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

NVMe M.2 SSD or SATA M.2 SSD? What do I need?

FireEagle244
 Share

I know NVMe is faster, but do I need the NVMe for what I am doing? Probably: Video Editing, Photo Editing, 3D modeling, Gaming, Might Get into Coding, Possibly Streaming, etc.

 

Currently what I am planning, please make alterations and fixes. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference depends on the hardware supporting it and the quality of the SSD/NVMe drive in question.  I'd say 20% maybe extra speed in areas for the NVMe.  You have to determine for yourself the if the price difference is worth it.  I wouldn't cheap out on your boot drive though.  Whatever SSD or NVMe you pick, get something quality.  Samsung's usually high quality.  I've got nothing but good to say about my 960 nvme drive, and the 970 is supposedly a faster refresh of that so...I'd go with it.  Even if it costs a bit extra, I think you're more likely to have buyer's remorse if you don't get it, but I also don't think you'll be unhappy if you go with a regular sata III SSD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could get a 1TB Crucial MX500 (Samsung's 1TB 860 Evo is a bit more expensive) for about the same price as the 970 Evo you chose. I'd argue having more space in an SSD will go a longer way than having an NVMe drive since for most use cases, there's almost no appreciable performance difference between NVMe and SATA SSDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, PineyCreek said:

The difference depends on the hardware supporting it and the quality of the SSD/NVMe drive in question.  I'd say 20% maybe extra speed in areas for the NVMe.  You have to determine for yourself the if the price difference is worth it.  I wouldn't cheap out on your boot drive though.  Whatever SSD or NVMe you pick, get something quality.  Samsung's usually high quality though.  I'd go with it.  Even if it costs a bit extra, I think you're more likely to have buyer's remorse if you don't get it, but I also don't think you'll be unhappy if you go with a regular sata III SSD.

Thanks, very well said. I think I may stay with the NVME, but do you think that I need 500 gb? also what about the other parts? do you think that the rest of the hardware will support the Samsung 970 Evo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you don't have any other SSD in the system, I'd stick with the 512 if you plan on running a fair number of programs off the NVMe drive as opposed to the 3TB HDD.  256 will still last you, but a few high end programs or games and you'll run out of space quick...especially if you get some of these modern games where they suddenly toss 60-100GB on your drive.

 

Feel free afterwards to complain to others saying you spent too much or you got more than you needed, but I doubt you'd complain about it for long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

You could get a 1TB Crucial MX500 (Samsung's 1TB 860 Evo is a bit more expensive) for about the same price as the 970 Evo you chose. I'd argue having more space in an SSD will go a longer way than having an NVMe drive since for most use cases, there's almost no appreciable performance difference between NVMe and SATA SSDs.

That's what I was thinking. I wasn't even sure if I would see a difference, but I'm all about efficiency, so if the NVMe would be better I "might" go with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, PineyCreek said:

Since you don't have any other SSD in the system, I'd stick with the 512 if you plan on running a fair number of programs off the NVMe drive as opposed to the 3TB HDD.  256 will still last you, but a few high end programs or games and you'll run out of space quick...especially if you get some of these modern games where they suddenly toss 60-100GB on your drive.

I find that stupid that the files are so big, but yea, I see what you mean. I'm not sure of any storage management programs, so Im not sure what I will be saving on the SSD or HDD, ill have to look into it. Or ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FireEagle244 said:

That's what I was thinking. I wasn't even sure if I would see a difference, but I'm all about efficiency, so if the NVMe would be better I "might" go with it.

I'll put it this way.  I'm fairly anal retentive about having things separate, so I have a 960 for boot and productivity, an 850 for games, and two 5TB drives for data/redundancy.  I get better load times, boot times by a bit (NVMe over normal SSD with Win10 since I've had Windows on an 850 prior), but it's not an amazing difference.  There IS a difference if the hardware is quality and the supporting hardware is also quality, but I'd suggest you look at comparison reviews first and then judge if the price difference is worth bickering over.  SSDs in general are cheap-ish now, so YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PineyCreek said:

I'll put it this way.  I'm fairly anal retentive about having things separate, so I have a 960 for boot and productivity, an 850 for games, and two 5TB drives for data/redundancy.  I get better load times, boot times by a bit (NVMe over normal SSD with Win10 since I've had Windows on an 850 prior), but it's not an amazing difference.  There IS a difference if the hardware is quality and the supporting hardware is also quality, but I'd suggest you look at comparison reviews first and then judge if the price difference is worth bickering over.  SSDs in general are cheap-ish now, so YMMV.

ok, ill look at some. so you have an NVMe for boot and windows, etc. 850 sata for games, and 2x 5TB HDD's for backup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FireEagle244 said:

ok, ill look at some. so you have an NVMe for boot and windows, etc. 850 sata for games, and 2x 5TB HDD's for backup?

Yes.  I could get away easily without the 850, I'd just have far fewer games installed at a time.  Likewise if I had wanted, I could have stuck with the 850.  My 850's a 1TB though.  It's worth noting that different capacity drives are sometimes faster/slower within the same model of SSD (NVMe or SATA) as well, if you're researching this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

In general I would recommend if it's a new system and you can afford it, get an NVMe drive for your boot/main drive.  However, if you already have a current generation SSD? The replacement cost isn't worth it.  I got the NVMe drive because this was a new system build. If I were you, I'd get the NVMe drive.  If I needed more fast storage, I'd add a regular SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PineyCreek said:

Yes.  I could get away easily without the 850, I'd just have far fewer games installed at a time.  Likewise if I had wanted, I could have stuck with the 850.  My 850's a 1TB though.  It's worth noting that different capacity drives are sometimes faster/slower within the same model of SSD (NVMe or SATA) as well, if you're researching this.

