NVme M.2 more noise about it than performance.

[Techea]

Did anybody notice absolutely no saving boot or apps loading time with these nvme m.2 storage cards compared to regular ssd? It could be less time compared to an hdd but who in this world still uses hdd for the operating system? A little disappointing given the the whole roar about them. The only advantage is cable-less design other than that...smoke and mirrors. 

 

 

[Fasauceome]

Boot times were never advertised as a selling point for m.2, and any average Joe that told you you'd see a performance increase in regular desktop use was off the mark.

 

The only legitimate advantage to NVMe storage performance wise manifests itself with very large files, like photo and video editing. Any gamer spending extra on a fast SSD will not reap that benefit, and I always remind people who are buying a 970 Evo that the money can go towards better components elsewhere.

 

The cable free design is handy, and imo that's what SATA m.2 is all about. Cheapo WD blue and the like are great for value storage in the tiny form factor.

[MartinIAm]

22 minutes ago, Techea said:

Did anybody notice absolutely no saving boot or apps loading time with these nvme m.2 storage cards compared to regular ssd? It could be less time compared to an hdd but who in this world still uses hdd for the operating system? A little disappointing given the the whole roar about them. The only advantage is cable-less design other than that...smoke and mirrors. 

 

 

This depends on the type of NVME M.2 ssd you are using, if it's incredibly cheap it's gonna perform around the same as a SATA ssd. If your using a very high quality one, you can see speeds of 3gb or more per second. Boot times are dependent on a lot of variables and not just your ssd, like your cpu and motherboard, and you can improve this by turning on fast boot or ultra fast boot if you are using Windows. Loading times is also faster in larger sized files. There are a lot of variables that go into your experience of an NVME M.2 drive. If you have multiple virtual machines on your computer with many iops, then these nvme M.2 ssds are a big life saver. Regular ssds use SATA (I hope that is what your talking about) and SATA has a speed limit of around 800megabytes per second, whereas M.2 Gen4 speeds go up to 4.95GB/S, so no it is not just about the "smoke and mirrors". I mean, in the end it all depends in your situation. If you just browse the internet you might not see a big difference, but if you are doing something like 8k video scrubbing, then it really matters to have a fast ssd. Also, if your loading big games like GTA V then you will see a performance boost of load times. Sometimes the extra money is worth it, but if you don't really care about loading times of bigger games and don't want to spend money on NVMe drives, then don't because for some people they will only see the performance boost in some rare situations.

[Valkyrie Lenneth]

0.2sec load times is most likely what ul see different,    nvme is more for heavy duty workstation file transfer requirements ect , consumers dont really see difference from standard ssd to nvme

[Stu_Bear]

Transfer speeds aside...random read/write IOPS on a NVMe m.2 is on average 5-to-6x greater than sata SSD.  Why have a bottleneck when you don't have to.  Is it felt in all applications ? Not at all.  Does it help some applications ?  Yes.  Prices are kinda similar these days.  A computer nerd can find a way to make use of it if they get bored enough.

[Techea]

3 hours ago, MartinIAm said:

This depends on the type of NVME M.2 ssd you are using, if it's incredibly cheap it's gonna perform around the same as a SATA ssd. If your using a very high quality one, you can see speeds of 3gb or more per second. Boot times are dependent on a lot of variables and not just your ssd, like your cpu and motherboard, and you can improve this by turning on fast boot or ultra fast boot if you are using Windows. Loading times is also faster in larger sized files. There are a lot of variables that go into your experience of an NVME M.2 drive. If you have multiple virtual machines on your computer with many iops, then these nvme M.2 ssds are a big life saver. Regular ssds use SATA (I hope that is what your talking about) and SATA has a speed limit of around 800megabytes per second, whereas M.2 Gen4 speeds go up to 4.95GB/S, so no it is not just about the "smoke and mirrors". I mean, in the end it all depends in your situation. If you just browse the internet you might not see a big difference, but if you are doing something like 8k video scrubbing, then it really matters to have a fast ssd. Also, if your loading big games like GTA V then you will see a performance boost of load times. Sometimes the extra money is worth it, but if you don't really care about loading times of bigger games and don't want to spend money on NVMe drives, then don't because for some people they will only see the performance boost in some rare situations.

