m.2 drives...

[kksnowbear]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Honestly, my main complaint was the noise. In my system, the loudest part is the water pump. All fans are 12 inch, turning just enough for the LEDs not to look silly. The thing is barely audible under a non-gaming load... except when it had a HDD, which would announce its presence with an audible *grink* *grink* from time to time. My dad uses a special cassette for suppressing the noise, but those require 8 inch bays, which my case doesn't have. I run two 2TB M.2 SSDs now and a small SATA one that I might upgrade if I ever need more capacity than that.

12 inch fans?   8 inch bays?  Wow.  Hmm.

As mentioned above, the reasoning for HDD is cost-per-unit of storage, and (as I also said) it depends. 

Sometimes you can find sales etc and wind up with an SSD that is competitive with a HDD for cost/unit.  But, with 4TB HDDs out there for <$50, I'm not sure how often you'll actually find bulk storage cheaper.  Many 1TB SSDs are going to go ~$50 ...so the HDD is 4x the storage for the same cost.

Noise might be a factor for some - but, for me, there's a lot of other ambient noise in the room so at 'productivity' loads the noise isn't bothersome.  Gaming loads will kick up fans of course, but (especially as I have worked in data centers etc most of my life) that fan noise is a good thing.  In fact I get a little worried when I *don't* hear fans.

On the speed question: Even a 5400RPM SATA HDD is adequate for streaming video locally - even at 4k.  Obviously, things like video editing, or multiple streams perhaps, etc, would require higher transfer rates - but then, there would almost certainly be other considerations in those cases (network speed etc...).  And if you're doing work that's sensitive to speed/time, then obviously your requirements are higher (like I said, it depends).

But for bulk storage (documents, 'slow' games, even movies and audio storage, as well as backups and other utility purposes) the cost/unit of HDDs is a much better proposition.

Edited January 12 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

On 1/10/2024 at 1:59 PM, LucShep said:

That said, there are some benefits by using a decent Gen4 NVME even with motherboards that only support Gen3, like yours (and mine).
While in such case the Gen4 drive (obviously) won't reach its capable full speeds, it will definitely run at the full speed of Gen3 - something very few Gen3 drives ever achieved.

If this a second drive, not to be used by OS and meant only for games, then there's no need to get a really fancy NVME Gen4.
In short - get the WD SN770.  It's ramless (therefore not ideal for OS drive) but it's really fast, reliable, and it's cheaper, so ideal for this purpose. 

You know, it's rare when I find that I disagree with you

But I happen to have a Z390 board on one of my bench setups right now...and I also just happen to have not only a Samsung 970 EVO Plus (my go-to for PCIe 3.0 NVMe storage), but also a WD SN700 (as you recommended).

Here's a sample from the test data I acquired just now (EVO Plus on the left, SN770 on the right):

The Samsung drive is for all intent as fast as the SN770 - and in some data sizes faster, illustrating that the SN770 is not running the PCIe bus at it's 'full speed'.  (If it were, then the Samsung would never be able to run any faster).

In fact, neither drive will ever run at the full theoretical speed of the bus...but even accounting for that, there are times when the Samsung runs faster.  And to be clear, the SN770 is rated to run *much* faster than PCIe 3.0 speeds.  The bus itself has overhead, and other factors (firmware, cache, data size) will all have a part in actual transfer rates.

Something else of note: The Samsung is consistently faster in writes.  I'm assuming this is because it has it's own cache RAM, but either way, it's faster by a bit.

Of course there are other tools for measuring drive speeds.  And to be accurate, the SN770 is cheaper - but that can vary a lot, depending on when/where you buy.  I've bought 970EVO Plus drives that were actually cheaper than SN770s of the same size.

I'm aware, of course, that the data size plays a major part in "real-world" performance, and these charts show a few data sizes where the SN770 has a small edge.  But the majority of the data sizes still read faster on the Samsung drive.

Also, something to consider: DRAM-less drives (as the SN770 is) use HMB (Host Memory Buffer) for caching data - and, in short, "host" means they take system memory - something most people pay to get more of, not less.  I do realize it's typically not much RAM, but still.  Basically, for a little less cost on the drive itself, you're 'selling' system RAM capacity.

