Is a NVMe SSD even needed? or would 99% of people not even notice the speed difference compared to a SATA m2 SSD?

Definitely a difference over a single SATA* not data

So that's why normal bootup takes so long! Thanks

Only if you game. Guess that's the difference a normie would notice.

The thing is, NVMe drives cost exactly the same, new. I actually couldn't even find a 240GB SATA m.2 and went with a NVMe one.

>max sata transfer is atleast 500 ish mb/s while nvme transfer speed is 1gb/s which makes you a cuchold for saving just a couple of usd for 2x the speed
Nope. SATA 3 caps out at 600MB/s, while even the CHEAPEST NVMe drive will give you 1500MB/s (realistically around 1460MB/s). Higher end drives like OPs picture will give you 3500MB/s with several times the IOPS the cheaper drivers or dozens times that of SATA.

I can't understand how people are so infinformed over NVMe while the drives themselves are widely available and cost no more than the SATA counterparts.

The way I see it, m.2 is really nice and if you're getting an m.2 drive you may as well go NVMe

U.2 is nice 2

t-thanks

I like 4.U myself

>nvme drives are faster than sa-
*blocks your path*

Attached: Capture.png (83x499, 4K)

>not using DIMM.2
Yikes

>even the CHEAPEST NVMe drive
they make NVMe drives with sata speeds so this isn't true

heaps out there that do 500/500 it exists just for the form factor rather than another 2.5" drive

This. I was rocking the same 100GB SSD for like 5 years, finally upgraded to a 240GB NVMe SSD and there is literally zero difference in any speeds whatsoever. I still got a good price on it and wanted a bigger drive so it's fine, but if I'd paid more for this shit I would've felt burnt.

SSDs with sata should die, they're useless and should have never been developed. all solid state storage & RAM should be directly on the motherboard or pcie.

sata should only be used for slow mechanical shit like dvd/bluray/ hdd etc

there's almost no price difference now.
More that get made the cheaper they'll be.

you are thinking of m.2 sata drives retard

Attached: 1539535022064.jpg (337x404, 43K)

No, they make m.2 ssd with sata speeds. Learn the difference

>Is it needed?
For most people, no. But they dropped in price to the point that if you're a Jow Forums poster you might as well get one for placebo and e-peen points. There are uses, and if you need one you know them already.

Attached: Screenshot 2018-11-05 02.43.07.png (2001x713, 263K)

>1gb/s
lol what slow piece of shit are you using?

God bless drive makers.

how do these work? do they go in your pci slots?

yes you nailed it user

Well it obviously made sense at first because them existing infrastructure suited it, and now that NVMe drives are being developed and produced more and more SATA will slowly die. I don't really get what point you're making, it's already happening, this stuff is gradual though.

china hits the market this month, prices should plummet.
48TB drives for HDD should hit the market by 2023 according to manufacturers.
good, rip sata
If it was pushed directly to pcie to begin with it would have still been used just as fast.

this fucking retarded thread again
go to bed, child.

Many new motherboards have a small attachment directly on the board

Attached: m2.jpg (1024x672, 826K)

So with African American Friday coming up, I need some advice. I initially built my computer about 5 years ago and it has a 128 GB Samsung 840 Pro and a 1 TB WD Black (boot drive and everything else). Now that they're both almost full, what should I upgrade to and how should I set it up? A single 1 TB NVMe that I put the OS and gaymes on, use the 840 Pro for reaction images, and then my WD for whatever else?

Not really, I think you're forgetting how expensive SSDs were at first. They needed to take every possibility to make them cheaper. Now that the prices have come down a lot NVMe is a viable option.

How do you guys partition your SSDs? Do you even do that?
I bought a 1tb one recently, and split in in 200gb for the system and the rest for media and personal files.
My previous notebook had a 256gb ssd and I didn't really bother with partitioning.

I don't partition my SSDs, I just own multiple SSDs.

Media goes on the desktop. There are also 5TB 2.5 inch external drives.

at first? they've been around several decades

~30-50gb partition for the os

Attached: ce1a448473d58fbffe1288619af90565.jpg (991x1400, 134K)

I doubt it makes much of a difference considering my friend was bragging about owning one and it turned out to only be a SATA based m.2 ssd.

You can use a passive PCIe adapter too though.

Wrong. Look at SA1000M8/240G for example, one of the more common deals on the low end, €50 for 240GB and 1500MB/s read.

