A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old May 16th 18, 08:24 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,561
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Everybody seems to be getting excited about the nvme interface SSDs on
M2 connectors. And everybody says they're so much faster than SATA 3
which is limited to 6Gbps. But it isn't. SATA 3.2 came out years ago
and it's 16Gb/s. So is there any point in buying an M2 shaped SSD? I
can't find any sensible comparisons online anywhere.


There were no devices available when this article was written.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/7843/...ss-with-asus/5

The pinout is effectively two lanes. The four mystery pins seem
mainly so that a device that has the whole set of pins (a purpose-built
SATA Express) would trigger the right "mode" in the motherboard+driver.

GND
TX1+
TX1-
GND
RX1-
RX1+
GND

GND
TX2+
TX2-
GND
RX2-
RX2+
GND

Floating
Device_Reset
GND
Detection

An M.2 with four lanes, so this should be "twice as good" as
the previous idea.

https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/t...cie-x4-pinout/

As for the SFF connector, my eyes begin to glaze over when there
are too many of these damn things.

I'm only really "attracted" to items that I can buy, and things I
see ona regular basis. If it has a goofy connector, it'll take me
all day to dig up info on it.

This was a bad enough exercise, in that practically nobody
was willing to give out the above pinouts. There were motherboard
manuals that decided not to document it, like it was a form
of "poison" or something. Some of the standards specs cost
$2K to $4K, and who knows what NDA terms are "listed on page 2"
of such expensive pieces of crap. So the dude on the NVidia
site above, was trying to build a PCB using scavenged info
without "paying the fee". And at least we can see the four lanes
in the diagram.

HTH,
Paul
Ads
  #17  
Old May 16th 18, 08:49 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

On Wed, 16 May 2018 07:12:50 +0100, Fokke Nauta wrote:

On 15/05/2018 22:14, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Everybody seems to be getting excited about the nvme interface SSDs on
M2 connectors. And everybody says they're so much faster than SATA 3
which is limited to 6Gbps. But it isn't. SATA 3.2 came out years ago
and it's 16Gb/s. So is there any point in buying an M2 shaped SSD? I
can't find any sensible comparisons online anywhere.


I use a NVMe M2 drive of 225 Gb as a temp drive. It works fast and
flawlessly. I'm very content with it.


From the review I saw, only Samsung make them so far (and Kingston but at half the speed).

--
Statistics show that 25% of all women are on medication for mental illness.
That's scary! It means 75% are running around with no bloody medication at all!!!
  #18  
Old May 28th 18, 12:26 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,196
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

On 5/15/2018 6:18 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Just looked up a Samsung 960 Pro SSD, which is a lot faster. Crucial
don't seem to do nvme, and I've always used Crucial for reliability
after having 50% of OCZ drives fail. But there's no reason they can't
use SATA 3.2 for fast SSDs.


On M.2 attachments, you can have either SATA or NVMe drives. Slightly
different keyings, but they both fit in the same slot though. One is
called a B-key (SATA) and the other is an M-key (NVMe).

An M.2 B-key has the same speed as a SATA SSD, and in fact it uses the
SATA protocol too. The M.2 M-key uses the newer NVMe protocol, which
allows it to operate twice as fast as a SATA or B-key drive.

So many mfg's even if they are using an M.2 interface, they are probably
using the SATA software interface, so it's not going to be any better
than a SATA SSD. Samsung makes some of the best M-key/NVMe drives, which
really show off their value proposition over standard SATA drives which
are bottlenecked by the SATA interface.

Yousuf Khan
  #19  
Old May 28th 18, 12:38 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

On Mon, 28 May 2018 00:26:46 +0100, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 5/15/2018 6:18 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Just looked up a Samsung 960 Pro SSD, which is a lot faster. Crucial
don't seem to do nvme, and I've always used Crucial for reliability
after having 50% of OCZ drives fail. But there's no reason they can't
use SATA 3.2 for fast SSDs.


On M.2 attachments, you can have either SATA or NVMe drives. Slightly
different keyings, but they both fit in the same slot though. One is
called a B-key (SATA) and the other is an M-key (NVMe).

An M.2 B-key has the same speed as a SATA SSD, and in fact it uses the
SATA protocol too. The M.2 M-key uses the newer NVMe protocol, which
allows it to operate twice as fast as a SATA or B-key drive.

So many mfg's even if they are using an M.2 interface, they are probably
using the SATA software interface, so it's not going to be any better
than a SATA SSD. Samsung makes some of the best M-key/NVMe drives, which
really show off their value proposition over standard SATA drives which
are bottlenecked by the SATA interface.


But the SATA is NOT bottlenecked if they'd just use SATA 3.2 (emphasis on the .2).

And nvme drives are damn expensive.

