For those that have one, is it worth it?
>>54511123
1000% yes. Have PCI-E storage in my server and I can saturate my 10Gb link.
>>54511123
If you have super fast Internet and can saturate 2200mb/s it's for sure worth it.
If you're working with large 4k or large video files, its also probably worth it.
For the gamer or average computer user? Not needed.
Have been also considering getting one. Could I set up a VM in a ramdisk or something to get an idea?
>>54511123
I'd go for a bigger SATA one. Real world differences are negligible between PCIE/m2 and SATA. Spend the extra cash on extra capacity or reliability or something.
If you're doing huge file transfers go for it.
>>54511123
You can get a 1TB SATA SSD for the same price or less.
Most people probably need more space than the speed boost.
i have an sm951, which is cheaper and faster than the 950, but doesn't have software support (samsung magician).
it's absolutely worth it, nvme is amazing. it's two times the price of a sata ssd for four times the speed.
>>54511216
Ramdisk would be much faster
>>54511287
What do you use it for?
>>54511760
This questions don't make any sense to me. As if speed isn't reason enough. Boot up time, launching applications, what do you use a computer for? Shit... Trying to reason your way out of not wanting one is like trying to talk yourself into a hyundai elantra. How 'bout this for a reason. Everything else is worse than m.2 drives for desktops.
>>54512045
>Boot up time
It doesnt boot faster than most SATA SSDs. This is because of how the BIOS initializes the PCI lanes, your PCI/M.2 SSD has to wait for the BIOS THEN it can start loading windows. When you boot from SATA though the BIOS gets that started very quickly in comparison.
The rest of what you said is valid, it will improve application launch times, allow you to download very quickly assuming your Internet can keep up, etc.
I have it because I can
>>54511123
will this make it so I can load sample libraries without bottle-necking?
>>54512107
link for proof that sata is slower than pcie m.2 for boot up times?
>>54511123
I have one and I love it.
>>54512198
No proof but boot times don't seem vastly improved over a quality sata ssd for me. That said, general performance and application load time is better. Maybe not the same jump as we had from mechanical -> ssd but still noticeable imo
>>54511287
Four times the speed in disk benchmarks, perhaps 30% faster in real world applications of mixed loads.
>>54512198
Pci is slower and you can test it yourself
Time the boot for a 950 pro m.2 vs any sata SSD.
I get ~20 second boot time on the SATA ssd. I get ~40 second boot time with the M.2 SSD.
It's dependant on motherboard how quickly it initializes M.2 SSDs. But it's always slower than a SATA ssd from my experience
>>54512045
But for a lot of things, SSDs have made it so that hard drive speed is no longer the bottleneck. I think he's asking for what uses is the improvement of an m.2 SSD actually noticeable.
>>54511310
You'd be surprised at how close they are.
Ram disk here (DDR4 2400 MHz Dual channel)
Next post will be the 950 Pro
>>54512248
>>54511310
950 Pro
Sequential read speeds aren't even doubled by ram disk
Skyrim shows a brief loading screen when you begin, but once you are in game going from one place to another there is no load screen.
>>54512262
>>54512248
Nah they're significantly far apart. Maybe if you put two in a raid configuration. Both are very niche in terms of actual need is concerned. Maybe if there's size parity soon which won't happen.
>>54512262
The worst case is the seq 4kq32t4. 1871MB/s vs 1236MB/s (1.5x difference)
Next is the seq 4kq32t1 4786MB/s vs 2481MB/s (1.92x difference)
Literally every other metric is more than double and in some cases FAR more than double
Been thinking about picking one but I'm hoping my hardware is compatible. Don't have an m.2 slot so I'm going to run it via a PCIE adapter (which is probably better anyway). Does the slot have to be 3.0 or anything?
>>54512375
It needs to be at least 4x is all (it'll run on a 2x slot but obviously not as fast)
>>54512391
Cool, looks like I'm good then. What about cooling? is throttling an issue?
>>54511123
my laptop has two SM951s in raid0. life's good desu
>>54512505
That's raid performance?
