Using an NVMe SSD with an HDD

[datassbadhurtyou]

Would a combination of an NVMe SSD with an HDD work if at all? I'm a novice to the technology world (still a student), so excuse my lack of knowledge.

My motherboard is ASRock A320M-DGS with 1 PCIe 3.0 x16, 1 PCIe 2.0 x1

I know M.2 SSD and NVMe SSDs are different by nature, and I cannot seem to find a topic related to the combination of functionality between NVMe SSD, and HDD. I mainly want to know, because NVMe SSDs are hell tons of fast. Like 10-times-the-maximum-standart SSD have.

 

[PuperHacker]

Yes, it will work, since you have an ultra M.2 socket on the mobo.

 

[USAFRet]

Would a combination of an NVMe SSD with an HDD work if at all? I'm a novice to the technology world (still a student), so excuse my lack of knowledge.

My motherboard is ASRock A320M-DGS with 1 PCIe 3.0 x16, 1 PCIe 2.0 x1

I know M.2 SSD and NVMe SSDs are different by nature, and I cannot seem to find a topic related to the combination of functionality between NVMe SSD, and HDD. I mainly want to know, because NVMe SSDs are hell tons of fast. Like 10-times-the-maximum-standart SSD have.

Absolutely, yes.
There is no issue with whatever combination of drives, as long as the motherboard supports it natively.

NVMe SSD, SATA SSD, HDD, DVD, whatever.


However...don't be automatically sucked into the "NVMe is OMG faster!" concept.
Yes, they are faster at some tasks. But not 10x faster than an SSD.
And in some uses, 0x faster.

 

[smorizio]

the trick with an ssd/flash based drive is you put the programs you use most on the drive for speed. any flash based drive has a write limit on the drive. you dont want to be adding and removing programs and files daily on a ssd/flash based drive. once windows is installed on the flash drive..most people put a few games on the ssd. the hard drive is used as a daily storage/download drive to save wites on the flash based drive.

 

[datassbadhurtyou]

Thank you all for the useful imput, and time - wasted to help me, although I should've figured it out by myself.

 

[Solandri]

because NVMe SSDs are hell tons of fast. Like 10-times-the-maximum-standart SSD have.

The industry has intentionally chosen MB/s to measure storage speeds because it exaggerates the impact of faster drives. MB/s is the measure you want to use if you only have x seconds and you need the computer to complete as many operations as possible in those x seconds.

Almost nobody uses computers this way. Usually you need the computer to read/write y MB of data, while you wait however many seconds for that operation to complete. In this case, sec/MB is the measure you should be using.

So let's say the computer needs to read 1 GB of sequential data to load a game. How much time would you have to wait?

125 MB/s HDD = 8 sec/GB
500 MB/s SATA SSD = 2 sec/GB
3000 MB/s NVMe SSD = 0.3 sec/GB

So yes the NVMe SSD is technically nearly 7x faster than the SATA SSD. But if you're upgrading from a HDD, the SATA SSD saves you 6 seconds, the NVMe SSD saves you 7.7 secs - barely any more time. On top of that, SATA and NVMe SSDs are just about the same at 4k (small file) speeds - around 40 MB/s for reads, 100 MB/s for writes for higher end models. So overall the two are nearly indistinguishable.

The same problem exists with car fuel mileage. MPG is what you'd use if you only had x gallons of fuel and you wanted the car to travel as far as possible. Outside of racing, almost nobody drives that way. The vast majority of the time you know you need to travel y miles (e.g. from home to work), and you want to know how much fuel you'd use for that trip. In that case the measure you want to use is GPM. That's why the rest of the world uses liters per 100 km (equivalent to GPM) - it's the correct way to measure fuel mileage for the way most people use their cars. Using MPG results in distorting the significance of improved fuel mileage for high-MPG vehicles. Switching from a 15 MPG SUV to a 19 MPG SUV actually saves you more fuel than switching from 30 MPG sedan to a 50 MPG Prius, despite the former being "only" a 4 MPG gain and 27% improvement, while the latter is a "huge" 20 MPG gain and 67% improvement. For a 100 mile trip:

15 MPG = 6.67 gallons
19 MPG = 5.26 gallons = 1.4 gallons saved

30 MPG = 3.33 gallons
50 MPG = 2 gallons = 1.33 gallons saved

If you're going to use MB/s to select a storage device, you should concentrate on the benchmark with the smallest MB/s results, and trying to make that number as big as possible. This is usually 4k read speeds. The big MB/s sequential benchmarks are nearly inconsequential because they take very little time. So most people are going to be better off saving their money and buying a cheaper SATA SSD, as long as they make sure it has decent 4k read speeds.

 

[datassbadhurtyou]

because NVMe SSDs are hell tons of fast. Like 10-times-the-maximum-standart SSD have.

The industry has intentionally chosen MB/s to measure storage speeds because it exaggerates the impact of faster drives. MB/s is the measure you want to use if you only have x seconds and you need the computer to complete as many operations as possible in those x seconds.

Almost nobody uses computers this way. Usually you need the computer to read/write y MB of data, while you wait however many seconds for that operation to complete. In this case, sec/MB is the measure you should be using.

So let's say the computer needs to read 1 GB of sequential data to load a game. How much time would you have to wait?

125 MB/s HDD = 8 sec/GB
500 MB/s SATA SSD = 2 sec/GB
3000 MB/s NVMe SSD = 0.3 sec/GB

So yes the NVMe SSD is technically nearly 7x faster than the SATA SSD. But if you're upgrading from a HDD, the SATA SSD saves you 6 seconds, the NVMe SSD saves you 7.7 secs - barely any more time. On top of that, SATA and NVMe SSDs are just about the same at 4k (small file) speeds - around 40 MB/s for reads, 100 MB/s for writes for higher end models. So overall the two are nearly indistinguishable.

The same problem exists with car fuel mileage. MPG is what you'd use if you only had x gallons of fuel and you wanted the car to travel as far as possible. Outside of racing, almost nobody drives that way. The vast majority of the time you know you need to travel y miles (e.g. from home to work), and you want to know how much fuel you'd use for that trip. In that case the measure you want to use is GPM. That's why the rest of the world uses liters per 100 km (equivalent to GPM) - it's the correct way to measure fuel mileage for the way most people use their cars. Using MPG results in distorting the significance of improved fuel mileage for high-MPG vehicles. Switching from a 15 MPG SUV to a 19 MPG SUV actually saves you more fuel than switching from 30 MPG sedan to a 50 MPG Prius, despite the former being "only" a 4 MPG gain and 27% improvement, while the latter is a "huge" 20 MPG gain and 67% improvement. For a 100 mile trip:

15 MPG = 6.67 gallons
19 MPG = 5.26 gallons = 1.4 gallons saved

30 MPG = 3.33 gallons
50 MPG = 2 gallons = 1.33 gallons saved

If you're going to use MB/s to select a storage device, you should concentrate on the benchmark with the smallest MB/s results, and trying to make that number as big as possible. This is usually 4k read speeds. The big MB/s sequential benchmarks are nearly inconsequential because they take very little time. So most people are going to be better off saving their money and buying a cheaper SATA SSD, as long as they make sure it has decent 4k read speeds.

That's a very detailed, and useful reply. Thank you a lot for which!