--
"TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."
"Centre, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?"
"Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
  #20  
Old May 28th 18, 12:48 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,184
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

In article , Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:

So many mfg's even if they are using an M.2 interface, they are probably
using the SATA software interface, so it's not going to be any better
than a SATA SSD. Samsung makes some of the best M-key/NVMe drives, which
really show off their value proposition over standard SATA drives which
are bottlenecked by the SATA interface.


But the SATA is NOT bottlenecked if they'd just use SATA 3.2 (emphasis on the .2).


except that nobody uses that. it's a dead standard.

And nvme drives are damn expensive.


no they aren't.
  #21  
Old May 28th 18, 01:44 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Peter Kozlov[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

On May 27, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:

So many mfg's even if they are using an M.2 interface, they are probably
using the SATA software interface, so it's not going to be any better
than a SATA SSD. Samsung makes some of the best M-key/NVMe drives, which
really show off their value proposition over standard SATA drives which
are bottlenecked by the SATA interface.


But the SATA is NOT bottlenecked if they'd just use SATA 3.2 (emphasis on
the .2).


except that nobody uses that. it's a dead standard.

And nvme drives are damn expensive.


no they aren't.


I don’t think they are that expensive either. You can get the Samsung Pro
970 NVMe for $249 / 512 GB. The 1 TB drive is $499. The non-pro EVOs tend to
be at least a $100 less than that. The Samsung T5 USB-C 500 GB drives are
$149. This is getting into thumb drive prices for good quality and reliable
performance.

--
Peter Kozlov

  #22  
Old May 28th 18, 01:56 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,184
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

In article
l-september.org, Peter
Kozlov wrote:

And nvme drives are damn expensive.


no they aren't.


I dont think they are that expensive either. You can get the Samsung Pro
970 NVMe for $249 / 512 GB. The 1 TB drive is $499. The non-pro EVOs tend to
be at least a $100 less than that. The Samsung T5 USB-C 500 GB drives are
$149. This is getting into thumb drive prices for good quality and reliable
performance.


512 gig western digital black nvme, $149:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820250085
  #23  
Old May 28th 18, 02:09 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Peter Kozlov[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

On May 27, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In article
l-september.org, Peter
Kozlov wrote:

And nvme drives are damn expensive.

no they aren't.


I don¹t think they are that expensive either. You can get the Samsung Pro
970 NVMe for $249 / 512 GB. The 1 TB drive is $499. The non-pro EVOs tend to
be at least a $100 less than that. The Samsung T5 USB-C 500 GB drives are
$149. This is getting into thumb drive prices for good quality and reliable
performance.


512 gig western digital black nvme, $149:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820250085


Did you check the price on the 256? It was $79. I bought 64 GB USB 3 Sandisk
thumb drives for $16. I use them as bootable recovery boot volumes.

--
Peter Kozlov

  #24  
Old June 10th 18, 07:47 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,196
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

On 5/27/2018 7:38 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
But the SATA is NOT bottlenecked if they'd just use SATA 3.2 (emphasis
on the .2).

And nvme drives are damn expensive.


SATA 3.2 is basically multiple SATA connectors combined into one,
usually 2 connectors, so it's only twice as fast as SATA 3.0. NVMe is 4x
to 8x faster. NVMe drives are only about 10% more expensive than SATA
drives of the same size.

Yousuf Khan
  #25  
Old June 10th 18, 08:44 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,561
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 5/27/2018 7:38 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
But the SATA is NOT bottlenecked if they'd just use SATA 3.2 (emphasis
on the .2).

And nvme drives are damn expensive.


SATA 3.2 is basically multiple SATA connectors combined into one,
usually 2 connectors, so it's only twice as fast as SATA 3.0. NVMe is 4x
to 8x faster. NVMe drives are only about 10% more expensive than SATA
drives of the same size.

Yousuf Khan


One reason NVMe cannot go faster still, is the size of
the PCIe buffers in the PCIe logic blocks in chipset/CPU.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150628...yload_Size.pdf

(PLXTech was bought out by Broadcom)
http://www.plxtech.com/files/pdf/tec...yload_Size.pdf

"Intel desktop chipsets support at most a 64-byte maximum payload
while Intel server chipsets support at most a 128-byte maximum payload.
The primary reason for this is to match the cache line size for
snooping on the front side bus."

The 2.5GB/sec a Samsung gives, that might be running into
the buffer limitation, and preventing a full 4GB/sec.

You cannot boot from NVMe without BIOS support, so
slapping a PCIe card with an NVMe strapped to it,
is not the full story. Just in case someone gets
excited and wants to add an NVMe to their old
P2B motherboard.

"Todd" has been installing these, and would
probably have more war stories to tell about them.

Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.