For me, I'd pay a little more and buy a drive with it's cache RAM on it - where it belongs

[LucShep]

8 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

You know, it's rare when I find that I disagree with you

But I happen to have a Z390 board on one of my bench setups right now...and I also just happen to have not only a Samsung 970 EVO Plus (my go-to for PCIe 3.0 NVMe storage), but also a WD SN700 (as you recommended).

Here's a sample from the test data I acquired just now (EVO Plus on the left, SN770 on the right):

The Samsung drive is for all intent as fast as the SN770 - and in some data sizes faster, illustrating that the SN770 is not running the PCIe bus at it's 'full speed'.  (If it were, then the Samsung would never be able to run any faster).

In fact, neither drive will ever run at the full theoretical speed of the bus...but even accounting for that, there are times when the Samsung runs faster.  And to be clear, the SN770 is rated to run *much* faster than PCIe 3.0 speeds.  The bus itself has overhead, and other factors (firmware, cache, data size) will all have a part in actual transfer rates.

Something else of note: The Samsung is consistently faster in writes.  I'm assuming this is because it has it's own cache RAM, but either way, it's faster by a bit.

Of course there are other tools for measuring drive speeds.  And to be accurate, the SN770 is cheaper - but that can vary a lot, depending on when/where you buy.  I've bought 970EVO Plus drives that were actually cheaper than SN770s of the same size.

I'm aware, of course, that the data size plays a major part in "real-world" performance, and these charts show a few data sizes where the SN770 has a small edge.  But the majority of the data sizes still read faster on the Samsung drive.

Also, something to consider: DRAM-less drives (as the SN770 is) use HMB (Host Memory Buffer) for caching data - and, in short, "host" means they take system memory - something most people pay to get more of, not less.  I do realize it's typically not much RAM, but still.  Basically, for a little less cost on the drive itself, you're 'selling' system RAM capacity.

For me, I'd pay a little more and buy a drive with it's cache RAM on it - where it belongs

That's funny, it was the opposite in my experience (on Z490).

The 970 Evo is a very good Gen3 (PCIe 3.0) drive, as was the 970 Pro bigger brother. Those are among the "very few" ones that I mention.

But OK.
Now try, for example, to copy a full installation of DCS from one drive to other. Then reboot and repeat the process in reverse.
You'll see what I mean.  In that Z390, the SN770 should be just a wee bit faster overall but (clearly) much faster in sustained writes.

ATTO benchmark is ok (I've also used it) for a general idea but it doesn't show the full picture.

Edited January 12 by LucShep
spelling(?)

[kksnowbear]

2 hours ago, Biggus said:

Thanks for the response, @LucShep.

My board can only accommodate a single M.2 device.  I currently have DCS on a pair of SATA3 SSDs (main folder on one, savegames on the other).  I think I'll find a DRAM-equipped drive.

 

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

Yep, it makes sense in your case.
If using OS + DCS in same drive, the OS and the game are sharing space and access, reads and writes will be happening at same time frequently.
Get a good one with DRAM.

In cases like this, IMHO you're better off running the OS from a SATA SSD, saving the one M2 slot for performance storage, where you install games.

Of course, I realize the M2 device will be faster than a SATA storage device.  But two things:

1. You're not (necessarily) using the OS drive a lot, once the system is booted and running.  There are times when paging file access might come into play, but even then you're better off if these occur on a separate drive (see next point).

2. When (and note I say 'when', not 'if') the contention for storage access occurs (as it most definitely will)...any advantage the faster M2 drive has is automatically mitigated by two processes trying to get data to/from the single drive at the same time.  By comparison, although a SATA drive might not be as fast, the two storage devices being physically separate will eliminate this contention (as much as possible in any typical PC).

3 minutes ago, LucShep said:

But OK, now try to copy a full installation of DCS from one drive to other. Then reboot and repeat the process in reverse.
 You'll see what I mean.

LOL I know what you mean   But then, how often does one actually move the install from one drive to another?

