Personal computing discussed

Moderators: morphine, Steel

 
HERETIC
Gerbil XP
Posts: 396
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: 96
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:09 pm
Location: 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: X99 Command/Control Station
 
Vhalidictes
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1658
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.
 
HERETIC
Gerbil XP
Posts: 396
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
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2032
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 @ 4.5 | 16 GB | GTX Titan X | Seasonix Gold 850 | XSPC RX360 | Heatkiller R3 | D5 + RP-452X2 | Cosmos II | Samsung 4K 40" | 480 + 240 + LSI 9207-8i (128x8) SSDs
 
HERETIC
Gerbil XP
Posts: 396
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 2 guests