Is this 53 degrees @idle Normal for NVMe SSD?

[BonzaiDuck]

There's a version of the card + heatsink as a bundle for $2 less than buying seperately here. I think there's a good chance if you ordered each part individually they probably just threw the box for the bundle in your order.

Well, I'm getting old, I've lost my edge, but I still scan through the options carefully -- if swiftly -- to find what I want. I cannot understand why I didn't find that product-link on their web-site. Seems I recall seeing a whole page full of links when I searched for it . . .

BUt I could say I've lost a few dollars indeed with seemingly needless purchases as provision for this . . . NVMe excursion.

Referring again to that other thread about my cloning hurdle, I see that I can test these NVMe drives as formatted "data drives," and they are true to spec. I've totally optimized both OSes now -- SuperFetch, Prefetch -- all of it. I think it's AS SSD, but it reports that the alignment is "OK." There is absolutely nothing amiss that I can find.

But the benchies show the tests of each OS on their boot-volumes falling behind the spec maximum. In Windows 7, CrystalDiskMark shows about 2,980 seq-read, maybe 1,900 write. Win 10 shows about 3,003 and something around 1,900 to 2,000-something.

I suppose I'd like to know more even why those results would be expected. If I weren't trying to "meet the spec," though, this is plenty fast.

I'm not doing anything that would cause the drive to heat up much more than its idle temperature, or I haven't noticed it -- didn't and couldn't measure it during the cloning operations. I think I'm headed for 2 TBW, but that's from the trial and error in getting this right.

Does anyone know if there would be any difference using the x4 socket managed as part of the chipset's 20 PCIE lanes which communicate with the CPU through an x4-equivalent DMI link? Or would it be better to use the 16 lanes provided by the CPU itself and put the drive in the PCIE_x16/8_2 slot?

When I looked at this before, I couldn't tell any difference.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

I watched the drive all day today - Idle never dropped below 29C. It seriously bugs me that the heatsink increased idle temps. I ordered another KryoM.2 from ModMyMods since they charge only $3.99 to ship (unlike Performance PC's with their $9 shipping charge). I guess the AlphaCool is going in the plastic tub in the closet with all the other extra, failed, or otherwise unused computer crap. It's too bad.

If my PC situation changes I might be inclined to get some REALLY high quality thermal pads and try again. Until then, noooooooooope. KryoM.2 is the clear winner for fit, finish, and performance.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I watched the drive all day today - Idle never dropped below 29C. It seriously bugs me that the heatsink increased idle temps. I ordered another KryoM.2 from ModMyMods since they charge only $3.99 to ship (unlike Performance PC's with their $9 shipping charge). I guess the AlphaCool is going in the plastic tub in the closet with all the other extra, failed, or otherwise unused computer crap. It's too bad.

If my PC situation changes I might be inclined to get some REALLY high quality thermal pads and try again. Until then, noooooooooope. KryoM.2 is the clear winner for fit, finish, and performance.

I need to observe my 960 pro some more, but in a general computer idle state, I haven't observed the temperatures higher than 28C with the KryoM.2.

Once I get a few more bugs resolved from my dual-boot system and deem it totally stellar, I am going to add the 960 EVO 250GB drive to the PCIE-x16-2 slot to see how it might still function (as I'd proven or touted in the last month) -- as a caching volume for SATA SSDs and HDDs. At this point, though, and other than either one or two NVMe's in PCIE x4, I only intend to have three 2.5" HDDs and one of them set up for local Windows backup and hot-swap. Two of those are cabled to the motherboard; one to a Marvel PCIE x1 controller. The backup disk is the only item cabled to that Marvel controller.

But I now have only three drives connected to the motherboard Intel SATA controller out of six. Two of the six are disabled to enable x4 lanes on the PCIE-x16-3 slot, so I have one more vacant port on the motherboard and three more ports available on the Marvel.

If it weren't a dual boot system, one internal HDD and the hotswap HDD would be enough.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

960 Pro bare: 26C idle, 53C peak, 27C delta
960 Pro Kryo: 23C idle, 29C peak, 6C delta

960 Evo bare: 26C idle, 54C peak, 28C delta
960 Evo Alpha: 31C idle, 48C peak, 17C delta

Got the second KryoM.2 in - Installed the 960 Evo right away.