And, even if that scenario does favor the SN770...I would think that, in most cases, we're talking about performance while playing the game, not moving it from one drive to another  

[LucShep]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:44 PM, kksnowbear said:

 

In cases like this, IMHO you're better off running the OS from a SATA SSD, saving the one M2 slot for performance storage, where you install games.

Of course, I realize the M2 device will be faster than a SATA storage device.  But two things:

1. You're not (necessarily) using the OS drive a lot, once the system is booted and running.  There are times when paging file access might come into play, but even then you're better off if these occur on a separate drive (see next point).

2. When (and note I say 'when', not 'if') the contention for storage access occurs (as it most definitely will)...any advantage the faster M2 drive has is automatically mitigated by two processes trying to get data to/from the single drive at the same time.  By comparison, although a SATA drive might not be as fast, the two storage devices being physically separate will eliminate this contention (as much as possible in any typical PC).

 

You're not wrong.
The thing is, there's not just the OS (Windows) but also all other programs running in background.
Take DCS VR usage (usually sensitive to friggin anything), for instances, with all VR and peripherals/controller related (and likely other unrelated) apps running at same time.... With the NVME far faster speeds, access, writes and reads (random or sustained) and with DRAM on it, versus SATA SSD, it will still be faster/smoother even if all in same drive.
 

On 1/12/2024 at 2:44 PM, kksnowbear said:

LOL I know what you mean   But then, how often does one actually move the install from one drive to another?

And, even if that scenario does favor the SN770...I would think that, in most cases, we're talking about performance while playing the game, not moving it from one drive to another  

Just a practical fun way to check the drives read/writes.  No worse than your ATTO benchmark there.
While fussy, it actually ends up being more accurate to real life with the specific system (see how long it takes, speeds for read/writes during copy/paste transfer, and compare).

Yes, and I know that particular case is not the best scenario for what I was mentioning - obviously, someone who has 970Evo on a PCIe 3.0 motherboard won't notice much difference, if any (versus SN770) - and it's not worth substituting of course.   
Buuuuut... he/she will surely notice it with el-cheapo older Gen 3 drives, which are actually not so much less expensive to justify it.  
And once he/she steps up to a PCIe 4.0 or 5.0 motherboard will notice it even more.

As to say, makes no sense to recommend a Gen3.0 instead of a Gen4.0 drive at similar price (especially good budget ones, say older SN550 Gen3 vs newer SN580 Gen4) that not only will run a bit faster in the older boards, but will also (surely) run and feel far faster once it's used in the next upgraded system, with newer and faster PCIe capabilities. 
Considering that drives are something that can usually be re-used on the next newer system, it just makes sense to recommend (and get) the best drive one can afford - within reason, of course - also for future proofing (IMO). That's what I meant to say back there without extending too much.

Edited March 1 by LucShep
spelling(?)

[kksnowbear]

3 minutes ago, LucShep said:

The thing is, there's not just the OS (Windows) but also all other programs running in background.
Take DCS VR usage, for instances, with all VR and controller related apps

Of course.  But even then, you're still better off letting the game have storage access that isn't "shared" (as much as possible).  After all, the amount of storage access used by all those other things combined will pale by comparison to what the game will use.

6 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Buuuuut... he/she will surely notice it with el-cheapo older Gen 3 drives, which are actually not so much less expensive

Right...but I don't make a habit of recommending el-cheapo drives for performance storage.  I use cheap drives all the time...for bench fodder, scratch installs, etc.  But when I outfit a system to perform, I don't use cheaper/slower drives.

One exception might be a customer on a very tight budget.  I might go with a slower, cheaper drive - but I'd still avoid the slowest, cheapest units for anything I'd sell.

10 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Considering that drives are something that can usually be re-used on a newer system, it just makes sense to recommend (and get) the best drive you can afford - within reason, of course - for future proofing (IMO).

In many cases, we're looking at people who are only upgrading storage, and (I'd bet) the majority won't be upgrading the whole system for at least a year or more.  Just what my gut says. 

You have a very good point about the PCIe 4.0 drives, of course And if someone is in the position to buy storage now with the intent of moving it to an upgrade later, then of course it makes sense that way.  I just get the gut feeling that at least some of the folks posting/reading aren't necessarily doing that.

