Can somebody explain these conversion rates.

[nelska]

Nvme at 16 GBps

USB 3.1 gen 2 at 10 Gbps

 

Can you please compare them I cannot find a conversion rate to anything. I' m looking for one flat conversion rate.. Apples to oranges. Thanks.

 

Aka which ones faster and by how much. Ty

 

 

 

[Shimejii]

Its Gigabytes vs Gigabits. When you have Gigabit internet, in reality its a 1/8 conversion, so youll get around 120-130 Megabyte per Second downloads.

 

NVME Transfer rates are At full Gigabyte Speeds, Although Thats more then likely the PCIE Lane spec not the NVME spec. Currently Gen 4 PCIE SSDS on AMDS platform Max out at around 7 Gigabytes Per sec. You could raid 0 4 of them and get a fair bit higher, but there is a Cap.

[mariushm]

nvme uses a pci-e x4 link  (up to 4 pci-e lanes, some controllers use only 2 lanes)

Each pci-e lane has a maximum theoretical speed of around 970 MB/s but due to overhead, expect around 920-950 MB/s per lane.

So, a nvme x2 SSD can do up to around 1800 MB/s and a nvme x4 SSD can do up to around 3500 MB/s

 

On pci-e 4.0 , you get double the values.

 

pci-e 3.1 gen 2 is 10gbps, which is around 1100-1200 MB/s ... so that's kinda equivalent to pci-e 1x , 1.5x

 

 

edit. so be sure to be aware of difference between 16 GBps and 10 gbps: GBps is gigaBYTES per second while 10gbps is 10 giga BITS per second

 

1 byte is 8 bits, so proper comparison would be 16 GBps vs 1.25 GBps (10/8)

But I'm not sure the 16 GBps is a correct number... it's more like:

 

pci-e 2.0  = 0.5 GB/s x pci-e lanes (2 or 4 lanes) = 1-2 GBps

pci-e 3.0  = 0.97 GB/s x pci-e lanes = ~ 1.9 - 3.8 GBps

pci-e 4.0 = 1.94 GB/s x pci-e lanes = 3.8 GB/s - 7.7 GBps

 

[Lenovo1984]

For what? You're comparing an internal storage connection to USB. 

[minibois]

1GB = 8Gb

 

So 1.6GB/s (I guess this is a 1600MB/s write or read SSD? Not 16GB/s?) = 2Gbps

10Gb/s = 1.25GB/s

 

SSD: 1600MB/s - 1.6GB/s - 12.8Gb/s

USB 3.2 Gen 2: 1250MB/s - 1.25GB/s - 10Gb/s

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, minibois said:

1GB = 8Gb

 

well, don't forget the leading and trailing bit. Usually it's accurate to round it up to 10Gb, when talking about data transfer anyway

[nelska]

16 minutes ago, Lenovo1984 said:

For what? You're comparing an internal storage connection to USB. 

I'm trying to upgrade the speed of the hard drive so it's faster than the freaking USB port.. lol. I have pcie x4 slot for nvme evo960. I'm hoping running the os off that will finally be faster than that.

 

I bought a b250 PC mate Mobo and am trying to run it as fast as possible but current Sata 3 ssds are so slow they are being out performed by usb ports.

[Lurick]

3 minutes ago, nelska said:

I'm trying to upgrade the speed of the hard drive so it's faster than the freaking USB port.. lol. I have pcie x4 slot for nvme evo960. I'm hoping running the os off that will finally be faster than that.

 

I bought a b250 PC mate Mobo and am trying to run it as fast as possible but current Sara 3 ssds are so slow they are being out performed by usb ports.

A HDD is limited by the spin speeds, not the SATA3 or USB3 speed.

A typical HDD will average around 120MB to 180MB depending on RPM, size, location of data, etc.

180MB = 1.44Gbps which is WAY below SATA3 speeds of 6Gbps. Upgrading the interface will not improve the speed of the drive.

[Sakkura]

14 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

well, don't forget the leading and trailing bit. Usually it's accurate to round it up to 10Gb, when talking about data transfer anyway

Depends on the encoding used. PCIe 2.0 and older used 10b/8b encoding so 10Gb/s transfer rate was equal to 1GB/s data throughput, but newer PCIe versions use much more efficient encoding (similar change happened for USB with 3.1 gen 2).

[nelska]

2 minutes ago, Lurick said:

A HDD is limited by the spin speeds, not the SATA3 or USB3 speed.

A typical HDD will average around 120MB to 180MB depending on RPM, size, location of data, etc.

180MB = 1.44Gbps which is WAY below SATA3 speeds of 6Gbps. Upgrading the interface will not improve the speed of the drive.

I need the os to run on a storage transfer device with speeds greater than what is 3.1 gen 2 offers. The answer is nvme.

[Sakkura]

28 minutes ago, nelska said:

Nvme at 16 GBps

USB 3.1 gen 2 at 10 Gbps

Are you sure the NVMe is 16 GBps and not 16 Gbps?

 

Edit: Confused myself.