960 Evo Kryo: 24C idle, 30C peak, 6C delta.

Obviously a significantly better heatsink all around aside from not fitting the M.2 form factor. Very consistent, too.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Got the second KryoM.2 in - Installed the 960 Evo right away.

960 Evo Kryo: 24C idle, 30C peak, 6C delta.

Obviously a significantly better heatsink all around aside from not fitting the M.2 form factor. Very consistent, too.

The little Gnome-Tech M.2 heatsink arrived today, and I'm a bit disappointed. It seems bereft of thermal pads, but for a little square about the size of on square IC on the Samsung 960.

While I don't think I'd need it for the second 960 (the EVO) in the PCIE_x16_2 slot, I'm thinking I may just order another KryoM.2 to "do it right."

What sort of benchtest do you run so that you achieve those temperatures without the Kryo?

I've looked into the issue of overloading PCIE. The DMI link on the chipset seems wide open for four lanes -- no problem there. A 1% hit in performance to the graphics card should also mean essentially nothing. I'm wondering if there isn't an x8 card that fits two NVMe M.2's. Also, I'm pretty sure the x1 slots go through the chipset.

 

[UsandThem]

Well, I just ordered the KryoM.2 from Performance PCs since ModMyMods was out of stock. Shipping with USPS from FL to NC was close to $9, so definitely not so thrilled about that. However, after seeing the temp differences the Kryo makes with the 960 EVO, I figured why not run it cooler than the motherboard M.2 slot will provide (even with good airflow). Performance PCs definitely had some bad reviews left about their service, but it seemed like most of them were related to user error / axe to grind kinda people. The various people across the many different computer forums seem to like and trust them, and all I need is for it to arrive intact and work.

I've just gotten spoiled from Amazon customer service where I know if there is a problem, they will take care of it. So more often than not, I use them for a lot of stuff. So fingers crossed I have a good first experience with Performance PCs as they have a really good selection of custom PC parts that Amazon doesn't really carry (yet).

I also looked at the Angelbird Wings PX1, and although it was reviewed by several sites (including Anandtech), I could not justify spending $75 for it just for some fancy LEDs.

@XabanakFanatik : Thanks for posting those temps, it really helped in making up my mind if the additional expense for the card was worth it!

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well, I just ordered the KryoM.2 from Performance PCs since ModMyMods was out of stock. Shipping with USPS from FL to NC was close to $9, so definitely not so thrilled about that. However, after seeing the temp differences the Kryo makes with the 960 EVO, I figured why not run it cooler than the motherboard M.2 slot will provide (even with good airflow). Performance PCs definitely had some bad reviews left about their service, but it seemed like most of them were related to user error / axe to grind kinda people. The various people across the many different computer forums seem to like and trust them, and all I need is for it to arrive intact and work.

I've just gotten spoiled from Amazon customer service where I know if there is a problem, they will take care of it. So more often than not, I use them for a lot of stuff. So fingers crossed I have a good first experience with Performance PCs as they have a really good selection of custom PC parts that Amazon doesn't really carry (yet).

I also looked at the Angelbird Wings PX1, and although it was reviewed by several sites (including Anandtech), I could not justify spending $75 for it just for some fancy LEDs.

@XabanakFanatik : Thanks for posting those temps, it really helped in making up my mind if the additional expense for the card was worth it!

I've used Performance PCs a lot, and usually for boutique items catering to "enthusiasts." I've never had a problem with them.

Can someone remind me or clarify what the performance differences are between an NVMe in the motherboard M.2 slot versus configured to PCIE x4? When I saw that I would lose two SATA ports either way (or at least have to "share" bandwidth with SATA port 0 and 1), I chose the PCIE x4 route. Yet, I probably would've delayed playing with NVMe if it had not been for the option to put one in the mobo's own M.2 slot.

Gotta have those SATA ports available . . . . too. . . .

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

The little Gnome-Tech M.2 heatsink arrived today, and I'm a bit disappointed. It seems bereft of thermal pads, but for a little square about the size of on square IC on the Samsung 960.

While I don't think I'd need it for the second 960 (the EVO) in the PCIE_x16_2 slot, I'm thinking I may just order another KryoM.2 to "do it right."

What sort of benchtest do you run so that you achieve those temperatures without the Kryo?

I've looked into the issue of overloading PCIE. The DMI link on the chipset seems wide open for four lanes -- no problem there. A 1% hit in performance to the graphics card should also mean essentially nothing. I'm wondering if there isn't an x8 card that fits two NVMe M.2's. Also, I'm pretty sure the x1 slots go through the chipset.

