Worth it to change OS SSD to faster SSD?

[rpsgc]

Hi,

I have two SSD, one Crucial m4 128GB for Windows and one Crucial MX100 512GB for games.

Now, I know that the MX100 is faster, but my question is: would I notice any noticeable difference if I installed Windows on the MX100 instead?

For reference here are their benchmarks:
m4: http://i.imgur.com/sVvIN7i.png
MX100: http://i.imgur.com/sY4sxyX.png


TIA.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Now, I know that the MX100 is faster, but my question is: would I notice any noticeable difference if I installed Windows on the MX100 instead?

Short answer? No.

You'll not notice any difference between one SATA3 SSD or the other. Exception being some older SATA2/3 models, but even then the real world difference is negligible.

That said, you can feel the difference going from a SATA3 to a PCIe SSD.

 

[unknown42]

That said, you can feel the difference going from a SATA3 to a PCIe SSD.

How much difference? Once it is past bios my system is 12-15 seconds from first ssd avtivity to desktop depending on typing speed to login.

Is it less than 5 seconds with the new interface and drives?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Short answer? No.

You'll not notice any difference between one SATA3 SSD or the other. Exception being some older SATA2/3 models, but even then the real world difference is negligible.

That said, you can feel the difference going from a SATA3 to a PCIe SSD.

I've got a 240GB M500 with Win7, plugged into my H81's SATA6G port, and an 80GB X25-M G2 with Linux Mint 17.1 plugged into a SATA2 port, and I really don't seem to notice a difference between the two of them, as far as speed is concerned.

 

[AlienTech]

If you were reading a LOT of small files you would notice a response difference, where the faster drive would show instant updates while with the slower one there would be a pause that is noticeable even if its only like 200-300 ms.. This is still faster than you could click anything but you do notice it.. I noticed when I added the crucial cache that it would pause before updating and it was noticeable even if the cache actually speed up things by a wide margin. The pause made it seem slower over all and I removed it after a few months.

Now remember, even if you were writing a lot of small files, you wont do more like if you moved from a really old hard drive to a new one but you would notice the quickness of the system.. In fact moving from a fast hard drive to the ssd I noticed nothing other than it was quicker.. Not that it saved any time.. Other things slowed down the system enough that I was not quick enough to take advantage of any speed up. It is not like I was doing some kind of data base access with my thoughts.. Copying a 10GB file would show a speed improvement as it gets done earlier.. But we dont deal with such things on a regular basis. In the dos days the entire system would be paused while data was being accessed but these days all that gets done in the background and in fact windows does all those prefetch and caching of future needs gets done while waiting for you to do something. Because we are just not fast enough even with current speeds.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I've got a 240GB M500 with Win7, plugged into my H81's SATA6G port, and an 80GB X25-M G2 with Linux Mint 17.1 plugged into a SATA2 port, and I really don't seem to notice a difference between the two of them, as far as speed is concerned.

While I realize this is anecdotal evidence, programs/projects do launch quicker on my HyperX PCIe drive, then my older Samsung 830. Which wasn't exactly slow to begin with. It isn't much, but the difference is there.

Of course its much more pronounced when doing work involving large files, and I doubt there'd be much difference in feel between a top of the line SATA3 SSD (f.x. 850pro) and a PCIe drive.

 

[therealnickdanger]

You would probably get better out-of-the-box gains due to the fact that fresh SSDs always perform faster than after a few GBs of filling up, writes, and TRIMs. It probably wouldn't be noticeable unless you have very IO-intensive applications.