NVME VS SSD BENCHMARK PRO

My system has a 1TB Samsung 850 EVO (SATA), and I added a 2TB Samsung 970 EVO (NVMe) earlier this year. So it might reduce some stuttering during data loads, but it will not affect the average FPS. The only thing a faster SSD can do is speed up loading data - a random and uncommon event. So focus on price, warranty and reliability instead for MSATA drives. If you do buy a SATA SSD, then performance is less of a concern as most new SSD models are SATA port limited. SATA connected SSD's are limited by the SATA port, not the memory speed.

The age of PCIe connected storage is here (meaning NVMe).

NVMe, even if there is less real world benefit of an NVMe than you would like, it is still a better choice for the future vs. For most purposes (gaming and normal business and engineering apps), the EVO models are no different in performance, and save you a lot of money vs.

NVME VS SSD BENCHMARK PRO

My point is, if you want 2TB, you are better off getting a single 2TB NVMe instead of 2x 1TB NVMe drives - unless you are setting up some kind of RAID configuration.Īnd yes, the 970 Pro isn't available as 2TB yet. The MSATA ports aren't really any different than a SATA connector. So, make sure you understand how this works for your motherboard.Īlso, your MB may have several M.2 ports, but they may not all be NVMe compatible (some may just be MSATA - which are not compatible with NVMe drives. I think for many systems, adding a 2nd NVMe card does not get 4 lanes that that 2nd card. As most motherboards only have 16 lanes, and all 16 are usually used for the graphics card, adding an NVMe card reduces your graphics card to 8 lanes, with 4 lanes for the NVMe, and 4 lanes not used. For most chipsets, adding a single NVMe card takes 4 PCIe lanes. 2 NVMe drives - consider that each NVMe device you add to the system may affect the number of PCIe lanes going to your graphics card.

Honestly, i believe its more important that game devs integrate proper loading/streaming technologies in there games so that the cpu has ample time to prep everything and load that stuff into memory before a stutter can even occur.īut, my system is by no means beefy anymore, so if someone whos got an Ryzen 2700x or Intel 8700k overclocked with fast memory and a sata and nvme ssd could give this a go with identical DCS folders, i'd be sure interested to see whether this might actually make a difference afterall. All Sata 3 ssd should be able to handle this easily, and its more question how well ones specific setup of cpu, gpu, ram and drive are all running fast enough combined. I mean somewhere between 2-20mbps, always interspersed with couple of seconds with no reading at all. I think the NVMe investment makes sense as soon as more game engines are designed in a multi-threaded way so that you actually see that game process make your reading operations jump beyond 500mbps.Īnd with that same flawed/dirty quick look at the disk read operations during DCS missions, after the map has loaded, i see read operations in the low double digits. Better invest that money into a better CPU, GPU or Hotas and stuff. I have only looked at it with sysinternals processexplorer, there is probably better and more accurate ways to record i/os and sequential reads during loading or copying operations.īut when i take this observation combined with all those SATA vs NVMe benchmarks together then i conclude that right now and probably a couple more years down the road, for gaming at least, Sata3 is the way to go if you don't have the cash lying around in heaps. And i have never seen it jump beyond 400mbps.

And i have looked a bunch at the I/Os and read speeds while loading DCS and loading different levels. I just got myself a 500gb Samsung 860 Evo which should be pretty much at the limit of the Sata3 specifications. Thing is, all benchmarks i have seen over the last 2-3 years make this pretty much negliable at the moment. Hrm, that SATA3 vs PCIe for a new SSD and gaming question is something i have not yet resolved properly for myself as well.

Nvme vs ssd benchmark