Raid 0 or PCIe M.2??

[Chronified]

Currently using a Kingston V300 240GB SSD (yes, mediocre ~500Mbps speeds I know, it was an xmas gift) on a FX 8350 system.

 

Pre-question: Do PCIe storage devices work as the boot drive on AM3 boards?

If yes: Would M.2 PCIe adapter work as a boot drive, or would I be better off getting a 2nd cheapo V300/V400 SSD and running Raid 0 with my existing drive.

 

**I'm well aware of the risks of running Raid 0, I already have a nightly backup of my C: drive implemented just out of natural miss-trust of the V300 drive.

 

[Pickles von Brine]

Pre-question - No AM3 does not support NVMe. 

Actual answer - Just go with another cheap SSD and do the RAID 0. You are going to have great performance at a nice price. 

Also, awesome job on having that backup. 

[Jurrunio]

the thing is, boot speed is far more dependent on the drive's latency than sheer transfer rate. In latency PCIe SSDs arent better than SATA SSDs noticeably, which leads to similar real world performance.

[Chronified]

4 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

boot speed is far more dependent on the drive's latency than sheer transfer rate

I'm more so looking for lower game-loading times than boot times, I've been noticing I've been spending a bit more time loading GTA V and Dirt 4 than I'd like to lol. 

 

6 minutes ago, Lord Xeb said:

Pre-question - No AM3 does not support NVMe. 

In my boot devices it lists PCIe storage devices, I'd assume that includes NVMe

[Electronics Wizardy]

Id just use a single ssd. You won't notice the raid 0 speed differences, In real world uses there the same speed or faster to just use a single drive. 

 

Getting a faster ssd won't make your system noticably faster, Id just save up for a cpu upgrade.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, Chronified said:

I'm more so looking for lower game-loading times than boot times, I've been noticing I've been spending a bit more time loading GTA V and Dirt 4 than I'd like to lol. 

You can get a pcie ssd for games, but your cpu limited here. Its not just the drive your waiting for, its also the cpu to process all that data.

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, Chronified said:

I'm more so looking for lower game-loading times than boot times, I've been noticing I've been spending a bit more time loading GTA V and Dirt 4 than I'd like to lol

AM3 can read data off PCIe storage (including NVMe) after it finished booting up, but why spend that money on an FX system?

[Pickles von Brine]

1 minute ago, Chronified said:

I'm more so looking for lower game-loading times than boot times, I've been noticing I've been spending a bit more time loading GTA V and Dirt 4 than I'd like to lol. 

 

In my boot devices it lists PCIe storage devices, I'd assume that includes NVMe

Nah unfortunately that is not the case. NVMe on AMD systems was only supported on Ryzen and with Intel it is Z87 ir Z97. I forget which. In regards to the PCIe SSD boot devices, they existed at that time but were basically sata SSDs on an PCIe slot with a controller on there. Nothing to write home about and didn't really offer much crazier speeds. Well, unless you went with enterprise grade solutions. 

 

In regards to the game loading times. Both GTA V and Dirt 4 have large maps that take time to load. Most of that is reading the resources off disk and processing them before loading into both system and GPU ram. 

Just now, Electronics Wizardy said:

Id just use a single ssd. You won't notice the raid 0 speed differences, In real world uses there the same speed or faster to just use a single drive. 

 

Getting a faster ssd won't make your system noticably faster, Id just save up for a cpu upgrade.

That is also another solid valid point. Personally, I run a single 1TB SSD but want to go with a second 1TB so I can have a 2TB raid volume. It is cheaper than getting a single 2TB SSD at this time. 

[Chronified]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

but why spend that money on an FX system?

Because stupidly expensive ram prices right now, plus xmas is around the corner so I'd rather be buying gifts for others ahead of time instead of a new CPU+MB+RAM for myself that'd end up giving me less performance than I have now due to a limited budget. 

 

I'm only running with a 1050ti and the CPU is at 4.6Ghz, no bottleneck to be seen so why would I upgrade? 

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, Chronified said:

I'm only running with a 1050ti and the CPU is at 4.6Ghz, no bottleneck to be seen so why would I upgrade? 

Having a faster cpu will make everything a bit faster, from bootup, to loading programs and games, to loading webpages.

 

Id just wait, the faster ssd won't make a difference for this use.

[Jurrunio]

33 minutes ago, Chronified said:

Because stupidly expensive ram prices right now, plus xmas is around the corner so I'd rather be buying gifts for others ahead of time instead of a new CPU+MB+RAM for myself that'd end up giving me less performance than I have now due to a limited budget. 

 

I'm only running with a 1050ti and the CPU is at 4.6Ghz, no bottleneck to be seen so why would I upgrade? 

I just find it difficult to understand why would someone think shortening game loading time (when already using an SSD for that) is more important than increasing frame rate itself.

 

even something as cheap as the 2200G will wipe the FX's ass (with overclock) with a 1050ti. All you need to do is pair it up with a $120 kit of 16GB 3000MHz DDR4 and $100 B450 mobo. $350 should be more than enough for all of that. Ryzen 5 6 core will raise the cost by another $100.

 

This video doesnt do the 2200g justice with single channel memory, but even then it does show 2200G being faster than FX. Not to mention if you use a Ryzen 5 6 core.