I personally consider the notion of "future proofing" as a fool's errand, TBH.  But, if we're going down *that* road...well, then, it justifies the PCIe 5.0 drive I just bought (though to be accurate I am using it in a PCIe 5.0 slot).  Even if you say "absurd" I see 12500 reads as "bad ass"    

[LucShep]

30 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

I personally consider the notion of "future proofing" as a fool's errand, TBH.  But, if we're going down *that* road...well, then, it justifies the PCIe 5.0 drive I just bought (though to be accurate I am using it in a PCIe 5.0 slot).  Even if you say "absurd" I see 12500 reads as "bad ass"    

IMO once you go past 4.000 MBps reads/writes, it's all a bit irrelevant for gaming (DCS included), but yeah... I can only envy.
I saw excelent promotions for the Crucial T700 2TB around here some weeks back (usually at 400€... and then they ask why Gen 5 haven't been selling as well as they envisioned) but then me with the good old PCIe 3.0 motherboard.... 

Edited January 12 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

9 minutes ago, LucShep said:

I can only envy.
I saw excelent promotions for the Crucial T700 2TB around here some weeks back (usually at 400€... and then they ask why Gen 5 haven't been selling as well as they envisioned) but then me with the good old PCIe 3.0 motherboard.... 

Well, I am blessed to have a wife who loves me and has the funds for really nice Christmas presents (though believe me, she got some pretty nice stuff too lol)

That, and the fact that I do a lot of work 'in the industry', as it were, so I don't usually buy until/unless I manage to find exceptional deals.  I was able to get the very same T700 you mentioned (a 2TB model) for <$217 'all in'.

Yes, the newest stuff is always stupid expensive.  And I usually strenuously argue against paying the premium associated with it.  But, I only go for it when I can find really good prices; otherwise I wait it out.  It's over-priced (especially when I know what the Gen 3.0 and 4.0 stuff is going for)...but I gotta be honest, it's nice having a new build like that, and I feel I deserve it at this point in my life

[kksnowbear]

58 minutes ago, LucShep said:

IMO once you go past 4.000 MBps reads/writes, it's all a bit irrelevant

Well, everyone has their opinion about that - but I only mentioned the PCIe 5.0 drive to address the question of 'future proofing'.

If you can make the argument today that buying into PCIe 4.0 makes sense in terms of future proofing, when you only have a PCIe 3.0 board...then...

(To which I suppose the obvious reply is that a PCIe 5.0 drive costs more than a PCIe 4.0 drive...

...but I got the T700 for less than what a 2TB 990 Pro would cost, so...)

Edited January 12 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

With the NVME far faster speeds, access, writes and reads (random or sustained) and with DRAM on it, versus SATA SSD, it will still be faster/smoother even if all in same drive.

Not if it occurs simultaneously, it won't.

The drive queuing mechanism will make one or the other wait - entirely.  At that point, it's not half the speed of the bus, it's zero.

[LucShep]

6 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

Well, everyone has their opinion about that - but I only mentioned the PCIe 5.0 drive to address the question of 'future proofing'.

If you can make the argument today that buying into PCIe 4.0 makes sense in terms of future proofing, when you only have a PCIe 3.0 board...then...

(To which I suppose the obvious reply is that a PCIe 5.0 drive costs more than a PCIe 4.0 drive...

...but I got the T700 for less than what a 2TB 990 Pro would cost, so...)

Yep, the obvious reply is obvious.

Future proofing with a Gen4 drive when using a PCIe3.0 motherboard made and still makes sense. It doesn't with Gen5, even if with a new PCIe5.0 motherboard!

When Gen4 drives got out, they were 25% more expensive than Gen3 drives. They always made sense.  Now prices are pretty much the same. They now make even more sense.
Gen5 drives have been 200% (and over) more expensive than Gen4. It does not make sense, that's horrible cost/benefit ratio for any home (gamer) user.

Your case is particular because, as you said, you had the chance to get a Gen5 NVME for less than a Gen4 NVME. Revel on it.

