Benefits of NVME for casual PC users?

[perdomot]

Been using a fast ssd for my OS & Apps and was mulling over getting an NVME m.2 drive but am not sure it would benefit me. I've seen videos on how it benefits things like gaming and photoshop but for someone who surfs the web, watches video, music, etc I haven't seen any data that looks promising. Even boot times appear about the same so aside from not needing cables, is there a benefit I should be aware of given my use pattern? Thanks.

 

[nosirrahx]

4KQ1T1 is all that matters for casual users. This is the measure of how fast a drive reads and writes random small files without overlap. It is the worst case scenario but as a causal user it represents a lot of what actually happens to a disk.

NVMe over a top tier SATA SSD wont be dramatically faster when it comes to this specific benchmark. Optane was the first technology where 4KQ1T1 speed jumped way up but the prices and capacities are still not really ready for much of anyone.

Eventually Optane will become a very good option and Samsung will have a solid competing technology but for now, as a casual user, its not worth it.

 

[squirrel dog]

Nvme setup as a boot drive with a fresh install of windows 10 on it is the bomb diggity for any user . I boot into my desktop is just a few seconds .

 

[fluffmonster]

Only meaningful difference I've noticed is that, on Win 10, sleep is truly seamless to the user.

 

[BFG10K]

I boot into my desktop is just a few seconds .

So does a first generation SATA2 SSD. NVMe won't make a lick of difference unless all you do is copy files all day.

Plus thanks to meltdown/specter patches, the faster the drive, the bigger the loss of performance. And yet another exploit has just been found.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Been using a fast ssd for my OS & Apps and was mulling over getting an NVME m.2 drive but am not sure it would benefit me. I've seen videos on how it benefits things like gaming and photoshop but for someone who surfs the web, watches video, music, etc I haven't seen any data that looks promising. Even boot times appear about the same so aside from not needing cables, is there a benefit I should be aware of given my use pattern? Thanks.

Don't underestimate the benefit of not needing cables. It may be a small thing, but it helps tremendously in smaller cases.

On the performance side of things, capacity matters far more then performance for casual use. If you just want an NVMe drive to play around with, there is the low cost Adata SX6000 available. But its performance is not better then most SATA drives.

 

[nosirrahx]

Don't underestimate the benefit of not needing cables. It may be a small thing, but it helps tremendously in smaller cases.

On a new build I 100% agree, on a fully built system looking for an upgrade, it might be a pain depending on how involved the cable management already is.

No SATA data or power cables does make for a pretty clean build.

 

[perdomot]

Losing the data cable from the ssd for a tidier build is about the only thing I can see as being a benefit so far. Not an issue in my MAtx case right now.

 

[UsandThem]

The benefits? Simple, it's faster than SATA (most of the time unless it's a cruddy product).

I'm building my son another computer tomorrow, and for around $20 more than a mid-range SATA drive, I bought him the MyDigitalSSD SBX NVMe drive. It's roughly 3X faster, and it makes a difference on things like Windows page file access, virus scans, installs, etc. He's a heavy multi-tasker, so it will help with his use.

Now if you already have a good SATA SSD, then it's really not something that is a "must have", but for anybody buying a drive nowadays, it really doesn't make a lot of sense for most people to not buy a NVMe drive (even if it's a "value" one). I have a 960 EVO in my PC, and after using it for a year, I think it was a good purchase.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If your motherboard has an M.2 PCI-E slot ("Ultra M.2", "Turbo M.2", "M.2 PCI-E 3.0 x4 slot"), then it is often worth your while to get an M.2 PCI-E NVMe drive. Even an entry-level one is usually faster than a SATA drive, although I've seen some fairly fast SATA SSDs, and some slower M.2 PCI-E SSDs too.

But if you get a decent one, they are basically unequivocably faster than a SATA SSD. (I often wonder why we never got 12Gbit/sec SATA speeds.)