Man, are you kidding me? I bought the Samsung 970 EVO with 3500 mb/s read and 2500 mb/s. Is out there anything better than this one? I compared everything with a cheap SSD I can't even remember the name and the speed was the same for boot and apps load. There is no difference not even a second faster, and I was looking for a F second man, just one. I have my operating system installed on it. Let's cut the crap and say it the way it is cause I'm sick of all  the suckers on youtube spitting lies shamelessly.  Smaller, thinner, no cables, but that's about it.

[Techea]

3 hours ago, Fasauceome said:

Boot times were never advertised as a selling point for m.2, and any average Joe that told you you'd see a performance increase in regular desktop use was off the mark.

 

The only legitimate advantage to NVMe storage performance wise manifests itself with very large files, like photo and video editing. Any gamer spending extra on a fast SSD will not reap that benefit, and I always remind people who are buying a 970 Evo that the money can go towards better components elsewhere.

 

The cable free design is handy, and imo that's what SATA m.2 is all about. Cheapo WD blue and the like are great for value storage in the tiny form factor.

Go and tell those suckers who saw faster booting time and swear on it. Those are the kind of people who can swear they saw Jesus at one point in their life.

[MartinIAm]

1 hour ago, Techea said:

Man, are you kidding me? I bought the Samsung 970 EVO with 3500 mb/s read and 2500 mb/s. Is out there anything better than this one? I compared everything with a cheap SSD I can't even remember the name and the speed was the same for boot and apps load. There is no difference not even a second faster, and I was looking for a F second man, just one. I have my operating system installed on it. Let's cut the crap and say it the way it is cause I'm sick of all  the suckers on youtube spitting lies shamelessly.  Smaller, thinner, no cables, but that's about it.

I'm just gonna say, the faster the read speed of the drive, and the faster the cpu the faster Windows 10 will load. If you have a SATA drive with 800mb/s read speed the M.2 ssd with 3500mb/s will load Windows 10 faster. Cheap SATA ssds cannot compare to high-end consumer NVMe ssds in loading and boot times. They are not "spitting lies" because it is true, and the limitations of your speeds could be because you don't have your system correctly setup, or don't leave enough pcie bandwidth for the ssd. I use a WD black NVMe drive and I see my computer load 15-25 seconds faster than the previous SATA ssd I owned (Samsung 840 evo), and loading times are significant. SATA gen. 3 is simply slow and M.2 ssds were not designed because there was no cables (at least not the main point), but to have better speeds than SATA.

[Juular]

What makes any SSD faster than HDDs are random performance, there's huge difference, about 200-300x at least, difference between SATA and NVMe drive would be less than tenfold at most if you compare some crappy SATA with relatively good NVMe. No surprise that you wouldn't see the difference between good SATA SSD and NVMe one in 90% of tasks. What you will see are mostly the difference in throughput, when you read\write\transfer large files, that's all.

[Doobeedoo]

Not sure about the 'roar' about them and how they're smoke and mirrors because they're not though. They were not advertised as you think, overall they are faster, depends on workloads in some much more. For sequential they're much faster, for random read and write they're much less faster vs SATA one, which a lot of is used for booting for example. 

Depends on bios settings and board too, like fast boot or not and all that. 

And yeah there are faster ones too, the Plus version and the new PCIe4.0 drives. 

[beavo451]

21 hours ago, Techea said:

Did anybody notice absolutely no saving boot or apps loading time with these nvme m.2 storage cards compared to regular ssd? It could be less time compared to an hdd but who in this world still uses hdd for the operating system? A little disappointing given the the whole roar about them. The only advantage is cable-less design other than that...smoke and mirrors. 

 

 

Not everything about storage performance is "boot time".

 

M.2 is the connector. NVMe refers to the storage being interfaced with the PCIe bus. Not all NVMe drives are connected via M.2 and not all M.2 connected devices are NVMe.