Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

HNKenshiro

Member
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About HNKenshiro

  • Title
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think if you're going to use up that m.2 slot, you might as well put a NVMe in it (assuming it supports NVMe). No point wasting it on a SATA one.
  2. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Samsung/970_Pro_SSD_512_GB/7.html According to this, for the 970 pro, you need constant sequential write for maybe 2 minutes in order to get the temperature up to 80C. And with a fan, it doesn't even get that high. If it ever becomes a problem somehow, you can get a heatsink for your drive too. I got one for my 970 pro. After testing it just now, with a fan blowing through it, it didn't even go above 37C/47C (SMART has 2 readings for this drive. I've been told one is for the NAND and one is for the controller) after sequential read for 3 minutes. I haven't tried sequential writes though, because I didn't want to do unnecessary writes to it. In other situations tho, it could be slightly different. My 970 pro used to sit in the slot right beside my top GPU. The drive would get warm even when the drive is idle but while I'm gaming. So I just got a m.2 to pcie adapter card with heatsink combo and moved it away from the GPU.
  3. Hello, first time poster here. I just did a few tests with Final Fantasy XIV Stormblood Benchmark (for those who don't know, it has a loading time benchmark). Here are the results. Samsung 970 Pro 512GB NVMe Scene #1 1.633 sec Scene #2 2.325 sec Scene #3 1.737 sec Scene #4 2.740 sec Scene #5 4.652 sec Scene #6 0.956 sec Total Loading Time 14.046 sec Samsung 850 EVO SATA 250 x2 Raid 0 Loading Times by Scene Scene #1 1.891 sec Scene #2 2.510 sec Scene #3 1.860 sec Scene #4 2.994 sec Scene #5 5.375 sec Scene #6 1.075 sec Total Loading Time 15.707 sec WD Black HDD 7200 RPM (drive is kinda old and 99% full so I think it's especially slow. Should probably be faster if it's a new, empty drive) Loading Times by Scene Scene #1 8.836 sec Scene #2 7.554 sec Scene #3 7.001 sec Scene #4 9.182 sec Scene #5 16.503 sec Scene #6 3.348 sec Total Loading Time 52.429 sec And just in case someone wants to see results for a RAM Disk (SoftPerfect Ram Disk 3.4.8) Scene #1 1.294 sec Scene #2 1.908 sec Scene #3 1.429 sec Scene #4 2.230 sec Scene #5 3.655 sec Scene #6 0.786 sec Total Loading Time 11.303 sec So a decrease 15.7 to 14.0 seconds is still about 11% difference. In another test I was doing with the same FFXIV benchmark, it got about 14% difference. So I think there's still a difference from SATA SSD to NVMe. From those youtube comparison videos, I'd like to say it's more like 5-10% difference. Some people say you're not gonna feel the difference. Yeah, I guess that's true, but some people probably won't feel the difference between playing at 60fps and 54fps, but 10% is 10%. Probably not worth the premium just to get a NVMe just to shave off 2 seconds from a game, but if you're building a new computer, NVMe is probably nice to have. But for the love of god, please don't play on a HDD.
×