950 Pro
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Is this a meme?
512GB for 320$
256GB for 190$
"Up to" 1500MB/s write
Could CPUs become the bottleneck in loading times again? Or am I being retarded here?
>>53509315
>Could CPUs become the bottleneck in loading times again?
>again?
Yeah, I'd say you're retarded. Neither CPUs or storage speeds are the bottleneck. People have tried putting games on RAM (which is much faster than even the fastest M.2 SSD) for a long time in an attempt to reduce loading times, it doesn't work.
>>53509315
>housefire
>>53509315
>loading times
you are retarded
>>53509315
You can only get the ridiculous I/O rates on SSDs (SATA, NVMe, or otherwise) when the drives are given deep request queues that they can service in parallel.
This happens when doing big linear copies or when you have a lot of worker threads operating in parallel, which is rare for consumers. PCIe/NVMe SSDs are a godsend to database servers, but consumer (client-side) software is almost invariably worthless at taking full advantage of them, since it rarely juggles lots of reads/writes that it can handle in arbitrary order.
If you had a NAS with an SSD cache, a workstation with an NVMe drive, and a 10GbE (or better) connection between the two, you'd see faster transfers, or if you needed to frequently transfer large files between two local SSDs for whatever reason it would be faster.
As a final note, the 950 Pro is horribly thermally throttled if you do try to use it near theoretical capacity without supplementary cooling.
Consumers will not notice a difference in general use. Just buy a SATA SSD and be done with it.
>>53509403
Shitty programming is the fault of loading time asshat
A major attraction of m.2 drives is that they get rid of a sata power and sata data cables. Yes, this is a multi-100s of dollar premium to have two fewer wires. Worth it tho.
>>53509747
the real reason why i want one. Plus my mother board supports two of them in raid, which is nice.
>>53509315
I bought the SM951 which is a little faster, but lacks the retail software you have.
>>53509403
Actually it can make a dfference.
I once tested running some games and benchmarks from a 5400rpm drive, a 7200rpm one, an SSD and a RAM disk @1600MHz and 1866MHz.
You can have a loading and performance advantage but for most stuff it is insignificant, but for example on the previous Tomb Raider raider I got a raise of 10fps on the highest framerate.
>>53510681
are you so much of a jerk that you RAID your SSDs?
>>53509747
I can't wait for M.2 to be ubiquitous
I have the Samsung 950 Pro 512Gb m.2 in my pc, it's incredible. I do notice a difference in opening programs and boot between it and the 850 pro sata SSDs. Never going back.
>>53512749
What'd be wrong with RAID 1?
>>53509403
This doesn't need to be about games. You "load" your operating and other software when you open them.
>>53514015
very true. Putting Chrome in a RAM disk is phenomenal. Should be pretty good on one of these SSDs
>>53514127
But everytime that you turn it off wouldn't you lose it? I would love to set something up like this.
>>53509577
Adding cooling to these things rocks.
>>53514127
How would you run Chrome in a Ramdisk considering that its files are spread out in many places on the drive? It's not like you just create the ramdrive, copy Chrome.exe on it and run it there, because it will get bottlenecks from accessing other files outside of the ramdisk.
>>53509403
Kerbal Space Program dumps all its texture files into RAM on startup, really irritating given they have been really flakey about 64bit support.
>>53515660
Pretty sure most of Chrome's disk IO would be contained to it's profile directory.
>>53515660
Yet another reason why application containers are superior to both the Windows way and the Unix way of storing programs and program files.
>>53515688
>they have been really flakey about 64bit support.
Aren't they on Unity? how fucking hard could it possibly be to select the 64 bit build option?
Are Unity devs just that fucking retarded and/or lazy?
>dumps all its texture files into RAM on startup
Yes, this is called "loading", every single game in existence does this, it's generally the only way to actually use them.
Think before you post idiot.
>>53515974
sorry I meant the whole game, not just textures.
>>53515974
I play that too, Unity 5 or something migration is coming in ver. 1.1 in few weeks, 64bit hacks exist already by doing something with the files and playing on OpenGL, it' unstable that way tho
No, SATA will keep on being the bottleneck because industry support and consumer dmand, like windows has been a bottleneck in computing performance and user performance since the early 2000s.