[mariushm]

Modern mechanical drives (read 4+ TB drives, NAS grade or better) can reach up to around 260-280 MB/s for a significant portion of their surface. That's very close to SATA 3gbps maximum speeds. SATA 6 gbps has a maximum of around 560 MB/s (in theory it's 600 MB/s but again due to overhead, how data packets are transferred on the wires and so on, you NEVER get the maximum theoretical speed). The rpm is not actually a big factor, you can have a 5400 rpm drive which has high density so you get big transfer speeds, and you can have a 7200 rpm drive with older generation platters where data is not so packed together (so it takes more rotations and time to read same amount of data). Higher rpm only helps with seeking data (amount of time it takes for drive to find data on platters and then begin streaming it to you)

 

So with mechanical drives, it's all about data density when it comes to throughput. 

 

Same for pci-e, 500 MB/s, 970 MB/s, 2x970MB/s for pci-e 4.0 these are all theoretical maximum transfer speeds ... reality is a few percent less actual throughput.

 

 

[nelska]

Nvme is faster than USB 3.1 gen 2. So boot from it.

[Fasauceome]

9 minutes ago, nelska said:

Nvme is faster than USB 3.1 gen 2. So boot from it.

yes.

 

USB 3.1 gen 2 only surpasses SATA when comparing internal bandwidth, and even still, booting from USB has its own drawbacks.

[nelska]

6 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

yes.

 

USB 3.1 gen 2 only surpasses SATA when comparing internal bandwidth, and even still, booting from USB has its own drawbacks.

This is true but still when a USB port is faster than the device the os is running on. That's backwards. I'm not sure if it would benefit to literally run the os from external USB 3.1 gen 2 sad or not. But just nvme and move on

 

Edit: not an SSD but literally a nvme over USB is faster than data 3

[Fasauceome]

3 minutes ago, nelska said:

when a USB port is faster than the device the os is running on. That's backwards.

Having more bandwidth than you can actually use is fairly common, because that's a better scenario than having a device that reads and writes so fast that it can't possibly deliver all that data. 

 

3 minutes ago, nelska said:

I'm not sure if it would benefit to literally run the os from external USB 3.1 gen 2 sad or not. But just nvme and move on

it wouldn't because windows does not benefit from any major speed boosts past the cheapest SATA SSD out there. Having fast external storage is useful for other tasks, but definitely not for speeding up your OS. Even NVMe SSDs don't improve the OS experience, but they've become so cheap that they're often some of the most affordable M.2 drives, especially in the 1TB range.

[nelska]

2 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

Having more bandwidth than you can actually use is fairly common, because that's a better scenario than having a device that reads and writes so fast that it can't possibly deliver all that data. 

 

it wouldn't because windows does not benefit from any major speed boosts past the cheapest SATA SSD out there. Having fast external storage is useful for other tasks, but definitely not for speeding up your OS. Even NVMe SSDs don't improve the OS experience, but they've become so cheap that they're often some of the most affordable M.2 drives, especially in the 1TB range.

I dunno about that but booting from nvme is better.

[Fasauceome]

Just now, nelska said:

but booting from nvme is better.

better than USB, yes.

[nelska]

1 minute ago, Fasauceome said:

better than USB, yes.

Better than sata 3.

 

Edit: and faster than 10Gbps USB 3.1 gen 2

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, nelska said:

Better than sata 3.

 

Edit: and faster than 10Gbps USB 3.1 gen 2

in terms of just using an operating system, it's just as good as SATA 3. Don't expect any improvement over cheap SATA drives if you are targeting NVMe specifically for things like boot time.

[nelska]

Just now, Fasauceome said:

in terms of just using an operating system, it's just as good as SATA 3.

That's like saying a coats a coat but it's neg 50 degrees outside.

[Fasauceome]

2 minutes ago, nelska said:

That's like saying a coats a coat but it's neg 50 degrees outside.

"negative 50 degrees outside" is not what we're looking at here.

 

NVMe drives are only going to show their value when handling massive files. If you are spending extra on high speed storage, you must understand that you will not be seeing any improvement if you do not handle huge video or photo files, or any other storage intensive tasks. Loading an operating system or some games doesn't benefit from extra fast SSDs.

 

so it's not -50 out, there's a slight chill in the air and you're trying to put on a parka. save yourself the extra cash and go with the hoodie.

[nelska]

10 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

"negative 50 degrees outside" is not what we're looking at here.

 

NVMe drives are only going to show their value when handling massive files. If you are spending extra on high speed storage, you must understand that you will not be seeing any improvement if you do not handle huge video or photo files, or any other storage intensive tasks. Loading an operating system or some games doesn't benefit from extra fast SSDs.

 

so it's not -50 out, there's a slight chill in the air and you're trying to put on a parka. save yourself the extra cash and go with the hoodie.

Well I am.. tho. HUGE ones.

 

Edit: on the same hard drive the os IS running on.

[Fasauceome]

5 minutes ago, nelska said:

Well I am.. tho. HUGE ones.

if that's the case then yes, NVMe is great. But since you had only mentioned operating system and booting from NVMe until now, I thought that was all that mattered here.

[nelska]

Just now, Fasauceome said:

if that's the case then yes, NVMe is great. But since you had only mentioned operating system and booting from NVMe until now, I thought that was all that mattered here.

I'm sorry I mean I want everything together on one hard drive that of which is the quickest.