Samsung 970 EVO (PLUS) 1TB vs 970 PRO 512GB

[leyo96]

Hello,

I'm building my first pc, this is what I have (I' ll overclock):

-MSI z370 gaming pro carbon
-Intel I7 8700k (delid)
-Asus RTX 2080 Dual OC
-BitFenix whisper M 650W
-2x 3TB 7200rpm HDD in RAID 1 (so my data is safe)

 

I want to get of course a NVME SSD as my primary (OS) drive and I know that the Samsung 970 EVO/EVO Plus/PRO are the best.

I think I'd be fine with 500GB since I have the 3TB of regular HDD but I also know that larger SSDs are faster than smaller ones as Linus explained.

 

So between a 970 PRO 512GB and a 1TB 970 EVO or EVO Plus which one would be faster and so better?

 

This are the prices in Italy:
-970 EVO 500GB: 119€
-970 EVO 1TB: 209€
-970 EVO Plus 500GB: 120€
-970 EVO Plus 1TB: 222€
-970 PRO 512GB: 147€

 

What would you recommend me to buy? Do you have any other suggestion?

[Eastman51]

For a regular old boot drive NVMe isn't really any faster than SATA, but you can still get one if you want.

 

I'd just get the 500GB 970 EVO, they're cheaper than the PRO (which is faster, but without video editing or large file transfers to make use of it, its definitely not worth it). If you don't need a 1TB SSD, don't get one, just save money where you can

[Firewrath9]

what about a EX920? or a SX8200? they should be cheaper and basically perform the same.

[leyo96]

4 minutes ago, Firewrath9 said:

what about a EX920? or a SX8200? they should be cheaper and basically perform the same.

The adata 512GB is 108€ and 1TB 213€

Hp it's more expensive than 970

 

Would you take the 970 EVO for 10€ more?

[leyo96]

7 minutes ago, Eastman51 said:

For a regular old boot drive NVMe isn't really any faster than SATA, but you can still get one if you want.

 

I'd just get the 500GB 970 EVO, they're cheaper than the PRO (which is faster, but without video editing or large file transfers to make use of it, its definitely not worth it). If you don't need a 1TB SSD, don't get one, just save money where you can

What about 970 EVO vs 970 EVO Plus?

[Firewrath9]

1 minute ago, leyo96 said:

The adata 512GB is 108€ and 1TB 213€

Hp it's more expensive than 970

 

Would you take the 970 EVO for 10€ more?

I'd take the evo for 10 more. in the us, its more like 40-50, at which its better

1 minute ago, leyo96 said:

What about 970 EVO vs 970 EVO Plus?

whichever one is cheaper.

[thedangerine]

I have an NVMe boot drive and really don't notice much of a difference than when I had my sata ssd as a boot drive. I also have a RAID 1 in my system and when you use your motherboard to handle the RAID it adds a good 10 or so seconds to boot so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Yes bigger ssds are faster but at the end of the day the real difference you will actually notice is gonna be just having an ssd in general. I would go with whatever capacity and price you feel most comfortable with

[leyo96]

2 minutes ago, AdvancedMicroDisapointment said:

I have an NVMe boot drive and really don't notice much of a difference than when I had my sata ssd as a boot drive. I also have a RAID 1 in my system and when you use your motherboard to handle the RAID it adds a good 10 or so seconds to boot so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Yes bigger ssds are faster but at the end of the day the real difference you will actually notice is gonna be just having an ssd in general. I would go with whatever capacity and price you feel most comfortable with

Would then a Intel 660P be a good option? I watched linus' video about it and when the drive it's fullying up it becomes terrible.

This are the prices in Italy:

-512GB: 75€
-1TB: 121€

 

What would you recommend me to do?

[thedangerine]

18 hours ago, leyo96 said:

Would then a Intel 660P be a good option? I watched linus' video about it and when the drive it's fullying up it becomes terrible.

This are the prices in Italy:

-512GB: 75€
-1TB: 121€

 

What would you recommend me to do?

It wouldn't be a bad option at all, I have the previous gen intel 600p as a boot drive right now and even from the time added from the raid screen and the time it gives to allow me in the bios my computer still can reboot in around 30 seconds give or take 10s. Granted the 600p uses TLC rather than QLC but there is a significant difference in the price and if I remember correctly Linus found the real world performance of the 660p to be pretty good despite its synthetic being bad. I would honestly just get whatever capacity you think you will need as it won't make a huge difference in performance on those ssd's, plus you can always get more storage later. Hope this helped

[leyo96]

1 minute ago, AdvancedMicroDisapointment said:

It wouldn't be a bad option at all, I have the previous gen intel 600p as a boot drive right now and even from the time added from the raid screen and the time it gives to allow me in the bios my computer still can reboot in around 30 seconds give or take 10s. Granted the 600p uses TLC rather than QLC but there is a significant difference in the price and if I remember correctly Linus found the real world performance of the 660p to be pretty good despite its synthetic being bad. I would honestly just get whatever capacity you think you will need as it won't make a huge difference in performance on those ssd's, plus you can always get more storage later. Hope this helped

Thank you, I think I'll get the 660p 1TB since I'll be able to fit at least 750GB without problems vs the 400GB of a 500GB 970, at the same price. 

[thedangerine]

2 minutes ago, leyo96 said:

Thank you, I think I'll get the 660p 1TB since I'll be able to fit at least 750GB without problems vs the 400GB of a 500GB 970, at the same price. 

Sounds like the move to me