SSD virgin's first SSD.

[newtekie1]

OP, if you are going to get an SSD, make sure it is an NVMe SSD. Do not waste money on a SATA based SSD at this point. And if you are getting 1TB or less, it doesn't make much sense to get a QLC drive either.

IMO, for the budget you seem to be targeting, the WD Blue SN570 seems to be a decent choice:

https://www.amazon.in/BlueTM-NVMeTM-Creative-Subscription-Warranty/dp/B09HKDQ1RN/

Don't buy a crappy SSD, as the end result will be crap.
The WD Green are some of the worst SSDs out there.
I would go for the Crucial BX500

This comment is hilarious. You say avoid the WD Green drives because they are some of the worst SSDs out there, then suggest literally THE worst SSD on the market. It's worse than the 870 QVO! I have no idea why anyone would ever suggest someone buy it over any other brand name SSD. The WD Green NVMe drive will crush the BX500 in every performance category.

 

[Assimilator]

OP, if you are going to get an SSD, make sure it is an NVMe SSD. Do not waste money on a SATA based SSD at this point.

What?

The whole point of SSDs - the one thing that makes them so much better than HDDs - is the fact that their random access performance is orders of magnitude better than any HDD. That's why SSDs can revitalise even the oldest or crappiest PC. You could buy the cheapest Chinese QLC drive using NAND rejected by the manufacturer and it would still be an incredible performance uplift over an HDD.

Yes, NVMe is better, but going from SATA SSD => NVMe SSD is generally unnoticeable, whereas going from HDD => SATA SSD is that incredible jump.

 

[Toothless]

What?

The whole point of SSDs - the one thing that makes them so much better than HDDs - is the fact that their random access performance is orders of magnitude better than any HDD. That's why SSDs can revitalise even the oldest or crappiest PC. You could buy the cheapest Chinese QLC drive using NAND rejected by the manufacturer and it would still be an incredible performance uplift over an HDD.

Yes, NVMe is better, but going from SATA SSD => NVMe SSD is generally unnoticeable, whereas going from HDD => SATA SSD is that incredible jump.

SATA to NVME is a big jump and noticeable. If OP is going to go SSD, might as well get something that's going to match their build and that's NOT something stuck at 500MB/s.

 

[theFOoL]

True True. There are NVMe to Sata drive enclosures to I think would go a bit faster then the Sata limit

 

[Assimilator]

SATA to NVME is a big jump and noticeable.

It's absolutely not unless you are transferring huge amounts of data on and off the drive. An NVMe SSD is generally just a SATA SSD with more bandwidth, the latency is the same and that's what matters for most use-cases.

 

[Toothless]

It's absolutely not unless you are transferring huge amounts of data on and off the drive. An NVMe SSD is generally just a SATA SSD with more bandwidth, the latency is the same and that's what matters for most use-cases.

Or, loading games, moving files, booting the computer.. etc. It's an overall improvement.

 

[R0H1T]

It's absolutely not unless you are transferring huge amounts of data on and off the drive. An NVMe SSD is generally just a SATA SSD with more bandwidth, the latency is the same and that's what matters for most use-cases.

It absolutely is unless you're going from some top end (mid range?) SATA SSD to bottom of the barrel NVMe drive.

 

[theFOoL]

I thought about getting the NVMe Sata enclosure but the cost of the NVMe is high (I regret saying after I looked up lol). I have the mSata to Sata enclosure instead on my build

 

[Toothless]

I thought about getting the NVMe Sata enclosure but the cost of the NVMe is high (I regret saying after I looked up lol). I have the mSata to Sata enclosure instead on my build

That's probably because Ivy Bridge doesn't support NVME boot.

 

[theFOoL]

That's probably because Ivy Bridge doesn't support NVME boot.

??? Dude my 775 Build. If even bought the NVMe to Sata would when connected the MB would see as plain SSD Sata

 

[AusWolf]

Any m.2 SSD will make you happy. Don't buy noname brands.

You'll see, the difference between booting/loading from HDD and SSD is night and day. I personally, can't imagine a computer or laptop with an HDD as a boot drive anno 2022.

With that said, I reinstalled Windows on one of my friend's laptop that only has a HDD. I was in so much pain!

 

[theFOoL]

With that said, I reinstalled Windows on one of my friend's laptop that only has a HDD. I was in so much pain!

I hear ya. I had install updates on WiN10 on a 7200RPM HDD for my G'Pa. I used a HDD for games/apps and OS on my SSD

 

[Toothless]

??? Dude my 775 Build. If even bought the NVMe to Sata would when connected the MB would see as plain SSD Sata

NVME is PCIe, and those boards don't boot off PCIe at all. Earliest is z97/Haswell era.

 

[theFOoL]

Dude it's a enclosure.... "NVME to Sata PCB" so it'll think it's a Sata SSD

 

[Toothless]

Dude it's a enclosure.... "NVME to Sata PCB" so it'll think it's a Sata SSD

Which it'll run at 500MB/s since that's the fastest SATA3 can run. With your socket 775 probably being SATA2.

So, a waste.

 

[theFOoL]

Lol I'm just saying *Maybe it'll be faster. I'm not going to buy it. I have plenty of SSDs connected 4

 

[eidairaman1]

BX500 is just 480gb, won't be enough for me.
Also, I am not from western advanced country, prices are very different here.



