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

NVme M.2 more noise about it than performance.

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


I WILL find your ITX build thread, and I WILL recommend the SIlverstone Sugo SG13B

 

Primary PC:

i7 8086k (won) - EVGA Z370 Classified K - G.Kill Trident Z RGB - Force MP500 - Jedi Order Titan Xp - The venerated Hyper 212 Evo (with RGB Riing flair) - EVGA G2 650W - Black and green theme, Razer branwashed me.

Draws 400 watts under max load, for reference.

 

Linux Proliant ML150 G6:

Dual Xeon X5560 - 24GB ECC DDR3 - GTX 750 TI - old Seagate 1.5TB HDD - Dark moded Ubuntu (and Win7, cuz why not)

 

EVGA G3 threadSeasonic Focus threadUserbenchmark (Et al.) is trash explained, PSU misconceptions, protections explainedgroup reg is bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Pegasides Server:

Dell r620

2x Intel E5-2630 6 core

4x 16gb ECC 1333mhz

2x Dell 15k 146gb

4x Lenovo HGST Ultrastar SSD1600MR 250gb

1x Solarflare 2 port 10gbe SFP+

 

Phoenix Server:

Dell r610

2x Intel x5650 6 core

12x 4gb ECC 1333mhz

2x Dell 15k 146gb

2x Samsung Evo 850 250gb

1x Solarflare 2 port 10gbe SFP+

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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


(◑‿◐)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Pegasides Server:

Dell r620

2x Intel E5-2630 6 core

4x 16gb ECC 1333mhz

2x Dell 15k 146gb

4x Lenovo HGST Ultrastar SSD1600MR 250gb

1x Solarflare 2 port 10gbe SFP+

 

Phoenix Server:

Dell r610

2x Intel x5650 6 core

12x 4gb ECC 1333mhz

2x Dell 15k 146gb

2x Samsung Evo 850 250gb

1x Solarflare 2 port 10gbe SFP+

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Tag or quote me so i see your reply

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


Ryzen 7 3800X | X570 Aorus Elite | G.Skill 16GB 3200MHz C16 | Radeon RX 5700 XT | Samsung 850 PRO 256GB | Mouse: Zowie S1 | OS: Windows 10

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×