Attached: MDNVMEM2-UX-ADPT_1.png (1000x1000, 434K)

well yeah, it's hard for you guys to know if you never even used one

>trusting the advertised speed

Attached: 1538535035301.jpg (1280x720, 54K)

For some reason i don't notice much difference in load times between a 960 evo nvme and a 860 evo SATA disk. But i haven't checked it with a stopwatch or anything.

that's because loading programs consists of small random reads-- and the numbers that nvme drives are advertised with are from sequential operations

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1200x675, 40K)

why is optane so bad

Sorry, took a while, had to get to the other computer.

>trusting anything, ever, without testing yourself (specially because no questions asked returns exist)
Ha, good one.

>inb4 it's not 1500MB/s
See >CHEAPEST NVMe drive will give you 1500MB/s (realistically around 1460MB/s).

How embarrassing, user.

Attached: Clipboard02.png (1877x750, 86K)

>dumb fucks mentioning M.2 like it's not a plug used on NVMe drives still

M.2 is a standard for connecting SATA, USB and PCIe devices, specifically storage in most cases. The connector version is called U.2.
What's so confusing to you? Most storage, even low end TLC caps out at twice the speed of SATA 3.0, with SATA being the bottleneck even on modern SATA SSD drives, so yeah, nobody makes NVMe drives with SATA speeds.

>SATA SSDs start penetrating the normie market
>autismo Jow Forums goes full autist even though SSDs were second to none in their use case, that is fast local storage
>SATA SSDs have become commonplace, even Jow Forums uses them
>autismo Jow Forums goes full autist against NVMe, even though they are second to none over SATA
You think people are joking about the freetards and autistic people here, but it's overlapping with the medical fact that autistic people have a hard time adapting to new things.

you pretty much *need* to use productivity applications that deal with big amounts of data or modern video games to actually *feel* the difference in everyday use
it's still a step in the right direction for everyone else too, technology is supposed to move towards cheaper and faster constantly

Is there any good NVMe external enclosures that aren't stupid expensive? I have a laptop with a 256gb NVMe that I want to upgrade to a 1TB but I need to clone it first. Plus I wouldn't mind using it as an external after.

Better listen to what he says, you fucking pleb.

Was just about to post this.

>Is a NVMe SSD even needed?
My opinion is that it's not. There's a difference between SSD regardless of interface, a more expensive one will be better than a cheap one but none will show any measurable improvement.

>being over twice as fast for the same exact price is not an improvement
wut?

based and yuripilled

i fucking know, just put the slowest sata and nvme transfer speed

like user said, sata is capped at 600mb/s while even the low end tlc nand memory used in both sata and nvme is capable of over 1200mb/s

It is more to it than just transfer speeds. Latency matters too, which is why SSDs have such an edge over HDDs. This is also why optane is better than regular nvme drives like the 970 pro for certain applications, even tho optane drives might seem slower on paper, their latencies are much lower.

With a sata and nvme drives with similar latencies, but very different transfer speeds, you might not be able to see or measure much of a difference.

Yea, in desktop use it is basically not needed (not for games either) and even for most server uses it is not that likely it will matter.

>(not for games either) and even for most server uses it is not that likely it will matter.
Someone went full retard, hope it's pretend only though.

>posting synthetic benchmark result when talking about speed

Attached: 1541488116577.jpg (480x580, 96K)

see:

Attached: Untitled.png (1584x657, 100K)

not him but you realize the difference between your benchmark and file copy is because one is from ram to drive and the other is from drive to drive? there are no synthetic benchmarks when it comes to drive speed

Great to backup such a disk with 1gb data rate.

>one is from ram to drive
one is from ram to drive
one is from ram to drive

It's good for large databases and can serve as a ramdisc replacement.

>there are no synthetic benchmarks when it comes to drive speed
Pretty much all the benchmarks are synthetic because they're not doing something realistic.

Consider a synthetic cpu benchmark like cpu-z vs. Actually running something like a cpu render or 7zip that is actually used.

A organic nvme benchmark is moving files and opening programs. Or benchmarking real databases. And as everyone should know nvme is only significantly faster in a few niches. In real life desktop programs and games everything else bottlenecks more.

Well, isn't this embarrassing, user.

How come people don't realize that computers do exactly that, they read data from a drive into memory (RAM). Whoops, didn't think of that, did you?

I agree, that's what synthetic benchmarks are. It's pretty hard when it comes to drives though, because it's not only speed that matters, but also latency and IOPS.
You will notice a difference when playing moder/huge games or working with RAW media files.

