what kind of SSD is fast enough?

[dfsgsfa]

take these 4 as example, all 500gb , seq r/w speed

- mx500 / sata ~550mb r/w

- intel 660p  / m.2 nvme~ 1500mb r /1000mb w

- crucial p2 / m.2 ~ 2300mb r / 940mb w

- samsung 970 evo ~3400mb r / 2300mb w

 

I only have a sata mx500  and a 8200pro m.2( 3300mb reads) and i feel sata really fall behind in general windows use, nothing productive here.

Also i have a conception that mid range m.2 nvme are only using pcie x2 speed and think they are waste of the precious slot on mobo.

 

Are the mid range nvme fast enough to neglect the time between a high end nvme drive?

[Mateyyy]

An SX8200 Pro is pretty much indistinguishable from the 970 Evo in real-world performance.

Also, for boot drives, the 660p and P2 are bad options.

[dfsgsfa]

1 minute ago, Mateyyy said:

the 660p and P2 are bad options

why? becoz they are qlc?

[Mateyyy]

1 minute ago, dfsgsfa said:

why? becoz they are qlc?

The 660p uses QLC flash and the P2 is DRAMless, basically the two things you should avoid, unless you plan on using the drive strictly for games for example.

[Haro]

2 minutes ago, dfsgsfa said:

why? becoz they are qlc?

Not only qlc

And because they are dram less

[Meganter]

Hello,

 

5 minutes ago, dfsgsfa said:

why? becoz they are qlc?

QLC and dramless which is kinda meh now, you should get either a SATA//M.2 SSD instead of a bad NVMe. To add on @Mateyyy, you also have the Sabrent Rocket, Corsair MP510, HP 950EX if they are available and at a reasonable price.

[dfsgsfa]

1 minute ago, _DeXTeR_ said:

Samsung PRO

isnt the (pro) is going beyond deminishing return...?

[Mateyyy]

6 minutes ago, TofuHaroto said:

Not only qlc

And because they are dram less

The 660p does have a DRAM cache, granted it's only 512MB iirc even on the 1TB+ models, but still, it's there. The P2 is TLC but DRAMless.

 

5 minutes ago, Meganter said:

you also have the Sabrent Rocket, Corsair MP510, HP 950EX if they are available and at a reasonable price.

Also the WD SN750 and Silicon Power P34A80, to add a couple more.

 

5 minutes ago, _DeXTeR_ said:

I would go for Samsung PRO

Almost double $/GB compared to even the 970 Evo for what?

You can justify the 970 Pro if you need to use it as a scratch disk on the daily, but otherwise it's a literal waste of money.

[Haro]

3 minutes ago, Mateyyy said:

The 660p does have a DRAM cache, granted it's only 512MB iirc

It does ?! 

I could have sworn it didn't 

Welp , guess I'm wrong on that one lol.

Edit : I just checked 

And it does, it has 256mb of chache though.

Edited July 2, 2020 by TofuHaroto

[Samfisher]

9 minutes ago, Mateyyy said:

An SX8200 Pro is pretty much indistinguishable from the 970 Evo in real-world performance.

Also, for boot drives, the 660p and P2 are bad options.

The SX8200 Pro has quite terrible endurance, and the firmware prioritizes peak speeds over sustained speeds.

[dfsgsfa]

but how bad realy are the qlc and dramless drives? any real life example?

dram issue can be solved if the drive isnt near full imo

[Haro]

1 minute ago, dfsgsfa said:

but how bad realy are the qlc and dramless drives? any real life example?

Well qlc has terrible write endurance 

And it starts to slow down after a certain amount of data gets written. 

[Mateyyy]

6 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

The SX8200 Pro has quite terrible endurance, and the firmware prioritizes peak speeds over sustained speeds.

640TBW on the 1TB model, whereas the 970 Evo and SN750 (just two quick solid options I checked) are rated for 600TBW on the 1TB models, so pretty much the same ballpark. The SX8200 Pro also has a 5 year warranty, the same as Samsung, WD and other manufacturers offer. How's the endurance on it terrible, exactly?

 

Regarding speeds, according to Tom's Hardware review of the SX8200 Pro, with a 50GB file copy, it performed pretty much the same as the SN750, 970 Evo and 970 Pro, and in the other tests it performed similarly to those drives too. (Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/adata-xpg-sx8200-pro-ssd,5955-3.html)

[dfsgsfa]

Just now, TofuHaroto said:

Well qlc has terrible write endurance 

even though majority users dont really write that often  in os drive

[Haro]

Just now, dfsgsfa said:

even though majority users dont really write that often  in os drive

True but avoiding it would be better 

And having a dram less ssd

Would affect both causal users and people who write often to their drivers 

Either way for a casual user even a sata SSD will do the job and the performance difference won't matter as it won't be noticeable what so ever 

[Samfisher]

4 minutes ago, Mateyyy said:

640TBW on the 1TB model, whereas the 970 Evo and SN750 (just two quick solid options I checked) are rated for 600TBW on the 1TB models. The SX8200 Pro also has a 5 year warranty, the same as Samsung, WD and other manufacturers offer. How's the endurance on it terrible, exactly?

