Intel+SSD faster than AMD+M.2?

[AntiSpiral]

Hello everyone!!

I wanted to drop a thing that I realized a few days ago. I've a Pentium G4560 with a SSD Kingston V300 (old as fuck, I know) and a Ryzen 7 1700 with a M.2. Samsung 970 EVO PLUS.

The funny story is that the Intel+SSD, being way cheaper, older and worse in general boots and shuts Windows FASTER than the Ryzen+M.2. That thing triggers the shit out of me. How is it freaking possible? Might it be a Mobo config?

PS: the M.2. works perfectly. I've CrystalMark it and the numbers are perfect and also I tried with my old M.2. a XPG GAMMIX S11 and the same thing goes: a slower boot than the Intel
PSS: Intel MB:: MSI H110i PRO ----- AMD MB: MSI B450M MORTAR   

[Jurrunio]

boot process is mostly SSD dependent, but other factors like files you have on the OS and the motherboard BIOS's work time also affects it.

[Fasauceome]

This is not exactly rare, nvme drives aren't eye wateringly faster than SATA SSDs like SSDs in general are over hard drives, if you've got more programs running off the NVMe SSD then of course it takes more work and time to shut down.

[AntiSpiral]

2 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

boot process is mostly SSD dependent, but other factors like files you have on the OS and the motherboard BIOS's work time also affects it.

Both BIOS are fully upgrated and both have the same OS installed

[AntiSpiral]

1 minute ago, fasauceome said:

This is not exactly rare, nvme drives aren't eye wateringly faster than SATA SSDs like SSDs in general are over hard drives, if you've got more programs running off the NVMe SSD then of course it takes more work and time to shut down.

Both computer are just now with fresh Windows 10 installation. So that's not the issue here for the moment

[Windows7ge]

Other things besides raw boot drive throughput would be a factor here. In terms of actually FEELING the speed M.2's are actually not much greater than SSDs (At least when it comes to boot times, loading applications, installing things, etc) while on newer hardware it may be necessary for the BIOS/Windows to initialize more hardware features on startup causing bootup to take longer. A better comparison would be similar gen hardware with similar functions on both boards. Or better test the SSD and M.2 on the same system and compare the difference. You need very particular workloads to really see the benefit of using NVMe storage. 

[AntiSpiral]

5 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

Other things besides raw boot drive throughput would be a factor here. In terms of actually FEELING the speed M.2's are actually not much greater than SSDs (At least when it comes to boot times, loading applications, installing things, etc) while on newer hardware it may be necessary for the BIOS/Windows to initialize more hardware features on startup causing bootup to take longer. A better comparison would be similar gen hardware with similar functions on both boards. Or better test the SSD and M.2 on the same system and compare the difference. You need very particular workloads to really see the benefit of using NVMe storage. 

That's the thing: I just tested the XPG (which was insanely fast boot on the Intel) in the AMD and it boots/shuts slower. That's what is driving me crazy

[Mister Woof]

My 1600 takes much longer at POST than my 8700k system.

 

Probably motherboard is just crappy or just RAM retraining or some crap.

 

[asand1]

Who cares? You're not waiting 4 minutes for an HDD to boot. Does an extra 3 seconds really matter?

[AntiSpiral]

3 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

My 1600 takes much longer at POST than my 8700k system.

 

Probably motherboard is just crappy or just RAM retraining or some crap.

 

It's the oppossite. The Intel system has a basic 1x8Gb Kingston 2133Mhz with a basic Mobo. The AMD has a much beter Mobo with 2x8Gb XPG SPECTRIX D41 3000Mhz.
And yes, is with the AMD system that everything goes slower

[AntiSpiral]

1 minute ago, asand1 said:

Who cares? You're not waiting 4 minutes for an HDD to boot. Does an extra 3 seconds really matter?

It doesn't. BUUUUT, after having a newer and more expensive PC and seeing this......I can't help to just get freaking mad about it ^^'

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, AntiSpiral said:

It's the oppossite. The Intel system has a basic 1x8Gb Kingston 2133Mhz with a basic Mobo. The AMD has a much beter Mobo with 2x8Gb XPG SPECTRIX D41 3000Mhz.
And yes, is with the AMD system that everything goes slower

I was just talking about my scenario, but my undertanding is that AMD POST tends to take longer

[nick name]

The ASUS X470 Prime Pro takes seconds to POST and then boot to Windows.  The ASUS X470 Crosshair VII takes many many times longer to POST and boot.  

 

What I am saying is that it isn't as simple as you might think.  My laptop POSTs and boots faster than either of those above mentioned boards.  

[AntiSpiral]

6 minutes ago, nick name said:

The ASUS X470 Prime Pro takes seconds to POST and then boot to Windows.  The ASUS X470 Crosshair VII takes many many times longer to POST and boot.  

 

What I am saying is that it isn't as simple as you might think.  My laptop POSTs and boots faster than either of those above mentioned boards.  

So it might be a MOBO thing? But what about the other side? What about shuting down the computer? There the Mobo shouldn't matter at all.....

[Mister Woof]

20 minutes ago, AntiSpiral said:

So it might be a MOBO thing? But what about the other side? What about shuting down the computer? There the Mobo shouldn't matter at all.....

In my experience, quirky behavior has almost always been motherboard related

[asand1]

What are your boot and shutdown times?

[AntiSpiral]

2 minutes ago, asand1 said:

What are your boot and shutdown times?

After this installation are a bit better: 21s boot, 4-5 sec shut. The Intel shuts in 2 seconds and boots in 13

[Stefan Payne]

my MSI B450I with 64GB Samsung 830 and 2400G with DDR4-2400 boots faster than Ryzen 7/1700x on ASUS X370-F Strix with DDR4-3200.

 

So what??
Change the SSDs and see what happens.

[AntiSpiral]

7 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

my MSI B450I with 64GB Samsung 830 and 2400G with DDR4-2400 boots faster than Ryzen 7/1700x on ASUS X370-F Strix with DDR4-3200.

 

So what??
Change the SSDs and see what happens.

I've tested with both M.2. that I've. Same boot/shut times. So it must be something related with Hardware, but not an issue

[Mister Woof]

Once you've got all your OC and RAM dialed in change it to "Fast Boot" or "Ultra Fast Boot".

 

It helped tremendously on my 1600, but be warned that it prevents you from easily accessing BIOS at startup on UltraFastBoot. You will need to shutdown -> troubleshoot -> UEFI to get back in. Which is a problem if you can't get into windows or windows isn't working properly.

[Dedayog]

1 hour ago, Plutosaurus said:

My 1600 takes much longer at POST than my 8700k system.

 

Probably motherboard is just crappy or just RAM retraining or some crap.

 

I notice this as well.

 

No, we aren't using the same PC's.  Pluto copied my setup. /s

 

[asand1]

Hell I was happy when switching from the shitty marvel USB3 to USB2 cut my boot time in half to 33 seconds. I love my X58, but would love native M.2.