $79 on Amazon

[Admin]

This SSD from TeamGroup is discounted up to 15% off for Amazon Prime members.

TeamGroup EX2 Elite 1TB SSD is Just $79 on Amazon : Read more

 

[nofanneeded]

Sata drives need to disappear or sell like $40 per TB ...

 

[Nemesia]

If SATA SSD was 40 dollars per TB...why would you use a NVMe that load your OS and load your games like 1-2 seconds faster instead of just using a normal SATA SSD?

You could have 3TB of SATA SSD for 120 dollars instead of paying 120 for a 1TB NVMe. If this was true I'd take the 3TB SSD any day of the week and there isn't even a down side. Loading times are almost identical.

 

[hotaru251]

Sata drives need to disappear or sell like $40 per TB ...

why?

older systems can't use NVME.

sata ssd are only way to get fast storage.

 

[Rdslw]

Sata drives need to disappear or sell like $40 per TB ...

We are getting there. Price of sata was twice current 2-3 years ago. QLC & PLC are ways to lower costs while delivering enough for normal users.
And again in 2-3 years you will see another 30-40% down.
Sata M.2 is the way to go as its cheap & small (which promotes even cheaper components).
so they will go probably ~50% down in next 2 years, and 2.5 sata will become legacy "premium" option.
just like ddr3 is right now.

 

[nofanneeded]

Sata drives need to disappear or sell like $40 per TB ...

If SATA SSD was 40 dollars per TB...why would you use a NVMe that load your OS and load your games like 1-2 seconds faster instead of just using a normal SATA SSD?

You could have 3TB of SATA SSD for 120 dollars instead of paying 120 for a 1TB NVMe. If this was true I'd take the 3TB SSD any day of the week and there isn't even a down side. Loading times are almost identical.

IOPS is four times the speed in NVME ,and it is more fater than 2 seconds when you access thousands of tiny files .

Also , true if you want more storage it should be cheap SSD not mechanical HDD ...

 

[nofanneeded]

why?

older systems can't use NVME.

sata ssd are only way to get fast storage.

Well it has to stop at one time , do you see IDE drives around today ?

 

[mdd1963]

That's a darn good price for a 2.5" SATA in 1 TB....now if Crucial will just match it, or, come close, on their MX500 line!

 

[USAFRet]

Sata drives need to disappear or sell like $40 per TB ...

In your specific use case, show us the user facing difference between a SATA III SSD and a NVMe SSD.
Further, the diff between 3.0 and 4.0.

Not benchmark numbers....actual user facing difference.

 

[nofanneeded]

In your specific use case, show us the user facing difference between a SATA III SSD and a NVMe SSD.
Further, the diff between 3.0 and 4.0.

Not benchmark numbers....actual user facing difference.

1- Backuping , Higher IOPS helps alot in total time to backup your data ... reading tens of thousands tiny files .. here NVME is four times faster ...

2- Making image files or also alot faster ...

3- indexing and file search , and search within files .. like four times faster as well

4- Showing icons of files in folders , alot faster if there are hundreds of files.

5- Booting systems does not feel much faster ...

6- Updating systems feels alot faster when you calculate restarting many times and installing updates.

7- Games loading .. well depends on the game .. but not more than 4 seconds per level.

But between PCIE 3.0 and 4.0 there is not much difference because the random reading and writing files will never saturate PCIe 3.0 anyways ....

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Gonna be honest, going from a $25 dramless SATA SSD to a nice $120 NVME I notice very little if any difference in day to day tasks. I timed it once and boot times were maybe 2-3 seconds faster, not something noticeable unless timing it.

I couldn't find a reason that you would need a SATA drive to be that cheap in order to justify it.

 

[USAFRet]

1- Backuping , Higher IOPS helps alot in total time to backup your data ... reading tens of thousands tiny files .. here NVME is four times faster ...

2- Making image files or also alot faster ...

3- indexing and file search , and search within files .. like four times faster as well

4- Showing icons of files in folders , alot faster if there are hundreds of files.

5- Booting systems does not feel much faster ...

6- Updating systems feels alot faster when you calculate restarting many times and installing updates.

7- Games loading .. well depends on the game .. but not more than 4 seconds per level.

But between PCIE 3.0 and 4.0 there is not much difference because the random reading and writing files will never saturate PCIe 3.0 anyways ....

So.....no actual "numbers", beyond benchmark things.

Samsung 860 EVO vs Intel 660p
Both 1TB

The 660p is 3x "faster" than the SATA III 860, right?


In my actual tested use case with Adobe Lightroom:
Taking 5 .RAF files directly from my Fuji X-T1.
Applying multiple random edits to those files.

Exporting that same batch of files, as jpg, out to each of those drives, with a full reboot in between (to alleviate any cache issues)
Takes the exact time, 15 secs, +/- 0.5.

 

[USAFRet]

Or this:

 

[nofanneeded]

So.....no actual "numbers", beyond benchmark things.

Samsung 860 EVO vs Intel 660p
Both 1TB

The 660p is 3x "faster" than the SATA III 860, right?


In my actual tested use case with Adobe Lightroom:
Taking 5 .RAF files directly from my Fuji X-T1.
Applying multiple random edits to those files.

Exporting that same batch of files, as jpg, out to each of those drives, with a full reboot in between (to alleviate any cache issues)
Takes the exact time, 15 secs, +/- 0.5.

umm ..

1 TB intel 660P Nvme is 150K/220K IOPS

1 TB Samsung 970 evo plus IOPS is 600K/550K

Get a better Nvme SSD and feel the difference .