Attached: Clipboard02.png (1660x851, 73K)

ssds were never about boot times
why do people still keep this meme up

>>from ram to drive
>computers do exactly that, they read data from a drive into memory

Attached: 1539025715071.jpg (1280x720, 68K)

>>from ram to drive
who are you quoting?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't nvme also perform better at random reads/writes because it actually makes use of multiple cores unlike AHCI? Wasn't the latency supposed to be better to? At least that's what I've read a long while ago.. question is whether it's actually noticable in real life.

Yes of course. You can even force some NVMe drives to work in AHCI mode to compare performance of that.
It all adds up in the end for a pretty huge difference that can be quite noticeable on specific workloads. Browsing Facebook or ricing your desktop are not though. Pretty much what said.

Nobody understands random read/write here. Everyone only understands MB/s.
That said, NVME's advantage is massive parallelism, because it supports 64K queues, each able to queue up to 64 commands, while SATA SSD does 1 queue with 32 queue depth only. That said, most consumers will be unable to generate so many read/write requests with their desktop PC. So they actually excel in database serving a lot of requests.

Does nvme have an equivalent to ATA Security?

Oops it's 64K commands, not 64 commands.

>Yes of course. You can even force some NVMe drives to work in AHCI mode to compare performance of that.
there have been benchmarks of the samsung sm951 (oem version of 950 pro) ahci and nvme ssds where the only difference is the controller used, and while the nvme controller edges out slightly in some tests (especially random read/write iops) the advantages of something like nvme aren't going to be realised until you get proper software support in your os for things like caching/queueing and even things like better file system support, that's not to say that you won't get immediate random read/write performance (pic is from 2015 and clearly shows this) but that so much of the storage stack is still centred around ahci ssds and even mechanical drives that it'll take a while for the software to fully utilise the new hardware
all that said though there's basically no cost difference between ahci and nvme, there's no reason not to get the nvme version of the drive you want unless your hardware doesn't support it

if you want it for things like ata secure erase then yes it does exist, but the userland tools for nvme are still non-existent to minimal at best and won't compare to things like hdparm
tinyapps.org/docs/nvme-secure-erase.html
that website also has an excellent page documenting hdparm and ata secure erase too if you're interested

Attached: 7181_55_samsung-sm951-nvme-2-pcie-256gb-ssd-review_full.jpg (775x503, 47K)

>99%
Who cares about statistacs?

Isn't this already fixed in modern UEFI and OSes?

>if you want it for things like ata secure erase
I was thinking about ATA passwords

Those things take up a lot of board space. You could probably fit 10 sata ports in the space of that one M.2.

That's why U.2 exists.

But generally no, specially for a consumer, this is perfectly fine and actually beneficial to have the drive on the board itself, at least for a single system drive. Also no, there are no thermal problems with that like some people imply, even under the GPU.
It's really not "wasting space" as it's using space what would otherwise go to waste anyways.

Attached: ult_bottom_left01.png (500x429, 102K)

should be yeah, things have improved a bit since 2015 and when they started hitting the marketplace

well they do support passwords but I'm not sure how you'd set one if your bios/uefi doesn't already support it, there's probably a userland tool for it though

eh they're mostly being put under gpus and other areas with dead space, on some boards they're stacked vertically too

Attached: m2-slot-645x443.jpg (645x443, 81K)

>The speed difference isn't noticeable at all.
>he never transferred large files between two computers with 10G Ethernet.
poor man, you will never know...

because it's intel

Attached: optane.png (1478x1289, 920K)

>that sexy black windows
h-how

Yeah, but Optain is all about latency.
Optain is pretty much RAM replacement at this point, great for things like swapfiles or scratch disks.

Whoever made that picture clearly misses the point. Not saying Intel isn't a dirty Jew company.

Got a 760p nvme 256GB in a good deal, it was about the same price (5 euros more expansive to be precise) as the sata for the same capacity, so obviously I took the one with the better perfs.

I see the difference with my old SSD, but it's ancient and it was a cheap model even back then. I assume you'd see less difference with a newer or top notch sata SSD.

Magic.

Attached: Clipboard01.png (2560x2160, 2.81M)

lazy and shady way would be using a unsigned themes service and theme packs
proper and clean way would be just running without theme signing and resource editing

lullll loved that show

holy shit
BTFO twice in one thread, screencapping this shit

Honestly fuck the speed, being able to strap it to the mainboard without adding a power and sata cable is amazing for cable clutter and reliability. Plus having PCI-E as the interface cuts off the need for half-arsed sata because it needs to be there southbridge chips.

FUCK SATA.

Don't just fuck SATA, take SATA out for dinner first.
SAS is still great for storage though, U.2 drives are pretty expensive size wise when it comes to mass storage and current NAND technology isn't built to last decades.