I get similar and better scores in a few of those areas with a single 950 pro m.2
>>54512418
>is throttling an issue?
Not in real world, the throttling problem is a meme.
That said my laptop does have a heat sink the m.2 drives lay against so maybe I'm just lucky.
>>54511123
It's pretty boss, bro.
As others have mentioned, it's a bit slower on boot, but big deal.
Screams when flipping through large files like big photos, etc.
>>54512923
speccy
>>54512923
Change the queue settings to run with 2 threads instead of 1.
>>54512923
m8, change the settings to get better epeen
>>54512965
You don't need 4, but yea 1 will throttle you.
>>54512948
kek you have like the desktop version of my laptop! >>54512230
>>54512955
>>54512965
How can you even tell that was the case and changing to 2 threads makes it worse?
>>54511287
Hey dude I also have that m.2.
Just wanted to let you know that trim works even though you can't use Samsung Magician. I found software that tested it.
>>54511760
not him but i also own an SM951 and i noticed my entire computer became faster.
I understand that "most people" wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but applications launch faster, I can navigate windows faster, my boot up time is literally 3 seconds, and that's only beause 2 of that is spent on the bios flash screen waiting to see if I want to make an input.
People who can't tell the difference either don't have decent hardware backing it (I have a 4790k behind mine) or just aren't inclined to noticing fractional second improvements.
>>54512955
>>54512965
>>54513063
>>54513106
For any one curious why my boot times are so fast (Because apparently they're supposed to slow down with m.2)
I am using an ASrock Extreme 6 z97 motherboard. It has a specific list of BIOS supported m.2 PCIe SSDs you can use successfully with it and the SM951 is on there, so I am guessing they added bios level support for it so it doesn't have to sit there for a billion years initializing like it would in other shitty motherboards.
Are all recent m.2 SSDs from the respected brands faster than SATA ones, or do you have to spend a lot for the top end m.2 SSDs to get something noticeably faster than the SATA bottleneck? I noticed the Sandisk m.2 SSD ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0194MV3XM/ref=mp_s_a_1_fkmr0_2?qid=1463075842&sr=8-2-fkmr0&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=sandisk+m.2+x400 ) is quite a bit cheaper than the Samsung one of the same size ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01639694M/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1463075899&sr=8-2&pi=SX200_QL40&keywords=samsung+m.2+500gb&dpPl=1&dpID=4131LaT%2BI-L&ref=plSrch )
>>54513202
The first one you linked is M.2 but NOT PCIe. It's regular SATA in m.2 form factor. The speed will be capping out at like 550mb/s .... where as the PCIe speeds will hit upwards of 2.4/1.4 r/w.
>>54513247
Thanks. I didn't catch that and almost bought it yesterday. I ended up going with a 250gb SATA SSD for my build because I already have an external hard drive if I need it and figured I'll just wait until 1tb m.2 SSDs are more affordable.
>>54512545
>a few
You do huh? Prove it.
>>54513202
>Are all recent m.2 SSDs from the respected brands faster than SATA ones,
Not necessarily, I have a pretty shit m.2 drive that came with my laptop. Pretty sure it's SATA, and a shit one at that. Worth noting perhaps is that my 950 Pro did not come with a screw to secure it in the m.2 slot so I took the screw from this drive and thus it's kind of installed at an angle so maybe that slows it down some. I think the m.2 slots can be either PCI-E or SATA
Also: why does the Samsung Magician app look like such shit? It thinks it doesn't have space to write things out. Even if I turn off high dpi scaling it does this
>>54513731
Here's my single 950 Pro >>54512262
Circled what I'd call "clear wins"
950 Pro has 3 clear wins to your raid's 2 clear wins.
idk which I would say is faster, guess it'd depend on what you're doing
For the record, not the guy that made the claim you're refuting
>>54513831
That's pretty odd considering the 951 is supposed to be faster. Doesn't seem to be living up to expectation in the other anon''s laptop. Even for some of the things it's faster at than a 950, it's not better by much.
Btw you forgot 4k read, making it 50:50.
>>54514135
he was only circling the clear wins, they are basically tied in everything else, or close enough to not be able to call a clear winner.