The other movie you put is about booting and games loads which I said does not feel alot better ... but the other points I stated are still Valid.

 

[USAFRet]

umm ..

1 TB intel 660P Nvme is 150K/220K IOPS

1 TB Samsung 970 evo plus IOPS is 600K/550K

Get a better Nvme SSD and feel the difference .

The other movie you put is about booting and games loads which I said does not feel alot better ... but the other points I stated are still Valid.

Yes, the 660p is on the lower end of NVMe drives.

But still, you've not showed us any actual user facing numbers.

Yes, better drives such as a 970 EVO Plus are faster.
But that does NOT equate to "Sata drives need to disappear or sell like $40 per TB "
Sorry.

 

[Nemesia]

Ask someone to put an NVMe in a system or a SATA SSD and try to know if that system has a NVMe or SSD by just booting the OS or loading a game.

 

[nofanneeded]

Yes, the 660p is on the lower end of NVMe drives.

But still, you've not showed us any actual user facing numbers.

Yes, better drives such as a 970 EVO Plus are faster.
But that does NOT equate to "Sata drives need to disappear or sell like $40 per TB "
Sorry.

How do you expect me to show you numbers in backups and other stuff I mentioned than games loading and OS booting ? I dnot have the tools to benchmark them but they really feel faster , try searching in your files for words or backup data , or compare large file icons appearing in both ... or lets say Full System Anti Virus scan .. image your NVME to SATA SSD and run Full (not smart) virus scan on both and put a timer.

well to disappear I withdraw it , but $40 for 1TB SATA ? NO WAY ... it is a very old technology alread with very low IOPS and should be priced as such in 2020 IMO.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

So a SATA drive that offers no noticeable performance difference from NVME 95% of the time should only be worth 1/3 as much as a drive that is only noticeably faster in few circumstances?

You are delusional.

 

[nofanneeded]

So a SATA drive that offers no noticeable performance difference from NVME 95% of the time should only be worth 1/3 as much as a drive that is only noticeably faster in few circumstances?

You are delusional.

Delusional ? what ? to ask for an old Technology to be cheaper ? SATA can not go above 100k IOPS , nvme will reach 1 MILLION IOPS SOON .. TEN TIMES.

Yes it should be $40 per TB for the technology it is using and the performance it is giving. not to mention the very low TBW as well.

PC using is not only in booting System and games level load times , Actually I dont game much so your use is 10% for me .. but I search within files alot and I feel the system alot better with NVME. and much more responsive.

 

[USAFRet]

How do you expect me to show you numbers in backups and other stuff I mentioned than games loading and OS booting ? I dnot have the tools to benchmark them but they really feel faster , try searching in your files for words or backup data , or compare large file icons appearing in both ... or lets say Full System Anti Virus scan .. image your NVME to SATA SSD and run Full (not smart) virus scan on both and put a timer.

well to disappear I withdraw it , but $40 for 1TB SATA ? NO WAY ... it is a very old technology alread with very low IOPS and should be priced as such in 2020 IMO.

You've said there is a huge difference, and SATA drives need to die.
Presumably, you'd be able to post up some numbers and back that thought up.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Afaik TBW is not effected by nvme vs sata. That is up to the quality of the nand and drive overall.

 

[nofanneeded]

You've said there is a huge difference, and SATA drives need to die.
Presumably, you'd be able to post up some numbers and back that thought up.

I said in some areas there is upto 4 times difference , while in booting and game loading you wont see huge difference .. Actualy the clip you posted confirms what I said about booting time and game loading .. I cant find anyone online who tested backup , indexing , searching for words inside files on the SSD , or comparing Full Virus scans etc ..

when you showed your numbers you did not bother to test it your self and show numbers , you just showed youtube clip about it from some one else..

I said my experience , maybe I will try to test it and translate my experience into numbers some time when I am free , or maybe not

 

[USAFRet]

In my realm, backups take the same amount of time, no matter which drive is being backed up.
They go across the LAN, to the NAS and its spinning hard drives.
The type of source drive, be it SATA III SSD or NVMe, makes no difference.

Also, that backup happens between the hours of midnight and 4AM. If it takes 1 minute or 4 minutes....that is irrelevant. To me, anyway, because I am asleep. Even if I weren't asleep, that happens in the background.

 

[nofanneeded]

In my realm, backups take the same amount of time, no matter which drive is being backed up.
They go across the LAN, to the NAS and its spinning hard drives.
The type of source drive, be it SATA III SSD or NVMe, makes no difference.

Also, that backup happens between the hours of midnight and 4AM. If it takes 1 minute or 4 minutes....that is irrelevant. To me, anyway, because I am asleep. Even if I weren't asleep, that happens in the background.

It depends on which type of backup you are using , file to file , or image to image .. .. if you construct the huge image file on the NVME then backup it , it will be much faster than sending them file by file.

I backup my files using external SSD drives not network , because as you said it takes hours on networks...

 

[USAFRet]

It depends on which type of backup you are using , file to file , or image to image .. .. if you construct the huge image file on the NVME then backup it , it will be much faster than sending them file by file.

I backup my files using external SSD drives not network , because as you said it takes hours on networks...

Hours?
My nightly incrementals take but minutes each. Each individual system or drive, on its own timer.
Starting at midnight, and then each every 30 minutes. Why every 30 minutes? To keep them from potentially stepping on each other.

Macrium Reflect, incremental images, keep for 30 days, delete the eldest.