Ultra M.2 slot occupancy priority.

dracosmetro7

Prominent
Sep 28, 2017
11
0
510
0
I'm currently configuring a budgeted gaming/workstation hybrid build, and I'm trying to gather as much information as I can to optimize my build to great performance and slight future-proofing.

That slightly irrelevant tidbit aside, I'm concerned with how I should priorities the use of the m.2 slots on a motherboard I intend to purchase:


The ASRock ab350m pro4 motherboard.

When I build this system, I want to purchase a small 250/256 GB m.2 SSD to start as my boot drice, and I'm not hard for extra storage right now, I already have a 500gb HDD sitting around to be used as a secondary Storage drive, until i decide to expand. When I expand I want to use a 1tb m.2 SSD.

I was wondering if I should/could save the Ultra m.2 slot for the larger 1gb storage, and use what i assume is the lesser, normal m.2 slot for my 250/6 as my boot storage. Or if I can. I still don't fully understand how that works. I assume that slot, as well, is the one that would disable one if the SATA slots when in use.
 
Just to add to what jpe1701 stated.

I just installed a WD Black NVMe SSD to my AB350 Pro4 today. The Ultra M.2 slot uses the PCIe4 lane and requires an NVMe SSD, which disables a multi graphics card set up. The other M.2 slot shares the SATA3_3 slot (or second from bottom port).

In the boot menu in BIOS there's a Windows boot manager option for me as the priority boot selection. Technically I'm guessing it may be possible to do what you're suggesting (booting from SATA3_3 and having PCIe4 for storage), though most would likely use the Ultra M.2 slot for OS as it's probably where it's most beneficial.
 

dracosmetro7

Prominent
Sep 28, 2017
11
0
510
0
Okay thanks, both of you. This lead me to narrow down and research information I needed, too, and now I have a better understanding of how things work.

I'm thinking I'd use the Sata as a boot, and then when I can afford to get a 1tb PCIe, I'll reboot. I have enough young storage drives sitting around that I can use for backups by that time.
 

jpe1701

Admirable
Mar 13, 2015
1,286
3
6,165
200
Glad to help. If you want to save some money in the long run maybe you should buy a 250gb pcie ssd for your boot drive now and then a sata 1tb ssd later for storage? Would be cheaper than getting a sata 250gb now and pcie later because the pcie are more expensive per gb. The samsung 960 evo or the mydigitalssd bpx are both very reasonably priced for 250gb. I have the 960 evo and to be honest I can't tell the difference between when my computer with a sata ssd and my computer with the 960 evo boot. They are both fast but if you are transferring large files and such or have researched I'm sure you know more than I do.
 

dracosmetro7

Prominent
Sep 28, 2017
11
0
510
0
I would prefer if my mass storage device is as fast ass possible in reading and writing, as I do a lot of creative content manipulation. I wouldn't want to do all of my work in between the faster and slower just because the slower one has more space.
 
I second what jpe1701 writes above. I had a SATA SSD on my old PC before this current NVMe SSD in my new PC. Both boot up really quick to the point that there doesn't seem to be much difference between them. I chose an NVMe SSD because I wanted as many SATA ports available and wasn't going to install a second graphics card.

Much benchmarking is probably academic, in a sense. In practice there probably isn't a lot in it.

EDIT: I really need to type quicker...
There's always the option to clone the SATA SSD to the NVMe SSD later, and perhaps partition it accordingly as well. Could be something worth considering.
 

jpe1701

Admirable
Mar 13, 2015
1,286
3
6,165
200


Nope not at all. This was a very pleasant thread and I'm glad you found what you needed to know. I don't transfer large files so I forget that NVME storage can have other great benefits than just boot time and system response.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS