not impressed - nvme vs ssd

[Waldorf]

@quickchangethechannel
lol wut?
ppl having been adding dedicated chips for sound/wifi/bt for ages, so even if the mb doesnt have it
(i prefer more m.2 vs those), can easily be added, for those in need.

i dont need any mobile gaming past android tablet, and prefer to have the option to not only have the option to swap/upgrade parts,
but do things like going from air to water, and virtually all cpu/gpu swaps in the past 4y would have required a new laptop,
so definitely not even cheaper.

i and many friends play in a living room on console when ppl are "together", but still prefer office/another room for pc gaming,
as i dont have annoying background noise, or worry about others able to hear my non-PG rated response to getting killed in a game

im out, wont get caught posting off T again..

 

[dirtyferret]

hear my non-PG rated response to getting killed in a game

you got to use it!

 

[SchumannFrequency]

W1zzard already posts some of these in his tests showing various NVMe and a few SATA SSD.

windows11 Pro + Samsung 990 Pro 2TB OS startup time: 11.7 s
<--->
Calculate Linux + Samsung EVO 850 500GB OS startup time: 8.5 s

With Clear Linux and Devuan I can also get my operating system started very quickly.

Devuan and Calculate Linux are operating systems that have a lot of compatibility with the most important apps/games/drivers.

I'm currently using Calculate Linux and I can honestly say there isn't a single thing I miss in terms of software.

The moral of the story seems to be that software can generally have a similar impact in this story as hardware (SATA vs NVMe)

But most of the results, even on your old SATA SSD are under one second, and the longest you had to wait that I can see was a 5 second launch immediately after a cold boot.

Why do disk speeds matter if the real world impact is that it only opens 0.2s faster on an expensive NVMe SSD? For an hour's work I would imagine the application opening 0.2 seconds faster isn't worth even looking into.

What thing took 5 seconds? GIMP took 2.53s, but this was on the i3-3240 CPU and therefore had a CPU bottleneck. Additional tests with the Intel 12600KF show that GIMP can also boot very quickly on the EVO 850 500 GB.

Of the apps that I use on a regular basis, there are only two apps that I see score above two seconds in the time command on this Intel 12600KF: Firefox & Steam
For Steam it's probably the networking part (login, showing latest ads and telemetry) that takes Steam 3.x - 4.x seconds (total time) to fully start. I don't know if that slow startup time still applies to Firefox.

If I open Firefox while Firefox is already open, I see the following values:
user 0m0.041s
sys 0m0.016s

It seems that the Calculate team has made sure that Firefox is cached after the first app opening and Firefox opens without any noticeable delay after it has been opened once.

Another related test I did where you clearly see the potential of software optimization for (full) OS startup time on SATA SSDs is this thread:

How fast is the full boot time of your operating system?

This is the full boot time of the operating system in my case. BIOS checks, MBR and GRUB bootloader are not included in the measurement. Software: Clear Linux and GNOME display manager (GDM) Hardware: Intel 12600KF (stock) -- Kingston 6000 MHz CL40 -- GTX 650 1GB -- BIOSTAR B760MZ-E PRO --...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[QcRMoD]

From the OP’s stupid post…

it took 5 replies to sum up why it was stupid before he replied…

blah blah blah. always the same replies

its this and because of that and that and this. sheesh

>Oh? Your title for this thread would suggest you did expect more and did fall for the marketing hype.

not at all. it was the same speed on i7 6700 pc. I didnt expect it to be twice as fast. I did expect some boost over the i7

but its like ddr5 ram. all hype. and tons of pr reps here trying to push for the newset.

me, I never buy the newest right away. I didnt fall for "get am5 cause its amazing"

hype and fluff. I got the nvme cause it was a cheap price.

which you know…

and then HE never came back and all you guys are now running 120+ replies over.

I’ve seen charts and comps and even some build pics (?) …

If I was a troll I’d be the OP. And I would have owned you.

I just… can’t believe it.

Sorry I’m a disrespectful m*****fucker let’s just carry on with it. I mean… geez!

 

[Bagerklestyne]

My biggest concern here isn't about the hardware the op used, but how many times he's planning on getting married that this problem will amount to a significant amount of time...

Also, who takes 4000 wedding photos (The pro I hired had about 800-1000 of which he selected just under 100 for our albums)

 

[Waldorf]

@QcRMoD
and yet, here you are, adding to the +120 of posts...

 

[xrobwx71]

M.2 (connected to pcie slot) running in sata mode?!
just because its an M.2 (as in pcie connected), doesnt mean the drive itself is a pcie (drive).

The way I understand it is M.2 is the form factor and nvme is the I/O or protocol?
Sata = 1 lane PCIe =4 lanes

 

[Waldorf]

this was about ppl not knowing the difference, possibly buying the usually cheaper (but also slower) sata drives.

 

[Athlonite]

Well that was a damn good laugh guys shame the OP didn't stick around for the ribbing they got

 

[SchumannFrequency]

The conclusion is that the fastest NVMe drives offer little advantage for a standard user compared to an old SATA SSD similar to the 850 EVO 500GB.

According to the video below, the differences between these two technologies are very often below 10% in practice

Some YouTube comments on this video:
I am dissapointed how the SATA SSD makes an expensive NVMe not worth it.
kinda conflicted between m.2 nvme or Sata 3, but now I think i'll just get the Sata 3. Not worth 1-2 second load times for $19 more.
The superfast M.2 drive only loads games 1 to 2 seconds faster than the SATA SSD. Really disappointing test results.

 

[Waldorf]

@SchumannFrequency
except we arent the avg user.

there are more than 1.5B gamers, and not everyone plays the same games, so game XYZ loading as fast as on a ssd is irrelevant to "me",
but when loading siege/each map, i can tell who on my team runs what type of drive (where game is installed)..

like many others i prefer to "image" my os, as i dont care to reinstall for whatever reason, and total time of 1 min incl verification of the image,
wont happen on a sata drive, def not on hdd, nor the transfer of (atm) +15GB when i move it to the backup drive.

same way no one buys a +300K Lambo/Bentley etc, because they constantly drive at +200mph, the car doesnt become undrivable just because your gong 50..
its really up to the person paying for it, the same way some need rgb on their stuff, i prefer not to, and waste my funds on things like faster-than-sata drives..

 

[SchumannFrequency]

@SchumannFrequency
except we arent the avg user.

there are more than 1.5B gamers, and not everyone plays the same games, so game XYZ loading as fast as on a ssd is irrelevant to "me",
but when loading siege/each map, i can tell who on my team runs what type of drive (where game is installed)..

like many others i prefer to "image" my os, as i dont care to reinstall for whatever reason, and total time of 1 min incl verification of the image,
wont happen on a sata drive, def not on hdd, nor the transfer of (atm) +15GB when i move it to the backup drive.

same way no one buys a +300K Lambo/Bentley etc, because they constantly drive at +200mph, the car doesnt become undrivable just because your gong 50..
its really up to the person paying for it, the same way some need rgb on their stuff, i prefer not to, and waste my funds on things like faster-than-sata drives..

The general values are more important than rare exceptions. Siege is not really a highly rated game. But Stellaris is rated as a very good game. Let's see what Stellaris can learn gamers and NVMe owners. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...s-vs-30s-load-time-on-opensuse-linux.1376006/

 

[SPDIF]

blah blah blah. always the same replies

its this and because of that and that and this. sheesh

>Oh? Your title for this thread would suggest you did expect more and did fall for the marketing hype.

not at all. it was the same speed on i7 6700 pc. I didnt expect it to be twice as fast. I did expect some boost over the i7

but its like ddr5 ram. all hype. and tons of pr reps here trying to push for the newset.

me, I never buy the newest right away. I didnt fall for "get am5 cause its amazing"

hype and fluff. I got the nvme cause it was a cheap price.

 

[iameatingjam]

I get the OPs point.

Go from HDD to SSD, you feel the difference in many workloads, its night and day.
Go from SATA SSD to NVME, it will really shine in specific workloads, but outside of that it will maybe feel slightly faster, OS boot time, generic desktop use, non direct storage games. The trade off, more cumbersome to install, run hotter, consume more power, might need cooling.

Currently SATA remains an option if its preferred, although product development for it seems to be almost dead. I expect out of the 3 storages HDD, SATA SSD, NVME SSD its the one with quickest market collapse.

And the models that are out there still that used to be good are turning to crap. I replaced my 2*1TB MX500s in raid0 with 2*4tb and the new models are noticeably slower when writing files. Used to exceed 1GB/sec at pretty much all times. Now it certainly does not :/

I guess they reduced the vram amount to 512mb on all models and it might even be qlc not sure.

 

[Athlonite]

And the models that are out there still that used to be good are turning to crap. I replaced my 2*1TB MX500s in raid0 with 2*4tb and the new models are noticeably slower when writing files. Used to exceed 1GB/sec at pretty much all times. Now it certainly does not :/

I guess they reduced the vram amount to 512mb on all models and it might even be qlc not sure.

That's a you problem though if you had of done a little bit of research before your purchase those 4TB drives might have been TLC instead of the much slower QLC variety
Also the cache on an SSD is not really used for caching writes to nand like it was for an HDD it's for the drives mapping data so it doesn't have to be loaded into system ram which is slightly slower for the drives controller to access

 

[iameatingjam]

That's a you problem though if you had of done a little bit of research before your purchase those 4TB drives might have been TLC instead of the much slower QLC variety
Also the cache on an SSD is not really used for caching writes to nand like it was for an HDD it's for the drives mapping data so it doesn't have to be loaded into system ram which is slightly slower for the drives controller to access

I don't get the hostility. It is what it is. I knew it might be the simplified model and bought it anyway because I needed more storage first and foremost.

Regardless the simplifying, and spec reduction is something that happens a lot. You saying that should be off limits just because 'customer should have known better' ?

 

[Athlonite]

I don't get the hostility. It is what it is. I knew what I was buying and bought it anyway because I needed more storage first and foremost.

Regardless the simplifying, and spec reduction is something that happens a lot. You saying that should be off limits just because 'customer should have known better'

WOW you thought my reply to your post was hostile all I did was call you out for not doing some research before a major purchase I was not the one complaining about their SSD's speed you were.
If you took offence to that then maybe TPU is not place for you

 

[iameatingjam]

WOW you thought my reply to your post was hostile all I did was call you out for not doing some research before a major purchase I was not the one complaining about their SSD's speed you were.
If you took offence to that then maybe TPU is not place for you

As I said, I knew there was a simplified model.... If I need super fast access speed thats what my 3 m.2s are for. Still don't see why that means its inappropriate to talk about. Needed more storage so bought them, noticed speed was slower, mentioned it in forum thread about sata ssds. Whats the problem with that?

 

[Athlonite]

As I said, I knew there was a simplified model.... If I need super fast access speed thats what my 3 m.2s are for. Still don't see why that means its inappropriate to talk about. Needed more storage so bought them, noticed speed was slower, mentioned it in forum thread about sata ssds. Whats the problem with that?

What stripe size did you use for the RAID0 array

 

[chrcoluk]

And the models that are out there still that used to be good are turning to crap. I replaced my 2*1TB MX500s in raid0 with 2*4tb and the new models are noticeably slower when writing files. Used to exceed 1GB/sec at pretty much all times. Now it certainly does not :/

I guess they reduced the vram amount to 512mb on all models and it might even be qlc not sure.

There was a thread on here about the MX500 some time ago about potential bait and switching, but the conclusion was the QLC variants turned out to be fake drives purchased from ali.

 

[Shrek]

The conclusion is that the fastest NVMe drives offer little advantage for a standard user compared to an old SATA SSD similar to the 850 EVO 500GB.

According to the video below, the differences between these two technologies are very often below 10% in practice

Some YouTube comments on this video:
I am dissapointed how the SATA SSD makes an expensive NVMe not worth it.
kinda conflicted between m.2 nvme or Sata 3, but now I think i'll just get the Sata 3. Not worth 1-2 second load times for $19 more.
The superfast M.2 drive only loads games 1 to 2 seconds faster than the SATA SSD. Really disappointing test results.

This is incredibly important information, I can't believe I didn't know this (NVMe vs SATA SSD); in my defence I only recently moved from hybrid HDD to SATA SSD.

We seem to go after raw speed for hard drives and thermal conductivity for thermal paste in the quest to keep things 'simple'; but technology isn't always simple.