In my previous post, I noted I was monitoring temps while running an entire CrystalDiskMark pass set to 1GB x 3.

What gnome tech heatsink did you get? The carbon fiber one?

There do exist x8 and x16 cards that allow the use of multiple PCI-e M.2 drives but they are expensive as they have to have a controller to manage the traffic between the drives since only one device can communicate on a given slot at a time. I'm not sure if there is a performance penalty or how big it is.

Well, I just ordered the KryoM.2 from Performance PCs since ModMyMods was out of stock. Shipping with USPS from FL to NC was close to $9, so definitely not so thrilled about that. However, after seeing the temp differences the Kryo makes with the 960 EVO, I figured why not run it cooler than the motherboard M.2 slot will provide (even with good airflow). Performance PCs definitely had some bad reviews left about their service, but it seemed like most of them were related to user error / axe to grind kinda people. The various people across the many different computer forums seem to like and trust them, and all I need is for it to arrive intact and work.

I've just gotten spoiled from Amazon customer service where I know if there is a problem, they will take care of it. So more often than not, I use them for a lot of stuff. So fingers crossed I have a good first experience with Performance PCs as they have a really good selection of custom PC parts that Amazon doesn't really carry (yet).

I also looked at the Angelbird Wings PX1, and although it was reviewed by several sites (including Anandtech), I could not justify spending $75 for it just for some fancy LEDs.

@XabanakFanatik : Thanks for posting those temps, it really helped in making up my mind if the additional expense for the card was worth it!

The extra shipping cost is precisely why I didn't order my second one from Performance PCs and instead waited for ModMyMods to get stock again.

I really feel like the 960 series is a bad specimen for the use of aftermarket heatsinks due to the extra work Samsung put into power management and cooling. I think going the KryoM.2 route is a little overkill but I like the idea of keeping the temps of these expensive drives down for longevity. I feel like given how long it will be before PCI-e 4.0 (enabling up to 8GB/s for M.2), and given other M.2 ssds aren't even close in speeds yet, that these drives should be relevant for quite a few years.

Still, I feel like I should be bought an M8PE or RD400 that could really benefit from a heatsink. Eh, they arent as quick as even the 960 Evo.

I've used Performance PCs a lot, and usually for boutique items catering to "enthusiasts." I've never had a problem with them.

Can someone remind me or clarify what the performance differences are between an NVMe in the motherboard M.2 slot versus configured to PCIE x4? When I saw that I would lose two SATA ports either way (or at least have to "share" bandwidth with SATA port 0 and 1), I chose the PCIE x4 route. Yet, I probably would've delayed playing with NVMe if it had not been for the option to put one in the mobo's own M.2 slot.

Gotta have those SATA ports available . . . . too. . . .

The utilization of lanes or SATA ports is 100% dependent on your specific motherboard. Although I don't understand why a PCI-e drive should occupy any SATA ports whatsoever.

On my X99 board the M.2 slot doesn't allow for SATA drives so no ports are occupied with its usage. I'm just glad to put some of my 40 lanes to use finally, although a better motherboard would allow me to use even more. I've been tossing around the idea of getting an Asus X99 II board of some kind since they finally got their heads on right and allowed use of M.2 without disabling a PCI-e slot, so I could get a third NVM-e drive and fuel my odd obsession even further.

I probably shouldnt for my own sanity. And wallet.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

In my previous post, I noted I was monitoring temps while running an entire CrystalDiskMark pass set to 1GB x 3.

What gnome tech heatsink did you get? The carbon fiber one?

There do exist x8 and x16 cards that allow the use of multiple PCI-e M.2 drives but they are expensive as they have to have a controller to manage the traffic between the drives since only one device can communicate on a given slot at a time. I'm not sure if there is a performance penalty or how big it is.



The extra shipping cost is precisely why I didn't order my second one from Performance PCs and instead waited for ModMyMods to get stock again.

I really feel like the 960 series is a bad specimen for the use of aftermarket heatsinks due to the extra work Samsung put into power management and cooling. I think going the KryoM.2 route is a little overkill but I like the idea of keeping the temps of these expensive drives down for longevity. I feel like given how long it will be before PCI-e 4.0 (enabling up to 8GB/s for M.2), and given other M.2 ssds aren't even close in speeds yet, that these drives should be relevant for quite a few years.

Still, I feel like I should be bought an M8PE or RD400 that could really benefit from a heatsink. Eh, they arent as quick as even the 960 Evo.



The utilization of lanes or SATA ports is 100% dependent on your specific motherboard. Although I don't understand why a PCI-e drive should occupy any SATA ports whatsoever.

On my X99 board the M.2 slot doesn't allow for SATA drives so no ports are occupied with its usage. I'm just glad to put some of my 40 lanes to use finally, although a better motherboard would allow me to use even more. I've been tossing around the idea of getting an Asus X99 II board of some kind since they finally got their heads on right and allowed use of M.2 without disabling a PCI-e slot, so I could get a third NVM-e drive and fuel my odd obsession even further.

I probably shouldnt for my own sanity. And wallet.

We're totally on the same page with that wallet remark. when I built this system, the only loose end in my planning was the accommodation to the new NVMe technology. These "loose ends" require me to contemplate carefully and move forward slowly, so as not to botch up too much of a good thing.

Here's a diagram I found pertaining to the Z170 chipset (more text follows after):

This seems to be a fairly accurate or consistent depiction compared to my Sabertooth Z170 manual and descriptions of "shared bandwidth" and port availability. The last four PCIE lanes are likely the ones used in my PCIE_x16_3 slot, which at most offers x4, provided the two ports in green are disabled.

What isn't shown here are the CPU's own PCIE lanes. Given how those would be used and relevant to PCIE-x16_1 and _2, it's obvious to me that the three or four x1 slots on the board also go through the chipset. There's apparently no problem with using at least two of those x1 ports with my current NVMe PCIE x4 configuration.

the only thing to regret would be the loss of 4 lanes associated with those "SLI/CF" slots, since putting in another NVMe card will use four, but deprive the single graphics card of eight. OR I hope I'm correct in that inference, because I've never heard of a graphics card using 12 lanes. But -- wouldn't it be nice. . . .

 

[deustroop]

Agreed, when an M.2 drive is installed, the Asus x99-A USB 3.1 mainboard I use disables one of three PCIe 3x16 slots, with no direct effect on SATA ports . A 40 lane cpu configuration, and assuming the vga device is installed in a 3 x 16 slot, will leave one PCIe 3v16 available for x16 operation which can include two way SLI . That is not too shabby considering the board has a further three PCIe 2 slots , 1 x16 and 2 x 1.

Based on XabanakFanatik's comment I looked into subsequent x99 boards.

The x99 Deluxe U3.1 specs say:

The PCIe x16_5 shares bandwidth with M.2 x4. Triple PCIe 3.0/2.0 configuration is default set at x8/x8/x8. Adjust PCIEX16_5 Slot Bandwidth in BIOS.

The x99 Deluxe II specs say:

PCIe x16_3 shares bandwidth with M.2 and U.2_2. It runs at x16 mode by default. PCIe X16_5 shares bandwidth with U.2_1. It runs at x4 mode by default with U.2_1 enabled.

 

[UsandThem]

I really feel like the 960 series is a bad specimen for the use of aftermarket heatsinks due to the extra work Samsung put into power management and cooling. I think going the KryoM.2 route is a little overkill but I like the idea of keeping the temps of these expensive drives down for longevity. I feel like given how long it will be before PCI-e 4.0 (enabling up to 8GB/s for M.2), and given other M.2 ssds aren't even close in speeds yet, that these drives should be relevant for quite a few years.

Still, I feel like I should be bought an M8PE or RD400 that could really benefit from a heatsink. Eh, they arent as quick as even the 960 Evo.

I was initially going to go with the Plextor M8PeY (add in card with nice heatsink) at Amazon when they had it for $260. But since I am taxed at Amazon, the 960 EVO + KryoM.2 came out to about the same price. I looked at the RD400, but outside of it having the best warranty out of all the manufacturers (they pay return shipping and cross-ship a new unit), it was $50 more than the 960 EVO. The 960 EVO is faster, runs cooler, and uses less power at idle and at load. I wish the 960 EVO came with a longer warranty like the Plextor's 5 year warranty, but 3 years or 200 TBW is plenty for my use.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10909/the-plextor-m8pe-512gb-ssd-review/9

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

I was initially going to go with the Plextor M8PeY (add in card with nice heatsink) at Amazon when they had it for $260. But since I am taxed at Amazon, the 960 EVO + KryoM.2 came out to about the same price. I looked at the RD400, but outside of it having the best warranty out of all the manufacturers (they pay return shipping and cross-ship a new unit), it was $50 more than the 960 EVO. The 960 EVO is faster, runs cooler, and uses less power at idle and at load. I wish the 960 EVO came with a longer warranty like the Plextor's 5 year warranty, but 3 years or 200 TBW is plenty for my use.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10909/the-plextor-m8pe-512gb-ssd-review/9

I feel like this is where you get to pick two: Price, Performance, Longevity/Warranty

The Evo is obviously the Price and Performance combo.

The M8PE is the Price and Longevity/Warranty combo.

The 960 Pro is the Performance and Longevity/Warranty combo.

200TBW should last a long time for a normal workload. I used a 512GB 950 Pro for work for a while (Frequently working with data, installing/uninstalling apps, virtual machines (Lots of testing, installing apps, switching checkpoints), frequent Windows reinstalls) and I only had 10TBW after a year. At that rate, the drive would have hit the 400TBW endurance rating after.. 40 years?

 

[UsandThem]

Just got the 960 EVO delivered. However, stupid Newegg mailed it in a padded envelope, and the box was crushed just like late last year when I ordered a SSD from them. This will be the last SSD order from them as I wrote them last time showing them pictures of the shipping damage, and I just got back the "We'll pass it on to that department so we can improve blah, blah, blah". Why they can't put a $250 drive in a small box is beyond me.

Luckily the 960 EVO was not damaged, and now that's out of the way, I just threw the 960 EVO on my motherboard M.2 for now, and this is what I got (Microsoft driver). It hit 58c towards the end, but mostly stayed around 54c. Once the KryoM.2 comes, I'm going to put in there and do a clean install of Windows 10 with it as my OS drive and the 850 EVO as a program/music storage drive.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Just got the 960 EVO delivered. However, stupid Newegg mailed it in a padded envelope, and the box was crushed just like late last year when I ordered a SSD from them. This will be the last SSD order from them as I wrote them last time showing them pictures of the shipping damage, and I just got back the "We'll pass it on to that department so we can improve blah, blah, blah". Why they can't put a $250 drive in a small box is beyond me.

Luckily the 960 EVO was not damaged, and now that's out of the way, I just threw the 960 EVO on my motherboard M.2 for now, and this is what I got (Microsoft driver). It hit 58c towards the end, but mostly stayed around 54c. Once the KryoM.2 comes, I'm going to put in there and do a clean install of Windows 10 with it as my OS drive and the 850 EVO as a program/music storage drive.

Let me ask you.

Did you test this as a non-bootable data drive? Or did you clone your OS to it?

Everybody who visits these forums recently probably knows my saga of the "Great 960 EVO 250 Experiment" -- to use NVMe for an SSD cache. When I installed the EVO, I put a basic simple volume on the disk and tested it. It performed to spec.

Similarly with the 960 Pro recently installed: simple, basic, non-boot volume -- tests to spec.

After cloning the dual-boot OS, fixing alignment on the EFI partition and resizing the OS volumes, the drive performs a few 100 MB/s below spec.

Right now, everything is tip-top. SFC /SCANNOW shows the system to pristine and perfect. I need to fix the "Preview" and "Open With" items on the right-click Windows context menu, but those are minor tweaks to the OS.

Soon, I'll probably install the 960 EVO again in PCIE_x16_2 with the Pro in the bottom x4 slot, and I'm hoping for no need to tweak or adjust my GTX 1070 overclock. the slight performance difference between x16 and x8 is really nothing by the benchtests I'd seen.

 

[UsandThem]

Let me ask you.

Did you test this as a non-bootable data drive? Or did you clone your OS to it?

Basically all I did was install into a M.2 slot on the motherboard to make sure it wasn't damaged by Newegg's crappy shipping job. I formatted it and ran CrystalDiskMark on it.

When I get the KryoM.2 adapter in a few days, I'm going to do a clean install of Windows 10 on it. On my 850 EVO (my current OS drive) when I installed Windows, I installed it as "other OS" instead of "Windows 8/10" in my BIOS which enables legacy CSM support. I've heard that slows down the drives a little bit, so going to try that way out this time. Otherwise, I'd just clone it over.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Basically all I did was install into a M.2 slot on the motherboard to make sure it wasn't damaged by Newegg's crappy shipping job. I formatted it and ran CrystalDiskMark on it.

When I get the KryoM.2 adapter in a few days, I'm going to do a clean install of Windows 10 on it. On my 850 EVO (my current OS drive) when I installed Windows, I installed it as "other OS" instead of "Windows 8/10" in my BIOS which enables legacy CSM support. I've heard that slows down the drives a little bit, so going to try that way out this time. Otherwise, I'd just clone it over.

I'd been planning to jump into the NVMe water since I started building in September. So I did some searches -- armed with limited information, and plotted a course.

I used the EaseUS PM utility to convert the original MBR to GPT, because I thought it might otherwise prevent me from UEFI boot. But I still needed CSM. In fact, the other day, I ran across another reason I might "need" it, but in my aging decrepitude, I forgot what that reason might be for now. Someone else told me that "other OS" would not be a problem, but the advice came after I made the conversion. I HAVE to HAVE dual-boot Win7/Win10. I HAVE to.

Whether you are headed toward simple single-boot, or multi-OS boot, you are right to install the Sammy NVMe driver first. Then do the clone. I strenuously recommend either Macrium Reflect or Mini Tool . Acronis seems to have fallen down, and EaseUS is skittish, reticent and negative about the ability of their product to clone dual-boot installations with assurances of working flawlessly afterward. [LATER] Oh. Forgot to say. Maybe you aren't inclined to multi-OS boot, but if you are and using Macrium -- you can do the clone within Windows AFTER you create the Macrium Rescue disc. And for multi -- I suggest you do the clone within the latest OS version. There may likely be a way to do it with the bootable CD without starting in Windows, but I didn't go that route this time.

 

[UsandThem]

I'd been planning to jump into the NVMe water since I started building in September. So I did some searches -- armed with limited information, and plotted a course.

I used the EaseUS PM utility to convert the original MBR to GPT, because I thought it might otherwise prevent me from UEFI boot. But I still needed CSM. In fact, the other day, I ran across another reason I might "need" it, but in my aging decrepitude, I forgot what that reason might be for now. Someone else told me that "other OS" would not be a problem, but the advice came after I made the conversion. I HAVE to HAVE dual-boot Win7/Win10. I HAVE to.

I had a little extra time, so I went ahead and did the clean install of Windows 10 (GPT), CSM disabled, Samsung NVMe driver. Here are the CrystalDiskMark results which some areas are faster, and some are slower than my results in post #38.

 

[VirtualLarry]

There do exist x8 and x16 cards that allow the use of multiple PCI-e M.2 drives but they are expensive as they have to have a controller to manage the traffic between the drives since only one device can communicate on a given slot at a time. I'm not sure if there is a performance penalty or how big it is.

A single PCI-E slot can be "mechanically split" to support multiple devices on it, if it supports "lane bifurication". More common in server boards, as I understand it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

BTW, I just sprang for a couple of AData XPG SX8000 M.2 PCI-E 3.0 x4 (I assume NVMe?) SSDs, in 128GB size.

The Newegg specs for the 128GB size is fairly un-impressive, 1000MB/sec read, and 300MB/sec write.

But, it's MLC (I think 3D MLC?). Which is, in my mind, a Good Thing.

Newegg on ebay had them marked down to $69.99. Which would buy you a 240/256GB 2.5" SATA SSD, in planar TLC. But PCI-E and MLC both have price premiums, and the cheapest Intel 600p they had on their site was the 256GB for $99.99. Which, in absolute cost, was higher. Plus, the 600p is 3D TLC, not MLC.

 

[UsandThem]

Newegg on ebay had them marked down to $69.99. Which would buy you a 240/256GB 2.5" SATA SSD, in planar TLC. But PCI-E and MLC both have price premiums, and the cheapest Intel 600p they had on their site was the 256GB for $99.99. Which, in absolute cost, was higher. Plus, the 600p is 3D TLC, not MLC.

I saw this thread where they have the 600p 256 GB drives for $80.

It probably doesn't matter that much, as I believe the Adata drives use the same controller as Intel does, but like you pointed out use MLC NAND.

https://slickdeals.net/f/9735684-in...280-80mm-nvme-pcie-3-0-x4-for-80-on-monoprice

 

[BonzaiDuck]

BTW, I just sprang for a couple of AData XPG SX8000 M.2 PCI-E 3.0 x4 (I assume NVMe?) SSDs, in 128GB size.

The Newegg specs for the 128GB size is fairly un-impressive, 1000MB/sec read, and 300MB/sec write.

But, it's MLC (I think 3D MLC?). Which is, in my mind, a Good Thing.

Newegg on ebay had them marked down to $69.99. Which would buy you a 240/256GB 2.5" SATA SSD, in planar TLC. But PCI-E and MLC both have price premiums, and the cheapest Intel 600p they had on their site was the 256GB for $99.99. Which, in absolute cost, was higher. Plus, the 600p is 3D TLC, not MLC.

I can appreciate that information, and you usually volunteer much.

For me, I looked at these options when, as I said, I was forging my "stage 2" plan for building this system (6700K). Of course, you know what I had in mind for the NVMe EVO I bought earlier. And except for the dual-boot issue which I will eventually sort out, once the cache filled up, playing GRID2 especially scared the s*** outta me -- in a positive way. The chase scenes in "French Connection" and "The Bourne Identity" were nothing in comparison --- the films were like a baby-stroller in the park. Could I "feel" the difference against no NVMe and no PrimoCache? You bet I could! Doing anything else, there was still a noticeable improvement in the "look and feel" speed.

So when it came down to the wire, it was choice between a 1TB Pro and a 1TB EVO. For my trial-and-error disk-cloning, I've already chewed up 3TBW on the Pro, so I'm not going to regret it. 1.2 PBW as an "expectation" is very comforting.

For these others, they all have a place and a home. If I put one in the mobo M.2 slot, though, I'd either share the bandwidth with SATA port 0 and 1, or simply lose those ports. Of course, sharing bandwidth may not amount to much of anything there -- I can't say. I'd have to look into this some more.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

So when it came down to the wire, it was choice between a 1TB Pro and a 1TB EVO. For my trial-and-error disk-cloning, I've already chewed up 3TBW on the Pro, so I'm not going to regret it. 1.2 PBW as an "expectation" is very comforting.

The 1TB 960 Pro Warranty Endurance rating is 800 TBW, it's the 2TB that is 1.2PB.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The 1TB 960 Pro Warranty Endurance rating is 800 TBW, it's the 2TB that is 1.2PB.

I could take that at face value, always seeking to learn new info, and you may know better. I knew that the EVO had a "warranty endurance rating" of 400. I THOUGHT I had seen some review stating that the 1TB PRO had an "expectation" of 1.2 PBW. I'm careful enough not to confuse any oranges with what might be apples, but I'm not always careful enough to hunt down the additional details as to why this would be oranges versus oranges.

Of course, some "expectation" should correspond to a "warranty endurance rating," but I just hadn't assumed they were synonymous -- but maybe they are. Why wouldn't they be?

Short and sweet -- let me put it another way. If the Pro Warranty Endurance rating is 800 TBW, and if that had substituted as a factor in my decision/choice between PRO and EVO, I might probably have purchased the PRO anyway. I'm good! For now, anyway! As long as I'm rambling, I'll freakin' explain it more.

This is a dual-boot Win7/Win10 system in which there is a hierarchy of storage, with plans based already on proven experience and tests to use a caching program that does both RAM and SSD-caching. For this reason, the OSes are obviously separate, and identical (compatible or compatibility-mode-tweaked) programs are installed twice. Partitions or volumes of one OS are not available to the other OS, vice-versa. So what if you're working on the same files -- say, Word or Excel files, using the same version of Office installed under both OSes? They can't be on a device cached to SSD accessible by either OS, unless the caching drives are separate (or I can prove that two volumes on the same device will work reliably). The files can only be on RAM-cached drives, so that's the "bottom- tier -- either large HDD or smaller SSD.

So -- pointing toward the OS forums where I haven't yet posted my rant -- Win 7 is pristine, while Win 10 has some Event Log red and yellow bangs which I will clear up. But it (10) is otherwise rock-stable, comes out of Sleep or Hibernate -- no hardware or driver malfunctions, even for the reds and yellows.

And I've tested all the Win 10 partitions and volumes: SFC /SCANNOW -- Perfect! CHKDSK -- Perfect! Better then the Prez's trumped up bill-of-medical-health. Couldn't be better.

So basically, I'm confident that the 3TBW for the Pro drive won't grow so fast now, since I'm not trial-and-error cloning whole disks and volumes! I'm happy! Happier than a Pig in S***!! At least -- it all takes my mind off the things tempting me to throw a glass or bottle at my HDTV news broadcasts . . .

 

[UsandThem]

I received my KryoM.2 today from Performance PCs, and I have to say they shipped it very fast and it was very well packaged. Definitely much better than Newegg did on the Samsung 960 EVO. Anyways, here's the new numbers with the Samsung on the add-in card instead of the motherboard M.2 slot (the read performance was down a bit, while the write performance was up a bit. The nice thing was the 960 EVO only hit 30c during testing. So that's a 28c (edit: bad math:. 54f freakin' degrees!) difference from the 58c it hit yesterday when I had it installed on my motherboard.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

I could take that at face value, always seeking to learn new info, and you may know better. I knew that the EVO had a "warranty endurance rating" of 400. I THOUGHT I had seen some review stating that the 1TB PRO had an "expectation" of 1.2 PBW. I'm careful enough not to confuse any oranges with what might be apples, but I'm not always careful enough to hunt down the additional details as to why this would be oranges versus oranges.

Of course, some "expectation" should correspond to a "warranty endurance rating," but I just hadn't assumed they were synonymous -- but maybe they are. Why wouldn't they be?

Short and sweet -- let me put it another way. If the Pro Warranty Endurance rating is 800 TBW, and if that had substituted as a factor in my decision/choice between PRO and EVO, I might probably have purchased the PRO anyway. I'm good! For now, anyway! As long as I'm rambling, I'll freakin' explain it more.

This is a dual-boot Win7/Win10 system in which there is a hierarchy of storage, with plans based already on proven experience and tests to use a caching program that does both RAM and SSD-caching. For this reason, the OSes are obviously separate, and identical (compatible or compatibility-mode-tweaked) programs are installed twice. Partitions or volumes of one OS are not available to the other OS, vice-versa. So what if you're working on the same files -- say, Word or Excel files, using the same version of Office installed under both OSes? They can't be on a device cached to SSD accessible by either OS, unless the caching drives are separate (or I can prove that two volumes on the same device will work reliably). The files can only be on RAM-cached drives, so that's the "bottom- tier -- either large HDD or smaller SSD.

So -- pointing toward the OS forums where I haven't yet posted my rant -- Win 7 is pristine, while Win 10 has some Event Log red and yellow bangs which I will clear up. But it (10) is otherwise rock-stable, comes out of Sleep or Hibernate -- no hardware or driver malfunctions, even for the reds and yellows.

And I've tested all the Win 10 partitions and volumes: SFC /SCANNOW -- Perfect! CHKDSK -- Perfect! Better then the Prez's trumped up bill-of-medical-health. Couldn't be better.

So basically, I'm confident that the 3TBW for the Pro drive won't grow so fast now, since I'm not trial-and-error cloning whole disks and volumes! I'm happy! Happier than a Pig in S***!! At least -- it all takes my mind off the things tempting me to throw a glass or bottle at my HDTV news broadcasts . . .

I guess I just kind of assumed your expectation was based on the warranty endurance rating since there's not really anything else to go on for these drives (As far as I know nobody has done any torture tests to end of life for these drives yet).

I am impressed by how far they are willing to warrant the endurance, though, since even the 2TB 850 Pro is only rated to 300TBW. Not sure if it's because the 900 series is actually expected to last longer or if they just felt the need to bump the warranty rating due to the increase in drive capability.

I received my KryoM.2 today from Performance PCs, and I have to say they shipped it very fast and it was very well packaged. Definitely much better than Newegg did on the Samsung 960 EVO. Anyways, here's the new numbers with the Samsung on the add-in card instead of the motherboard M.2 slot (the read performance was down a bit, while the write performance was up a bit. The nice thing was the 960 EVO only hit 30c during testing. So that's a 28c (82f freakin' degrees!) difference from the 58c it hit yesterday when I had it installed on my motherboard.

Boom! That's exactly what I'm all about. It's a fact that many electronics have a lifespan affected by temperature. SATA ssd's generally use their casing as a heatsink, so are high performance M.2 drives with no cooling really going to last as long? I feel like the KryoM.2 is an investment in drive longevity to keep it running well into obsolescence. People are still running 2010 era SSDs today, so why shouldn't we be using these fabulously performing marvels well past 2024? Unless, of course, our thirst for speed keeps us on the upgrade path to newer technologies....