>>54512505
>>54513731
Here you go
Thats a single 950 pro, and this is the 240GB one, not even the 512GB one which scores even higher
What's the future of SSD? PCIe? Ram slot? m2?
>>54514276
3C XPoint Optane
>>54513831
>>54514229
Why does your shit seem slow?
>>54514229
laptopguy is most probably throttling to a certain degree.
>>54511123
Thermal throttling anyone?
>>54514348
where would you even insert that? in what slot?
>>54512045
Is there any noticeable benefit?
Sure I can run an SSD benchmark all day long and drool over 1GB/s speeds, but what's the use?
My PC boots in 7 seconds with a SATA SSD, chrome opens instantly, even heavy programs like Visual Studio don't take much longer than 3 seconds.
I mean, it's be impressive if Photoshop or VS started instantly with an NVMe SSD but I haven't seen any real world data yet on it, just artificial benchmarks.
I don't doubt the technology is nice, but like... I don't see any incentive why I would want to have it.
>>54514446
does SSDs improve times in virtualization with vmware workstation? of course, main thing is ram, but what about ssd?
>>54514358
see
>>54514229
>this is the 240GB one, not even the 512GB one which scores even higher
the larger one scores better, which you have.
>>54514359
That or his RAID is misconfigured or something similar is going on.
>>54511123
Oh, absolutely.
I recently tested a PC with a Xeon E3-1231v3 and a M.2 Samsung 950 Pro, and it beats the shit out of a PC with an i7-6700 and a SATA Samsung 850 Pro in boot and loading times
The difference is extremely noticeable.
>>54514491
wat
>>54514619
Ah, wow that's a really huge difference. I'm a bit surprised, honestly.
>>54514723
>Ah, wow that's a really huge difference. I'm a bit surprised, honestly.
Yeah it's pretty decent difference in write performance especially.
>>54512243
20 second boot time on ssd. what my pc boots in less than 10 seconds on the bait and switch kingston ssd
>>54514669
My i5 2500k w/ 830 evo boots faster than my i7 6700k w/ 950 Pro.
Probably a lot more to do with boot times than just the SSD, m8. No expert, but just an observation.
>>54514723
Nothing. I thought maybe you're someone I know.
>>54514836
>doesn't know boot time is dependent on the installed hardware
wew
>>54514859
what do you have that slows your boot time down that much than, cause 20-40 second boot up time is in HDD territory
>>54514893
well for 40 seconds it's the POST time it takes for the PCI initialization.
For 20 seconds it's probably running a POST on my 32GB of RAM which since it's quad channel is gonna take a bit longer than you 2x4GB in dual channel most people have.
It can also just depend on the motherboard and that specific BIOS revision what it's doing and what order.
>>54514442
ram slot. Needs a particular CPU and chipset/mobo though. Soon.
>>54514915
Well I guess I got lucky then cause like I said >10 seconds and I have 32gib of ram aswell only dual channel cause z97 but still.
>>54515028
Time it for me, the entire boot process.
From full 100% off to logged in and all startup applications loaded.
>>54515061
do I time while i'm logging in, and I have about 4 applications on startup max
>>54515083
I am glad i'm anonoumoose because my boot time was closer to 20-25 seconds
>>54515177
Yeah that's a bit more expected, still good though.
>>54514915
>quad channel RAM
meme territory, buddy.
>>54512262
RAM disk absolutely destroys any SSD's sequential writes speeds, lasts way longer and is many times faster than a 950's 4K read and write speeds.
>>54515298
Don't worry he probably has a 5820K to go along with the meme.
>>54515298
Well outside of synthetic benchmarks there is little to no difference for most workloads. BUT, it's x99a, no point running dual channel when quad is available.
And besides, while I might not NEED 61Gb/s memory bandwidth, it's nice to know I have it.
>>54515332
Well I wasn't gonna shell out for the 5930k or 5960x
>>54511123
I recently bough x4 250Gb 950 PRO SDDs (in RAID0) - how fucked am I?
