Question Which 2TB NVMe PCIe4 SSD?

[MoreMoneyThanSense]

I am getting an X570 motherboard to support the Ryzen 3950X when it comes out. But since these mobos have PCIe4 support I was considering getting an M.2 NVMe SSD card that can take advantage of the PCIe4.

If I wanted to get a 2TB drive, what would a good option be?

 

[faalin]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C8Y31G1/?tag=pcpapi-20

Samsung 970 Evo

 

[MoreMoneyThanSense]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C8Y31G1/?tag=pcpapi-20

Samsung 970 Evo

If I am not mistaken, according to the table below this is technically PCIe Gen 3.0?

 

[faalin]

Give this a good read, https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/corsair_mp600_pcie_4_nvme_ssd_review,20.html

If you want true PCI-e 4.0 then the corsair MP600

 

[mdd1963]

if looking for brag-worthy 'droolicous' benchmark numbers, you need PCI-e 4.0...; the Mp600 in 2 TB capacity is $450

If you jest need 2 TB of super reasonably priced storage, there is still Intel's 660P at only $225 or so...it's only PCI-e 3.0 and 'only' 2x lanes, so it's only ~1700 MB/sec read/write, or, about 3 times as fast as standard SATA drives...


The 970 EVO PLus in 2 TB trim is $470...

 

[USAFRet]

I am getting an X570 motherboard to support the Ryzen 3950X when it comes out. But since these mobos have PCIe4 support I was considering getting an M.2 NVMe SSD card that can take advantage of the PCIe4.

If I wanted to get a 2TB drive, what would a good option be?

For what use?

 

[popatim]

I'd wait for alternatives. All the current pcie4 NVME drives uses the Phison controller.

 

[MoreMoneyThanSense]

I'd wait for alternatives. All the current pcie4 NVME drives uses the Phison controller.

What's wrong with Phison?

 

[MoreMoneyThanSense]

For what use?

Mix of things.

-I'm already going all-in on this build, so may-as-well. I also enjoy overkill and it would be fun to have high benchmarks. I'm already considering an x570 for the new Ryzen 3950X CPU so I figure I may as well take advantage of the PCIe 4.0 that's present.

-I use the computer for both a mix of gaming as well as work (coding, Photoshop, video editing, Kicad type stuff, some web design stuff, etc). Sometimes files can be large and it would be nice to have a fast hard drive. Do I need it? No, but it's just a nice-to-have.

 

[USAFRet]

Personally, I'd wait a bit on the PCIe 4.0 drives.
Let any initial issues work them selves out first.

But then again, I do that with all parts, not just drives.
Let someone else pay for the initial problems.

 

[USAFRet]

-I use the computer for both a mix of gaming as well as work (coding, Photoshop, video editing, Kicad type stuff, some web design stuff, etc). Sometimes files can be large and it would be nice to have a fast hard drive. Do I need it? No, but it's just a nice-to-have.

I do a lot of those same functions.

I cannot tell the difference between a Samsung 860 EVO 1TB (SATA III) and a 1TB Intel 660p (NVMe).
Rendering and writing out 5 RAW images from Lightroom, with exactly the same edits/mods, takes exactly the same amount of time - 15 secs.

 

[MoreMoneyThanSense]

Under what kind of circumstance would you say the faster NVMe stuff is more worthwhile, if the time taken in that kind of situation happens to be the same even for large files?

 

[USAFRet]

Under what kind of circumstance would you say the faster NVMe stuff is more worthwhile, if the time taken in that kind of situation happens to be the same even for large files?

Moving data between two fast NVMe drives.

For stuff like Photoshop, and especially gaming...CPU/GPU/RAM have far more impact than pure drive speed.

We're well into the realm of diminishing return per dollar. SSD's...all of them...are already fast.
The near zero access time is the key. Even with SATA III drives.
Moving large amounts of data between fast drives is where NVMe speed comes into play.

As mentioned above:
Taking 5 RAW files direct out of my camera, applying the same set of complex edits, writing out to different SSD's (Samsung SATA III and Intel NVMe) with a reboot inbetween to clear any cache issue, takes exactly the same amount of time.
The CPU/RAM is doing most of the work, not the drive.

I'm not saying don't get NVMe drives. Just don't be starry eyed over the raw sequential speed difference.
And especially the difference between a current PCIe 3 and PCIe 4.

 

[MoreMoneyThanSense]

Moving data between two fast NVMe drives.

For stuff like Photoshop, and especially gaming...CPU/GPU/RAM have far more impact than pure drive speed.

We're well into the realm of diminishing return per dollar. SSD's...all of them...are already fast.
The near zero access time is the key. Even with SATA III drives.
Moving large amounts of data between fast drives is where NVMe speed comes into play.

As mentioned above:
Taking 5 RAW files direct out of my camera, applying the same set of complex edits, writing out to different SSD's (Samsung SATA III and Intel NVMe) with a reboot inbetween to clear any cache issue, takes exactly the same amount of time.
The CPU/RAM is doing most of the work, not the drive.

I'm not saying don't get NVMe drives. Just don't be starry eyed over the raw sequential speed difference.
And especially the difference between a current PCIe 3 and PCIe 4.

Thanks. This does make me reconsider quite a bit.

What about, then, narrowing things down to these choices:

-Samsung 970 (EVO? Pro? forgot the suffixes)
-Samsung 860 as you mentioned
-Intel 660p (I hear these slow down as you fill them up quite considerably on account of being QLC?)
-Sabrent Rocket

 

[USAFRet]

For the initial parts you list, the Samsung 970 EVO would be my choice. OS and applications.
Then a couple of other drives (860 EVO, perhaps) for other things.

By 'fill up', you're referring to the cache on the drive.
I have that 660p, and moving 100+GB to it from a 1TB 860 EVO (for a test), I see zero 'slow down' during the process.

And for any SSD, you don't want to fill it up too much. At least 20% free space is recommended.

 

[popatim]

The 660p has a huge initial emulated SLC mapping it uses as a cache. It's about 130GB's for the 1TB drive but this gets reduced in size as the drive fills naturally.

AnandTech has a nice graph illustrating the cache size vs filled size if you're interested