 

Regarding speeds, according to Tom's Hardware review of the SX8200 Pro, with a 50GB file copy, it performed pretty much the same as the SN750, 970 Evo and 970 Pro, and in the other tests it performed similarly to those drives too. (Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/adata-xpg-sx8200-pro-ssd,5955-3.html)

The Phison E12 drives like the P34A80 are rated at 1,665 TBW on the 1TB model, and they are similarly priced.

 

Here's the Anandtech review of the SX8200 Pro

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13759/comparing-adata-sx8200-pro-vs-hp-ex950

 

The SM2262EN in the SX8200 Pro handles caching in a very weird way that gets worse the more you write to it.

[3rrant]

24 minutes ago, dfsgsfa said:

take these 4 as example, all 500gb , seq r/w speed

- mx500 / sata ~550mb r/w

- intel 660p  / m.2 nvme~ 1500mb r /1000mb w

- crucial p2 / m.2 ~ 2300mb r / 940mb w

- samsung 970 evo ~3400mb r / 2300mb w

 

I only have a sata mx500  and a 8200pro m.2( 3300mb reads) and i feel sata really fall behind in general windows use, nothing productive here.

Also i have a conception that mid range m.2 nvme are only using pcie x2 speed and think they are waste of the precious slot on mobo.

 

Are the mid range nvme fast enough to neglect the time between a high end nvme drive?

As far as speed goes, a 500MB+ SATA SSD is already more than enough for the average user and general use case, even for gaming. A PRO from Samsung will last a literal eternity in endurance.

If you want fast file transfer, you might want a 1-2GB/s NVMe drive, like the 660p which is pretty cheap already.

If you're going for the best, stick to Samsung Pro lineup but they cost a lot.

 

For games, other than being a SSD nothing else matters right now.

[Mateyyy]

1 minute ago, Samfisher said:

The Phison E12 drives like the P34A80 are rated at 1665TBW on the 1TB model, and they are similarly priced.

I seriously doubt you'll ever get even close to even 600 written terabytes, let alone over 1000.

[Samfisher]

1 minute ago, Mateyyy said:

I seriously doubt you'll ever get even close to even 600 written terabytes, let alone over 1000.

The point is there's no reason to get a worse product for no reason if they cost the same.  Aside from the NAND, the firmware on the SX8200 Pro is...  I've got both the SX8200 Pro and a Phison E12 SSD in my system.

[Marbo]

I bought a 660p as a boot drive for 2 reasons. 

 

1 trust in Intel

2 good price for nvme

 

Ive had it for around 10 months now, never had a problem. Day to day use for me it's fast enough. Apart from being my boot drive it has Daz studio and a number of 3d apps. I use a hdd for my media and 3d assets, basically because of the amount of data and cost of ssd. I have tried my assets on it and it is much quicker loading them than hdd (huge mixture of file sizes). As for longevity I can't comment, I haven't had it long enough. 

[Mateyyy]

4 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

The point is there's no reason to get a worse product for no reason if they cost the same.  Aside from the NAND, the firmware on the SX8200 Pro is...  I've got both the SX8200 Pro and a Phison E12 SSD in my system.

I never said the SX8200 Pro is superior to the A80 or other E12 drives, I'm just saying that for most if not all people, it'll be pretty much equivalent to an E12 drive for daily tasks. 

I wasn't aware of the fact that it slows down much more when it's full compared to the competition, so thanks for letting me and the others here know, but then again, I think it's a pretty known fact that you should not completely fill up an SSD anyway.

[dfsgsfa]

11 minutes ago, Marbo said:

 

1 trust in Intel

2 good price for nvme

i want to trust intel, but the product is just mid range nvme and inferior tech...

[dfsgsfa]

8 minutes ago, Mateyyy said:

I think it's a pretty known fact that you should not completely fill up an SSD anyway.

filling up isnt that terrible , at least in my 256gb 8200 pro, leaving 1 gb left barely enough to run a test , still not bad

[Marbo]

6 minutes ago, dfsgsfa said:

i want to trust intel, but the product is just mid range nvme and inferior tech...

It's priced accordingly. I can see it lasting me another year or 2 at least, by which time I'd be needing a bigger drive anyway. 

[Mateyyy]

9 minutes ago, dfsgsfa said:

filling up isnt that terrible , at least in my 256gb 8200 pro, leaving 1 gb left barely enough to run a test , still not bad

It's not advisable either.