This is a little out of my budget (which in entirety including graphics card is way way over budget) seems right. I might go for it or stick with hdds.
Just wanted to ask isnt any modern ssd many times faster than a modern hdd? I was made to believe that. Your patriot ssd is a very good recommendation but wouldn't a lowly sn350 be better than sticking with a wd 7200rpm 256mb cache hdd?

Use the ssd for os and a hdd for bulk files

 

[Shrek]

But off late due to lowering of prices of ssd's and increase in durability I wanted to dabble onto a cheap 512GB ssd + caching solution. But investigating further found the caching software to be costly enough to no warrant buying a 1tb ssd instead.

I was in a similar situation but went another route, namely a hard drive with built-in 8GB solid-state cache, the 3.5" FireCuda, but I believe this is now end of life; the new FireCuda hard drives no longer sport the solid-state cache.

 

[Vario]

That's probably because Ivy Bridge doesn't support NVME boot.

The trick is to get a Samsung 950 Pro which has a legacy mode, running one on my 2010 Xeon W3680.

 

[Toothless]

The trick is to get a Samsung 950 Pro which has a legacy mode, running one on my 2010 Xeon W3680.

But at what speed?

 

[newtekie1]

What?

The whole point of SSDs - the one thing that makes them so much better than HDDs - is the fact that their random access performance is orders of magnitude better than any HDD. That's why SSDs can revitalise even the oldest or crappiest PC. You could buy the cheapest Chinese QLC drive using NAND rejected by the manufacturer and it would still be an incredible performance uplift over an HDD.

Yes, NVMe is better, but going from SATA SSD => NVMe SSD is generally unnoticeable, whereas going from HDD => SATA SSD is that incredible jump.

I never said there was a huge difference between SATA to NVMe. I said don't waste money on a SATA drive because at this point NVMe drives are price only marginally more than a SATA drive, so you might as well get the better performance.

It's absolutely not unless you are transferring huge amounts of data on and off the drive. An NVMe SSD is generally just a SATA SSD with more bandwidth, the latency is the same and that's what matters for most use-cases.

Well, kind of. The NVMe protocol allows for better random read/write performance than AHCI, the IOPS during random access of NVMe drives these days can easily be double that of a SATA drive.

However, the actual noticeable difference is minor in real world use, but it is there.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Regarding the WD Green SN350 drives, I've purchased two of these, 480 GB version a few months ago for my desktop (as listed on system specs), which has the primary use of gaming and media consumption. I went in aware of the low endurance rating, but the cost was also very low and I hold no sensitive data in these, and am willing to replace them down the road if it needs be.

If all you do is download some movies and games every now and then, occasionally record some gameplays and whatnot, these drives will be more than adequate for your workload, and they are relatively affordable. I would recommend them despite being single-die QLC drives, as they will operate without throttling even without a heatsink and have a DRAM cache.

End of the day, what exactly is your use case? General desktop usage? Heavy media recording? Non-stop torrenting? In 99% of cases, a TLC NAND drive will cover even the most demanding situations a desktop will face, and MLC is relegated to a premium segment for those who need a great deal of full DWPDs (drive writes per day, as in, full capacity of the drive every day). I've an Intel SSD 320 series 160 GB drive that's 11 years old now, being around on every build i've had ever since, power-on time exceeding 1000 days and still at 97% life after having roughly 23 TB written to it, and this was one of the drives that released at the height of the SSD vs. HDD lifetime debate back when the technology was new to most people.

Don't torture yourself with a mechanical HDD anymore. That's what makes any computer sluggish anyway, if anything is a waste of money, is NOT buying yourself an SSD. Cheers

 

[Vario]

But at what speed?

It runs full speed once booted, but it is legacy mode during boot. Sadly they removed the legacy boot mode on subsequent models. It seems to be a Samsung 950 Pro only thing.

 

[caroline!]

What's that about nVME? please, OP has a G41 mobo, read the specs. Plus not everyone needs a 300 dollar Samsung drive to boot Windows and run some games.

The WD Green drives are meh quality, just like the hard drives used to be, I remember the 5400RPM nightmare these things were, if SSDs are the same then oh boy you're in for some massive headache. If I had no choice then I wouldn't go for 1TB, in fact I wouldn't go for 1TB at all with s cheap drive, I'd rather go EVEN for a 256GB one just for the OS and some programs if it meant getting something better. My first SSD was a 64GB Intel and only had -at the time- Debian with core stuff on it, I went for it even though there were 128 and even 256 gig Kingstons and Sandisks going for a similar price but I knew they were terrible, that Intel was worth every cent, good SLC stuff. You have HDDs for bulk storage already.

 

[Toothless]

What's that about nVME? please, OP has a G41 mobo, read the specs. Plus not everyone needs a 300 dollar Samsung drive to boot Windows and run some games.

The WD Green drives are meh quality, just like the hard drives used to be, I remember the 5400RPM nightmare these things were, if SSDs are the same then oh boy you're in for some massive headache. If I had no choice then I wouldn't go for 1TB, in fact I wouldn't go for 1TB at all with s cheap drive, I'd rather go EVEN for a 256GB one just for the OS and some programs if it meant getting something better. My first SSD was a 64GB Intel and only had -at the time- Debian with core stuff on it, I went for it even though there were 128 and even 256 gig Kingstons and Sandisks going for a similar price but I knew they were terrible, that Intel was worth every cent, good SLC stuff. You have HDDs for bulk storage already.

OP said they're going to use a B660m, literally in the first post. Read.