 

[nosirrahx]

(I often wonder why we never got 12Gbit/sec SATA speeds.)

SATA express sure did die a swift death. I like to try out new hardware (even tried the only eSATA flash drive that came on the market) but never was able to even try SATA express.

Even SAS 12Gb has pretty crappy support.

 

[BSim500]

Been using a fast ssd for my OS & Apps and was mulling over getting an NVME m.2 drive but am not sure it would benefit me. I've seen videos on how it benefits things like gaming and photoshop but for someone who surfs the web, watches video, music, etc I haven't seen any data that looks promising. Even boot times appear about the same so aside from not needing cables, is there a benefit I should be aware of given my use pattern? Thanks.

The problem with recommending NVMe for low-requirement builds is still the absurd price premium. A real "like for like" = only $10 separates Samung 960 EVO 256GB (NVMe) vs a Crucial MX500 500GB (SATA). Whilst you may or may not notice much difference in performance, you will certainly notice the +100% difference in size when you start running out of room on the smaller drive...

And some people here seem to be confusing different things. M.2 is the name of the physical socket which uses 3 different buses (PCIe, SATA & USB3). NVMe is the name of the logical interface which puts PCIe based SSD's into that socket (the SATA equivalent is AHCI). Modern SATA SSD's come in both 2.5" as well as M.2 form factors (see Crucial MX300 / MX500 and Samsung 850 / 860 EVO drives) that enjoy same "no cables" advantage. NVMe has by no means a monopoly on M.2 storage.

 

[UsandThem]

The problem with recommending NVMe for low-requirement builds is still the absurd price premium. A real "like for like" = only $10 separates Samung 960 EVO 256GB (NVMe) vs a Crucial MX500 500GB (SATA). Whilst you may or may not notice much difference in performance, you will certainly notice the +100% difference in size when you start running out of room on the smaller drive...

Of course the storage space matters. If soneone had to decide between the two drives you listed, most should go for the larger drive. However, if someone is deciding between a $145 500GB 850 EVO and a drive like the 512GB MyDigitalSSD SBX for $150, why not go with the faster drive with the longer warranty?

 

[BSim500]

Of course the storage space matters. If soneone had to decide between the two drives you listed, most should go for the larger drive. However, if someone is deciding between a $145 500GB 850 EVO and a drive like the 512GB MyDigitalSSD SBX for $150, why not go with the faster drive with the longer warranty?

Where I live the 850 EVO 500GB is £109, the MX500 500GB is £107, and the 500GB MyDigitalSSD SBX is £189 (just £15 short of the £204 1TB MX500). And 5 year warranty is same on all. For the sake of £15, I'd pick that 1TB MX500 every time (or save £82 on the 500GB MX500).

 

[UsandThem]

Where I live the 850 EVO is £109, the MX500 is £107, and the 500GB MyDigitalSSD SBX is £189 (just £15 short of the £204 1TB MX500). And 5 year warranty is same on all. For the sake of £15, I'd pick that 1TB MX500 every time.

In the US, the 960 EVO comes with a 3 year warranty, while the SBX comes with a 5 year, and it's about $60 cheaper than the 500GB version. So it comes down to what products are the best for the person buying them, and the majority of users here are in the US market. But different regions have different calculations.

 

[Ranulf]

I went with a 256gb nvme for my ryzen build simply for the novelty and it was only about $10 more at the time than a sata drive. I can't recommend it for 500gb size drives and larger.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well . . . . like the criminal character Ray Lucca once said to Richard Farina the FBI man in "Crime Story:"

"I'm back! I'm bad! I'm on top! You wing-tip Bozos don't have nothin' on me!"

As per my thread in "General Hardware" about my "Gurr-eat Z170 system," you would be surprised how these Windows Feature Updates or Creators Updates can bork a dual boot system, and the symptoms may vary.