>>54515359
I dont know of any motherboard that would support such a setup, what the fuck are you running?
>>54515348
If I were to get x99 I would feel forced to atleast get a cpu that supports all the pci lanes
>>54515332
I had someone with that exact combination attempt to tell me their system was better than mine.
Hilarious it turns out to be a meme.
>>54515382
What's the point of the extra lanes?
>>54515382
Why...? 28 is enough for pretty much anything besides triple or quad GPU setups.
28 lanes is two GPUs at x8 x8, an x4 M.2 SSD, and 8 more lanes for more expansion cards, or whatever else.
Unless you're running a STUPID setup, its retarded to even think about the 5930k it's fucking worthless, the 5820k is half the price and can OC just as high with just as many cores and just as much cache. The 5960x is okay i guess, but the price increase just for 2 more cores doesn't seem worth it.
>>54515400
Does he shit up speccy threads? If so he's a faggot who's best left ignored.
>>54515381
I just plugged 4 SATA cables into my motherboard and set the RAID up in Linux.
>>54515552
>SATA cables
so you didn't buy the ones in the OP... you bought the 950 pro sata. not the 950 pro PCI M.2 as pictured in the post you quoted (the OP)
I thought you said you were trying to run quad PCI M.2 SSDs.
>>54515591
you can run tri pro m.2s on some nuts board but they don't stack that well
>>54514446
>I don't see any incentive why I would want to have it.
You get one because it's cool as shit and you want one. Same as every other computer part. Stop looking for reasons.
>>54515474
You also have 8 extra lanes from the X99 chipset for a total of 36 lanes with the 5820K and 48 lanes with the 5930K.
>>54515623
tfw thought about doing 2 950 pros in raid0 but one of my m.2 slots is only 2 lanes instead of 4
Would it still give gains or would the slower one lead to overall worse performance?
>>54515591
Sorry, I thought that was implied by the "how fucked am i?" :P (because I didn't know about the m.2)
>>54515757
I believe it would probably limit to the slower ones speed cause thats how it works raiding hdd's
>>54515629
i'm baked and forgot about that but you're right. Honestly I can never understand anyone who gets a 5930k, just get the 5960x if you're spending that much.
>>54512045
>Paying twice the price for boot up times that are within a rounding error of the much cheaper 850 evo
lel
>>54515975
it's worse on 10. The sata drives pull ahead.
>>54515975
WEW WE'RE SPEEDING NOW LEAVING THOSE SATA PLEBS IN THE DUST
>>54515989
Even in that one it's bad, the 850 evo is beating the 950 pro that is 3 times it's fucking price.
>>54516094
>beating
you can hardly call 0.1 second beating anything
>>54516094
Hit the power button and go get a drink. Seriously, if you're bitching about a few seconds of boot time vs massive differences in read and write speeds, your priorities are fucked.
Seriously guys - should i return my 4x 950 PRO SATA drives and get this? They were expensive :'(
>>54516325
well what is your intended use
>>54516213
0.1s is an eternity for computers.
>>54516325
Return 3 keep one. Or return all 4. What were you going to use it for anyway? You sound like the shit troll.
>>54516344
if what you're doing is so god damn important 0.1s is going to matter to you, then you wont be using something like this ANYWAY.
Fucking autistic shit
what if u put 2 ram disks in raid0
HOLY SHIT
>>54511123
Why don't you find out for yourself?
Download some RAM disk software of your choice and create a RAM disk on your system. Play around with it.
100% worth it
>>54518147
Anon, you'd rip a hole in space time.
>>54512306
You can't have two Samsung 950 pro
There no Motherboard with 2 M.2 Pci-e Controller ....
they are all 1 Sata + 1 Pcie m.2 Connectors ... and the Sata M.2 is MUch Much Much slower...
>>54520143
there are motherboards that support two M.2 drives, either using an adapter or SFF-8639 (U.2)
>>54511199
This nigga knows what's up
The speed simply puts in in another category of storage altogether.
Main issue is the thermal throttle.
When I buy an NVMe SSD in the future, I will absolutely only buy a PCIE based one with a heatsink.