I think I'm getting what you're saying, and I did not know that speed can vary between capacities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PineyCreek said:

In general I would recommend if it's a new system and you can afford it, get an NVMe drive for your boot/main drive.  However, if you already have a current generation SSD? The replacement cost isn't worth it.

No, currently im on an old Optiplex 980 with 1tb HDD, 10gb ddr3 ram, a LP gtx 1050 and an i7 860. if I had a current SSD and knew its speed, I could base it on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, FireEagle244 said:

I think I'm getting what you're saying, and I did not know that speed can vary between capacities. 

Yes.  Usually not a great deal in terms of IOPS rating, but there is a difference sometimes.  For example on the 970, here's an article including some speed tests.  Synthetic testing isn't always indicative of normal use cases, but it's something to keep in mind:

 

https://www.storagereview.com/samsung_ssd_970_evo_review

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PineyCreek said:

Yes.  Usually not a great deal in terms of IOPS rating, but there is a difference sometimes.  For example on the 970, here's an article including some speed tests.  Synthetic testing isn't always indicative of normal use cases, but it's something to keep in mind:

 

https://www.storagereview.com/samsung_ssd_970_evo_review

yea, thanks I think any ssd will beat my current hdd by a long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, FireEagle244 said:

No, currently im on an old Optiplex 980 with 1tb HDD, 10gb ddr3 ram, a LP gtx 1050 and an i7 860. if I had a current SSD and knew its speed, I could base it on that.

HDD RPMs and capacity, buffer, etc. will matter to its access time as well.  Speed difference between SSD and HDD aside though, it's better to have an SSD simply because it IS solid state.  Nothing mechanical to go wrong, just electrical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PineyCreek said:

HDD RPMs and capacity, buffer, etc. will matter to its access time as well.  Speed difference between SSD and HDD aside though, it's better to have an SSD simply because it IS solid state.  Nothing mechanical to go wrong, just electrical.

very true, less chance of breaking from physical movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...let us look at the upgrades:

 

Memory -> going to dual channel DDR4

GPU -> 1050 -> 1070Ti - nice update in capability

HDD -> anything solid state - usually more reliable and definitely faster

 

There's nothing really to dislike about the scenario save spending money in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PineyCreek said:

Also...let us look at the upgrades:

 

Memory -> going to dual channel DDR4

GPU -> 1050 -> 1070Ti - nice update in capability

HDD -> anything solid state - usually more reliable and definitely faster

 

There's nothing really to dislike about the scenario save spending money in the first place.

what do you mean by "save spending money in the first place"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FireEagle244 said:

what do you mean by "save spending money in the first place"?

I mean, the fact that you have to spend money at all is the only thing that should annoy you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PineyCreek said:

I mean, the fact that you have to spend money at all is the only thing that should annoy you.

it is annoying, but for a new computer, which I really want, it is more worth it than spending 100 more dollars on an ssd and more ram for my current one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the SSD over the HDD, yes, definitely.  For any new system for games I say 8GB is the minimum.  For productivity I say 16GB minimum.  My work laptop has 16GB, and I usually use about 9GB keeping Windows, email, various browsers and a number of specialty applications open.  In most normal workloads, you will never exceed 16GB unless you're doing major editing/rendering, etc.  I've exceeded 8GB though just playing video games.

 

So, yes.  You won't hit RAM capacity very often most likely, and there's always virtual memory these days to alleviate it, but...why let Windows slow you down with significant virtual memory usage when you can have actual RAM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PineyCreek said:

For the SSD over the HDD, yes, definitely.  For any new system for games I say 8GB is the minimum.  For productivity I say 16GB minimum.  My work laptop has 16GB, and I usually use about 9GB keeping Windows, email, various browsers and a number of specialty applications open.  In most normal workloads, you will never exceed 16GB unless you're doing major editing/rendering, etc.  I've exceeded 8GB though just playing video games.

 

So, yes.  You won't hit RAM capacity very often most likely, and there's always virtual memory these days to alleviate it, but...why let Windows slow you down with significant virtual memory usage when you can have actual RAM?

yea its kind of like jerry-rigging it. my current laptop is from 2011 and i am planning on upgrading it so it will have an ssd and hdd as well as more than its measly 4gb of ram. for this laptop, it may be worth the virtual memory though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, FireEagle244 said:

yea its kind of like jerry-rigging it. my current laptop is from 2011 and i am planning on upgrading it so it will have an ssd and hdd as well as more than its measly 4gb of ram. for this laptop, it may be worth the virtual memory though.

Laptop?  I'm confused.  Are we talking about the same system as in the start of this topic or a different one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PineyCreek said:

Laptop?  I'm confused.  Are we talking about the same system as in the start of this topic or a different one?

sorry, i went off talking about my laptop. I was just saying that an ssd would help it a lot. (< the laptop that is.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share


×