You are advised to run a Rescue Disk or Repair Disk from bootable CD or bootable USB to repair the MBR of the boot disk, and you are advised to do it as a routine matter even if your feature update seems to be flawlessly installed. That is, I recommend this routine attention for anyone with a dual-boot system. Only for knowing what works without flaw when these things happen, I recommend Macrium Reflect Free or any licensed Macrium version -- current one being v. 7.

Windows feature updates will mess with the boot record and cause problems such as I described in that thread.

But my caching configuration is back, my full complement of RAM is reinstalled and tested. There was never a "hardware" problem. Of course, someone could try and blame the caching program, but that's the wrong assumption or conclusion.

I can see how getting a device like the Intel 900P would mean less use of RAM in the caching.

I never had "mainstreamer" intentions for my Samsung 960 Pro and EVO. Once I'd installed the EVO as a caching volume, though, my fate was sealed: I'll have no worries of using slower media on this system as long as they can be cached to NVME and RAM. I only wish that Intel had beat Samsung to the market and released 3D XPoint NVMEs in fall 2016.

Personally, I just think it's all too much for mainstreamer computer users, beyond merely wanting an NVME as a boot-system drive without anything more fancy than that..

Prices should eventually come down for these NVME devices, and ultimately as 3D XPoint technology matures.

 

[Dasa2]

single threaded cpu performance has more to do with load times in a lot of programs than the ssd due to decompressing files but if its fast enough nvme ssd can stretch there legs in some programs
win 10 boot time
960 evo 6sec
mx300 9sec
https://www.techspot.com/news/67222-storage-real-world-performance-nvme-vs-sata-vs-hdd.html

 

[Midwayman]

The main reason I got one is sata is old tech. Sure there was a small price premium, but that means I can rely on those drives being useful well into the future. That said It depends on how much that premium is. I think I paid about 10-15% more for a NVMe drive than an equivalent size sata drive. Future proofing along was worth that much to me let alone any performance benefits.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The main reason I got one is sata is old tech. Sure there was a small price premium, but that means I can rely on those drives being useful well into the future. That said It depends on how much that premium is. I think I paid about 10-15% more for a NVMe drive than an equivalent size sata drive. Future proofing along was worth that much to me let alone any performance benefits.

After I've now become familiar enough with what caching will do for me and I've come to terms with the simple fact that it's not the source drive's speed that is of much consequence for the caching result, I'm mildly regretful that I paid some five Franklins for a 2TB Crucial MX300 (which is now cached to NVME and RAM as well). I'd had occasional disk errors with a Seagate 2TB Barracuda configured much the same way. Live and learn -- and save your money. I also wish that the Intel 900P had been released in fall 2016, or that I'd held out for one today, as opposed to buying my 960 EVO (caching) drive.

At least my curiosity has been satisfied . . .

 

[Grimner]

In the described use case, hardly anything. Yes, the whole system will be a little snappier, but nothing like going from HDD to SSD. You might have more effect from a little more RAM.

On a slight tangent... I just put together a system where I use a very sad 2.5" 5400 rpm disk as a system drive while testing the rest. It also has a middle of the road 500 GB NVMe. I happened to see that Windows suggested using the NVMe for Readyboost. With 32 GB of flash cache, that old hard drive cracks a smile once in a while. Bit of a meeting between two extremes where the whole flash caching thing gets to spread its wings.

 

[whm1974]

Since AAA and not so AAA games can be rather huge, will using NVMe drives speed up loading times?

 

[UsandThem]

Since AAA and not so AAA games can be rather huge, will using NVMe drives speed up loading times?

Depends on the game, but some current games get a small boost. However, I imagine going forward the game developers/Windows will take better advantage of the speed. There's a comparison video done on HDD vs. SSD vs. NVMe that I linked to a thread in the past, once I find it I will edit my post, and link to it here.

Edit:

 

[whm1974]

Thanks.

 

[whm1974]

So from watching the video, NVMe storage device are really a major benefit to professionals and content creators then.