There is no current or soon upcoming game that will exhaust speeds of Gen4 drives (not even close), not even the most average ones. 
Don't get me wrong, Gen 5 drives are amazing but they currently make little sense for 99% of use cases, even less for such awful prices - like using a Ferrari to get the groceries.  
 

5 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

Not if it occurs simultaneously, it won't.

The drive queuing mechanism will make one or the other wait - entirely.  At that point, it's not half the speed of the bus, it's zero.

I think what happens in practice will vary between what is loaded and plugged into the PC.
With the random access nature of most applications including games, there won’t be performance differences under normal circumstances to undermine either solution (single NVME with DRAM versus SATA+OS with separate NVME for games).  
If one has a system that is polluted with unnecessary services and apps in the background, of course things can change -whichever way with whatever system- necessity of system optimization (should always be a must) comes into the matter, but that's a different discussion. 

In my experience, applications such as games (even most demanding ones) won’t be an issue coexisting with the Windows installation, if using a single NVME with DRAM.
But then (and of course) "alas DCS"  ....the exception to all rules, and its never ending changing nature of (increasing) all hardware demands. 

Edited January 12 by LucShep
spelling(?)

[kksnowbear]

15 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Yep, the obvious reply is obvious.

Future proofing with a Gen4 drive when using a PCIe3 motherboard made and still makes sense. It doesn't with Gen5, even if with a Gen5 motherboard!

When Gen4 drives got out, they were 25% more expensive than Gen3 drives. They always made sense.  Now prices are pretty much the same. They now make even more sense.
Gen5 drives have been 200% (and over) more expensive than Gen4. It does not make sense, that's horrible cost benefit for any home (gamer) user.

Your case is particular because, as you said, you had the chance to get a top Gen5 NVME for less than a good Gen 4 NVME. Revel on it.

There is no current or coming game that will exhaust speeds of Gen4 drives, not even the most average ones. 
Don't get me wrong, Gen 5 drivers are amazing but they currently make little sense for 99% of use cases, even less for such awful prices - like using a Ferrari to get the groceries.  
 

I think what happens in practice will vary between what is loaded and plugged into the PC.

With the random access nature of most applications including games, there won’t be really any performance difference under normal circumstances (versus SATA+OS and separate NVME for games).  If one has a system that is poluted with unnecessary services and apps, of course things can change - necessity of system optimization comes into the matter, but a different discussion. 

In my experience, applications such as games (even demanding) won’t be an issue coexisting with the Windows installation, if with an NVME with DRAM.
But then (and of course) alas "DCS" ....the exception to all rules, and its never ending changing nature of all hardware high demands. 

 

Well, here's the thing for me (and where my advice to my customers goes)...

With two drives, using two separate busses that also use two separate protocols...the chances for resource contention are as nearly zero as one can get in any present day PC.

With one drive, doesn't matter how much or how little one does, or how often - the chances for contention are much greater.

The guy playing the game won't notice the tiny impact from having the OS (et al) on a SATA SSD vs speed he *might've* gotten from NVMe.

*BUT* When there's a huge stutter because, in the middle of his buzzing the tower in DCS, loading textures fast as his sporty Gen4 PCIe drive can barf 'em out... some other stupid process decides it needs to access the storage media that is shared by everything on the PC...

...he's gonna notice.

Edited January 12 by kksnowbear

[CL30]

Interesting debate, fellas.  Been trying to follow along as best I could, lol.

Figured I'd jump back in to say there's a very good chance I will take my soon-to-be-purchased drive (that will be DCS only) from my current PC and put it in my next PC, which will probably have a Z790 board.  I think I'm leaning towards getting a Gen4 drive now, since I can use it in both systems, even though I won't see those speeds on my Z390.

FWIW, I did some more looking into my PC and how I installed everything.  My OS is actually on a 2.5" SSD, not that SATA M.2, not that it really makes a difference I guess.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

12 inch fans?   8 inch bays?  Wow.  Hmm.

I was in hurry when I posted this, 12cm fans and 5.25 inch HDD bays, of course (and yes, 8 inch bays were a thing, but that was waaay back).

5 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

Noise might be a factor for some - but, for me, there's a lot of other ambient noise in the room so at 'productivity' loads the noise isn't bothersome.  Gaming loads will kick up fans of course, but (especially as I have worked in data centers etc most of my life) that fan noise is a good thing.  In fact I get a little worried when I *don't* hear fans.

I prefer quiet. I have a noise cancelling headphones so that any gaming or work that kicks up the fans will not bother me, but the idea was to build the system to be quiet at idle, since I might want to do other things in that room while the PC is doing something, particularly installing or downloading something big. That sort of activity doesn't heat the CPU much, but it does induce grinking noises from the HDDs involved. I prefer to stream videos, including movies (particularly stuff I'm not likely to watch again anytime soon), and if I really need to archive something, I can hook up an external HDD.

[kksnowbear]

10 minutes ago, CL30 said:

Interesting debate, fellas.  Been trying to follow along as best I could, lol.

Figured I'd jump back in to say there's a very good chance I will take my soon-to-be-purchased drive (that will be DCS only) from my current PC and put it in my next PC, which will probably have a Z790 board.  I think I'm leaning towards getting a Gen4 drive now, since I can use it in both systems, even though I won't see those speeds on my Z390.

FWIW, I did some more looking into my PC and how I installed everything.  My OS is actually on a 2.5" SSD, not that SATA M.2, not that it really makes a difference I guess.

Absolutely...you are the case that proves LucShep's point, and of course in your situation it is very good advice

I would say, though, that if you plan to spend money on a Gen4 drive, you should at least consider a drive that puts you closer to the highest transfer rates Gen4 can provide (~7000) vs what the SN770 can do (5120 max rated in the 2TB model). If the point is about "future proofing" then (unless you're budget strapped) it doesn't make sense to go to a Gen4 drive, but then stop well short of full Gen4 performance.

And to be clear, before my lovely better half agreed to bankroll my own upgrade at Christmas, I was using an SN770 as the boot drive on my own system. So I have nothing against them at all - just not the apex of Gen4 performance.

[CL30]

5 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Absolutely...you are the case that proves LucShep's point, and of course in your situation it is very good advice

I would say, though, that if you plan to spend money on a Gen4 drive, you should at least consider a drive that puts you closer to the highest transfer rates Gen4 can provide (~7000) vs what the SN770 can do (5120 max rated in the 2TB model). If the point is about "future proofing" then (unless you're budget strapped) it doesn't make sense to go to a Gen4 drive, but then stop well short of full Gen4 performance.

And to be clear, before my lovely better half agreed to bankroll my own upgrade at Christmas, I was using an SN770 as the boot drive on my own system. So I have nothing against them at all - just not the apex of Gen4 performance.

Right on.  I think I'll spend the money on a Samsung 990 or WD 850 once our contract passes (I hope)!  I'm thinking at least 2TB, but even toyed with a 4TB drive for DCS.  4TB overkill though?  Just hard to forsee the next few years with new maps and modules coming.

[kksnowbear]

20 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

and if I really need to archive something, I can hook up an external HDD

At which point your transfer rates aren't much better than a SATA drive anyway.

And I'm familiar with all manner of "way back" where computers are concerned, having worked first hand on magnetic core storage (among a lot of others.) ...just pretty sure your figures weren't correct. 

Each of my last two machines were all SSD storage, so it's not as if I have anything against it, or don't understand the benefit.

But as I said, HDD storage can be had for a quarter what SSDs cost.  Much less expensive per unit storage, especially if you need any kind of volume at all (>1TB).  And plenty adequate performance for most applications. The noise is easy to cure (even without 8 inch bays lol).

Also, it's worth mentioning that SSDs are supposedly going to increase in cost substantially this year, further reinforcing the cost/unit advantage of conventional HDDs for mass utility storage.

Edited January 13 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

2 minutes ago, CL30 said:

Right on.  I think I'll spend the money on a Samsung 990 or WD 850 once our contract passes (I hope)!  I'm thinking at least 2TB, but even toyed with a 4TB drive for DCS.  4TB overkill though?  Just hard to forsee the next few years with new maps and modules coming.

