Personal computing discussed

Moderators: morphine, Steel

 
HERETIC
Gerbil XP
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:10 am

Re: SATA SSD vs NVMe SSD (similar boot and load times)

Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:41 am

slushpuppy007 wrote:
Looking at this slide from the Optane Marketing Material: https://www.servethehome.com/intel-opta ... -nand-ssd/

At Queue Depth 1, the drive is sitting just under 100 000 IOPS.

Loading a game surely falls in this Low QD spectrum.

Any thoughts?


Yup, and that's why first thing I check is 4K IOPS at QD1,my line in the sand is 8,000 for a boot drive.

There's other things to consider as well-some drives take a "we'll do it later slowly approach to
garbage collection" others "we'll do it straight away"(Plextor comes to mind)
Some drives will stop maintenance when a request comes in some won't.
Some drives have a single core controller-some have multiple-one for write-one for read-and one
for background activity........................
 
G8torbyte
Gold subscriber
Gerbil
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:09 pm
Location: central NJ, near Philly
Contact:

Re: SATA SSD vs NVMe SSD (similar boot and load times)

Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:41 pm

anotherengineer wrote:
About this.
Does or has anyone upgraded from a good 2.5 sata SSD to an NMVe on a newer CPU??  Just wondering if there is a human perceivable noticeable real world improvement??
I am planning on building a new machine probably this summer, and I don't know if I should pay the premium to get NVMe or a larger capacity 2.5 SATA SSD??
I basically use the PC as a web-surfer and occasional gaming, with some occasional AutoCAD 2015.  Just wondering if it's worth it??


I did jump on the NVMe wagon a little too early with the Intel 600p series and subsequent reviews from other tech sources showed it had some latency issues. I noticed something like that with my setup in an X99/5820K board with memory running 3000MHz. It seemed to "stutter" a bit is best as I can describe. Also I was running Win7 Pro at the time and I had to download the hotfix NVMe driver file from MS to make it the boot drive. So I later swapped it out with the Samsung 960 EVO which has it's own NVMe driver. The Samsung runs smoother w/o issues and boot-up is a little snappier but after that I see no significant difference in load times of other programs compared to my 850EVO 2.5 SATA SSD. The main advantage I like is it's a space saver without a cable if you have the M.2 port.
Later, -G8tor
Building PCs and gaming since "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat" 1991
Current system setup: http://pcpartpicker.com/b/tbf8TW
 
Vhalidictes
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:32 pm
Location: Paragon City, RI

Re: SATA SSD vs NVMe SSD (similar boot and load times)

Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:44 pm

HERETIC wrote:
Yup, and that's why first thing I check is 4K IOPS at QD1,my line in the sand is 8,000 for a boot drive.


Uhhh... I sure hope that's not your real line in the sand, and you're just saying that online. I feel bad for your budget; Most new and/or TLC drives don't put out anything like that.

My old Mushkin Reactor didn't beat 7K, and that was when it was empty.
I'm unique, just like everyone else!
 
HERETIC
Gerbil XP
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:10 am

Re: SATA SSD vs NVMe SSD (similar boot and load times)

Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:52 pm

Vhalidictes wrote:
HERETIC wrote:
Yup, and that's why first thing I check is 4K IOPS at QD1,my line in the sand is 8,000 for a boot drive.


Uhhh... I sure hope that's not your real line in the sand, and you're just saying that online. I feel bad for your budget; Most new and/or TLC drives don't put out anything like that.

My old Mushkin Reactor didn't beat 7K, and that was when it was empty.


Most Samsung drives do 10,000-The 850 EVO is my midrange pick.
Nearly all planer TLC drives should be avoided as boot drives.(especially the ramless ones)
Two exceptions-750EVO and Sandisc ultra2.
 
Waco
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: SATA SSD vs NVMe SSD (similar boot and load times)

Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:37 am

HERETIC wrote:
Vhalidictes wrote:
HERETIC wrote:
Yup, and that's why first thing I check is 4K IOPS at QD1,my line in the sand is 8,000 for a boot drive.


Uhhh... I sure hope that's not your real line in the sand, and you're just saying that online. I feel bad for your budget; Most new and/or TLC drives don't put out anything like that.

My old Mushkin Reactor didn't beat 7K, and that was when it was empty.


Most Samsung drives do 10,000-The 850 EVO is my midrange pick.
Nearly all planer TLC drives should be avoided as boot drives.(especially the ramless ones)
Two exceptions-750EVO and Sandisc ultra2.

If we're talking read speeds, many of them are up in that range. Writes are a different story, though.
Z170A Gaming Pro Carbon | 6700K @ stock for now | 16 GB | GTX Titan X | Seasonix Gold 850 | XSPC RX360 | Heatkiller R3 | D5 + RP-452X2 | Cosmos II | 480 + 240 + LSI 9207-8i (128x8) SSDs
 
HERETIC
Gerbil XP
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:10 am

Re: SATA SSD vs NVMe SSD (similar boot and load times)

Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:21 pm

Waco wrote:
HERETIC wrote:
Vhalidictes wrote:

Uhhh... I sure hope that's not your real line in the sand, and you're just saying that online. I feel bad for your budget; Most new and/or TLC drives don't put out anything like that.

My old Mushkin Reactor didn't beat 7K, and that was when it was empty.


Most Samsung drives do 10,000-The 850 EVO is my midrange pick.
Nearly all planer TLC drives should be avoided as boot drives.(especially the ramless ones)
Two exceptions-750EVO and Sandisc ultra2.

If we're talking read speeds, many of them are up in that range. Writes are a different story, though.


Yeah-write speeds are kind of "good enough" 4K read speeds are what gives a boot drive that nice snappy feeling-
as in-"what spinny blue thing"
The recent race to the bottom means most planer TLC drives don't make that 8,000..............................

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest