• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question sabrent rocket q or 860 evo for Storage?

EpicSurvivor

EpicSurvivor

Golden Member
Looking to upgrade my old WD Black 2TB HDD for a 2TB SSD. I am between sabrent rocket q or 860 evo. I already own 2x 1TB 860 evo and they perform great. I never owned an M2/nvme drive before. This is for game and file storage only but I might swap to OS drive if it's faster. Would you guys recommend sabrent rocket q 2TB or the 2 TB 860 evo? Both cost around the same so price is no issue.
MoBo: Gigabyte Z390 Arous Pro

Thanks
 
If its for gaming i would recommend the 860 because it won't use up a pci-e lane.
The load up times are very small, and it allows you the ability to Raid-0 another one in the future for double the storage without again using a pci-e lane..
 
aigomorla said:
If its for gaming i would recommend the 860 because it won't use up a pci-e lane.
The load up times are very small, and it allows you the ability to Raid-0 another one in the future for double the storage without again using a pci-e lane..
Click to expand...
Excellent. That's probably what I'll do honestly. How many SSDs do I need to have for Raid-0? And can they be different sizes?
 
Minimum drive count for RAID 0 is 2, and you kinda can use different sizes, but it is not recommended at all; you will be limited to the capacity of the smallest drive on each drive in the array. Also, RAID 0 is often not recommended anymore in general for most users, due to increased likeliness of data loss from failure. If you lose one drive, you lose the array of data. Of course, if all data on the array is just downloaded game installs, which can be replaced in case of a failure, this isn't as big a deal.
 
Shmee said:
Minimum drive count for RAID 0 is 2, and you kinda can use different sizes, but it is not recommended at all; you will be limited to the capacity of the smallest drive on each drive in the array. Also, RAID 0 is often not recommended anymore in general for most users, due to increased likeliness of data loss from failure. If you lose one drive, you lose the array of data. Of course, if all data on the array is just downloaded game installs, which can be replaced in case of a failure, this isn't as big a deal.
Click to expand...
So in opposite to using Raid 0 or Raid in general I should be fine running the 3 drives as separate Storage, right? 3 storage units is the most I'll have at any given time anyway.
 
EpicSurvivor said:
So in opposite to using Raid 0 or Raid in general I should be fine running the 3 drives as separate Storage, right? 3 storage units is the most I'll have at any given time anyway.
Click to expand...
Yes, you will be fine going with 3 separate drives, but you won't have the speed that raid 0 would give. I went the separate drive way myself.
 
Muadib said:
Yes, you will be fine going with 3 separate drives, but you won't have the speed that raid 0 would give. I went the separate drive way myself.
Click to expand...
I never done Raid. I'll have to look more into it. Its concerning as mentioned above. If running Raid 0 and something malfunctions I could lose all the data on all 3 drives.
 
EpicSurvivor said:
I never done Raid. I'll have to look more into it. Its concerning as mentioned above. If running Raid 0 and something malfunctions I could lose all the data on all 3 drives.
Click to expand...
Yes, you would lose all of your data, as there is no fault tolerance with Raid 0.
 
EpicSurvivor said:
Interesting then I am not gonna even bother doing Raid, not worth the risk for my basic needs. Appreciate the help.
Click to expand...

or you can R0 2 drives just for games, and leave the third seperate.

Here is a comparison on speed.
 
I would not hesitate to raid 0 my steam / unconnect / battle.net game, download, and patch folders. (which all have to be set separately depending on the store app)

Failures are rare, and it is easy to replace that stuff.

Chrome could be installed on the raid drives also, just sign into chrome again to restore all your settings.

The more I think about it, there are lots of things that could be moved to raid 0 because it is trival to replace. IE cache folder (I still use it), discord, onedrive, AmazonDrive, etc.
 
Leeea said:
I would not hesitate to raid 0 my steam / unconnect / battle.net game, download, and patch folders. (which all have to be set separately depending on the store app)

Failures are rare, and it is easy to replace that stuff.

Chrome could be installed on the raid drives also, just sign into chrome again to restore all your settings.

The more I think about it, there are lots of things that could be moved to raid 0 because it is trival to replace. IE cache folder (I still use it), discord, etc.
Click to expand...
To what advantage tho? From the clip above there's only 3 second performance gain.
 
EpicSurvivor said:
To what advantage tho? From the clip above there's only 3 second performance gain.
Click to expand...

Aigomorla's clip? That clip is comparing SATA raid 0 to NVMe.

SATA raid 0 is:
typically cheaper
do not use a PCI-lane
more points of failure

NVMe:
use a PCI-lane
typically more expensive
less points of failure

That said, losing a PCI lane is likely not going to matter. Worst case is some fps in some games on some mainboards*. Common case is likely unnoticeable.

*It is going to depend on the mainboard/chipset, suggest reading your mainboards manual.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top