In my prior build (before Santa brought me a new AM5 platform), my "game drive" was a 2TB 990Pro. Once Samsung gets their firmware act together, their drives don't screw around lol.

I got an incredible deal on a 990Pro 1TB for the new machine's boot drive. I'm currently putting together a few fairly decent machines to hopefully sell soon, so the 990Pro 2TB might wind up in one of those. I had just bought it and didn't really use it much at all.

[CL30]

Nice.  Yeah, I'm for sure going to put the OS on a fast drive, too, lol.  It's already quick on this SSD, which blew me away coming from HDDs on my old PCs, but looking forward to having better stuff in the next PC.

[Biggus]

@kksnowbear and @LucShep, this has given me a lot to think about.  I'm open to running my system from one of the SATA drives.  I guess I need to look at my system holistically to make a decision as to which direction I should go.  I feel like I'm learning a lot from this conversation.

[kksnowbear]

12 hours ago, Biggus said:

@kksnowbear and @LucShep, this has given me a lot to think about.  I'm open to running my system from one of the SATA drives.  I guess I need to look at my system holistically to make a decision as to which direction I should go.  I feel like I'm learning a lot from this conversation.

Thank you - I am glad if it helps.  It happens I've done some additional testing to further illustrate what I'm describing above.  I'm hoping I have a chance today to post the outcome (it's a bit involved, but helps clarify the matter substantially, I think).  More later

[kksnowbear]

22 hours ago, LucShep said:

Future proofing with a Gen4 drive when using a PCIe3.0 motherboard made and still makes sense. It doesn't with Gen5, even if with a new PCIe5.0 motherboard!

When Gen4 drives got out, they were 25% more expensive than Gen3 drives. They always made sense.  Now prices are pretty much the same. They now make even more sense.
Gen5 drives have been 200% (and over) more expensive than Gen4. It does not make sense, that's horrible cost/benefit ratio for any home (gamer) user.

Quick check just now indicates the Gen5 T700 2TB is $270 at Amazon, and a 990Pro Gen4 2TB is $185.  So the Gen5 drive is most definitely *not* twice the cost (or over!).  It's about 45% more.  (Yes, I know the 990Pro is expensive as Gen4 drives go...but the basis of my comparison is performance-per-Gen).

And if 25% more is justified as "future proofing" for Gen4 drives on someone's board which only supports Gen 3 (because they'll upgrade one day to a Gen4 board...)

...then my point was that, in my case, already having a Gen5 board, it would make no sense at all - to me - to go backwards a generation, and lose the significant (80%) increase in performance which I specifically bought the "E" board variant to acquire...just to save <45% the cost - and that's retail, right now at Amazon, something anyone could do (thus not even counting the good fortune I had in finding the deal I did).

Again, for me, the entire notion of 'future proofing' is a fool's errand - but if it can be applied at some times, then it can also apply other times.  What "makes sense", and what one can argue is justified as "future proofing", is going to vary depending on the specific case, deals that are out there, etc.  It's no more always a bad idea to buy into Gen5 drives than it is to buy Gen 4 for a board than only supports Gen3.  It simply depends on the situation.

You might even argue that someone with a Gen4 board now would be best buying a Gen5 drive instead of Gen4, provided they intend to move to Gen5 platform at some point.  (Though obviously, the longer they wait, the better the price - in general).

As my Dad always said:  How smart you are depends entirely on where you are standing at the time.

The older I get, the smarter my Dad gets

Edited January 13 by kksnowbear

[LucShep]

8 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

Quick check just now indicates the Gen5 T700 2TB is $270 at Amazon, and a 990Pro Gen4 2TB is $185.  So the Gen5 drive is most definitely *not* twice the cost (or over!).  It's about 45% more.  (Yes, I know the 990Pro is expensive as Gen4 drives go...but the basis of my comparison is performance-per-Gen).

And if 25% more is justified as "future proofing" for Gen4 drives on someone's board which only supports Gen 3 (because they'll upgrade one day to a Gen4 board...)

...then my point was that, in my case, already having a Gen5 board, it would make no sense at all - to me - to go backwards a generation, and lose the significant (80%) increase in performance which I specifically bought the "E" board variant to acquire...just to save <45% the cost - and that's retail, right now at Amazon, something anyone could do (thus not even counting the good fortune I had in finding the deal I did).

Again, for me, the entire notion of 'future proofing' is a fool's errand - but if it can be applied at some times, then it can also apply other times.  What "makes sense", and what one can argue is justified as "future proofing", is going to vary depending on the specific case, deals that are out there, etc.  It's no more always a bad idea to buy into Gen5 drives than it is to buy Gen 4 for a board than only supports Gen3.  It simply depends on the situation.

You might even argue that someone with a Gen4 board now would be best buying a Gen5 drive instead of Gen4, provided they intend to move to Gen5 platform at some point.  (Though obviously, the longer they wait, the better the price - in general).

As my Dad always said:  How smart you are depends entirely on where you are standing at the time.

The older I get, the smarter my Dad gets

 

That must be in the US, which means it's a very particular scenario for a restricted part of the world.

I'm currently looking at Amazon sites in Europe (ES, IT, DE, FR, NL) and they all list the Crucial T700 2TB at 365,00 EUR ($500 USD).
Meanwhile, excelent Gen4 drives like the WD SN850X 2TB and Corsair MP600 Pro XT 2TB (heatsink included!) are at or under 150,00 EUR ($164 USD).

Looking around, these prices are also reflected (so, generalized) across different places all over the EU.
I can only suspect, but likely similar in the Eastern side of the world as well.

So, no, NVME5 Gen5 drives (Crucial T700 or others) are still not worth it, when they still are at well over 200% cost against top Gen4 drives.
Absolutely not recommendable.
Just get a good Gen4 drive. Be it for your current or upcoming system (yes, even if building a brand new system!), at such prices it's a no-brainer.

Edited January 14 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

Crucial T700 2TB Gen5 NVMe M.2 SSD - Up to 12,400 MB/s - DirectStorage Enabled - CT2000T700SSD3 - Gaming, Photography, Video Editing & Design - Internal Solid State Drive https://a.co/d/eqKwnRy

Edit: I had unintentionally pasted in info for the model with a heatsink. The standard model is in fact still $269.99, as I said earlier.

We can agree to disagree about what's "worth it"...but the Gen5 drives are *not* 200% anything (that's a real comparison), at least not here.

As for worth it, it would be stupid as all hell to put a comparatively slow Gen4 drive in a board that I paid to get Gen5 from, when I can get 80% more performance for <50% more cost.

Edited January 14 by kksnowbear

[LucShep]

8 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

We can agree to disagree about what's "worth it"...but the Gen5 drives are *not* 200% anything, at least not here.

Well, they are over double the price across the whole continent that I live in.    Now what?



VERSUS

 

8 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

As for worth it, it would be stupid as all hell to put a comparatively slow Gen4 drive in a board that I paid to get Gen5 from, when I can get 80% more performance for <50% more cost.

WD SN850X and Corsair Pro XT are slow Gen4 drives?  LOL  ...that's the best one I've read all week.

No PCIe 5.0 system, not even top end ones, sees perceptible benefits today with whatever sim/game (DCS included) with a Gen5 drive versus a good Gen4 drive.
It's aking to something as getting an RTX4090 to play at 720P. Or getting an Nvidia Quadro GPU or a Threadripper 7980X CPU for gaming.
It's specific performance capabilities at high cost, from which you won't get improvements for gaming any time soon. But hey, great for bragging rights though. 

If you're a professional content creator packing and converting monumental ammounts of data and files, with your livelihood depending on it, then that Gen5 drive may make sense, as a tool for your own work and business, as was intended. Otherwise, at those stupid prices, don't even bother. 

That money would be better canalized instead -also if building a brand new system- to other HW that would be positively way more impactful.
For example, a 4TB version of those Gen4 drives (230,00 EUR / $250 USD), or a better CPU, or better RAM, or better PSU, or better cooler, or better PC case, etc, etc.

For what it's worth...  

Edited January 14 by LucShep
added images to ilustrate points