That's the free market for you. People get what they pay for, not what enthusiasts and enterprises will pay for. There is no central authority of high ranking nerds that says "you're all going to use msata SSDs by 2017" and "we will utilize the miniaturization of technology to fit more functionality into the old packages instead of fitting the same amount of functionality into smaller packages". There's a distributed authority of normies that says "i want to browse facebook fast, but not spend too much money" and everything responds to that.
Does anyone know how to install Windows 7 on one of these? It isn't recognized. I'm assuming I need to load a driver via USB jumper stick.
>>53509747
All new motherboards should come with m.2 or mSATA slots.
>>53515688
KSP is also programmed by incompetent devs who are constantly being fired and replaced by other people; only one dev has been there since the start and knows what he's doing, the rest are useless.
The game looks like it's from fucking 2006 and still runs like absolute shit; looking at the fucking ocean cuts your framerate on half, it crashes constantly, has memory leaks out the ass, is pretty much unplayable without mods to fix major bugs, and people still claim it's some kind of special success in terms of indie games and devs.
>>53514235
With RAM disk software you can have it write back to the disk, significantly delayed of course. My friend doesn't save tabs so he would have Chrome recreate the files every time, using the online sync to take care of the bookmarks and addons
>>53515660
it should just be the program files and 1 folder in appdata
Until storage gets to DDR4 speeds, no.
Although this is closer than you think with some new memory tech coming in the next decade or so
>>53509403
Reducing load times compared to what? HDD vs RAM drive definitely works just not an astronomical improvement.
so many retards itc
I got the sm951, cheaper but no software, pretty quick but really for day to day shit I can't notice the difference from my sata SSD
>>53516433
can you test with more than 1 gb?
>>53516450
he did, he tested 1GiB :^)
>>53516450
pretty similar at 16GB
speccy won't recognise it for some reason, I see someone else in thread has one that does, could it be the NVMe?
>>53509315
consumer wise it's just a meme
>>53512749
well i don't like my entire os being on a single flimsy chip, so I prefer having a backup as well. Plus it can drive read performance up even more
>>53509315
>m.2
>SATA
>PCI-E
I can't be assed, what's the fastest out of the 3?
>>53509403
TFW ALL PROGRAMMERS ARE SHIT.
>>53519056
I believe its m.2, but PCI-e is right there with it. both aer 3-4 times faster than SATA under the proper high-load conditions.
The m.2 is pretty thermally restricted though usually. Especially since it usually sits right under your graphics card.
>>53513115
Well then you'd better prepare to wait an infinitely long amount of time
>>53519056
M.2 and PCIE-E are just about the same and both smoke SATA. Other anon said heat but both M.2 and PCI-E suffer from throttling. Even throttled they're still faster than SATA
>>53519056
M.2 can use PCIe or SATA lanes. The PCIe ones are the expensive really fast ones. The SATA ones are just smaller SATA drives that are slightly more expensive and can fit in small ultrabooks.
>>53516016
I think you answered your own question there
>>53509315
How come boot times are practically the same with M2 and SATA SSDs?
>>53519081
>>53519168
you guys misunderstand that m.2 is just a physical form factor for either SATA or PCIe/NVMe traffic (depending on connector keying).
this guy is right:
>>53520678
Physical form factors: PCIe add-in card, m.2 slot, 2.5"/3.5" drives (with varying connectors), ...
Protocol standards: IDE/ATA, AHCI (SATA), SAS, NVMe, other proprietary over PCIe, ...
You also have weirder things like the u.2 (formerly SFF-8639) standard which is literally just SATA Express cables with pins reallocated to get 4x PCIe lanes.
(Standard SATA Express shat the bed by only offering 2x PCIe lanes, and SSD manufacturers and customers wanted throughput caps closer to 4 GB/s.)
Enterprise seems to be moving towards 2.5" u.2 drives, which would be nicer for consumers on workstations than m.2 since their larger size prevents thermally throttling.
>>53521423
most of boot times aren't file transfer latency, it's just file seeking, device initialization, and software processing times.
The difference between SATA/AHCI and PCIe/NVMe file transfer times is under 2 seconds per GB, and your OS doesn't really need to load that much on boot.
>>53521423
We've probably reached the point of "good enough"
>>53521550
cool, thanks.
>>53509315
Yes, technology is a meme. Everything is meme, Neo.
>>53521423
Most of the boot time is actually checking hardware and waiting for 3rd party shit programmed by a retard to do its thing, rather than loading things into ram. Think about it, when you fresh load windows it reports, what, 1-2gb?
That's 4 seconds on a SATA SSD.
