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
  #1  
Old May 15th 18, 09:14 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?

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.

--
Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!
  #2  
Old May 15th 18, 09:42 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,185
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

In article , 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.


they are *much* faster, around 5x that speed, sometimes more. sata is a
bottleneck.

But it isn't. SATA 3.2 came out years ago and it's
16Gb/s.


good luck finding a logic board *and* a drive that uses it.

So is there any point in buying an M2 shaped SSD? I can't find any
sensible comparisons online anywhere.


yes, and there are plenty of comparisons.
  #3  
Old May 15th 18, 09:49 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,574
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:14:59 +0100, "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 know you're mostly asking about a performance comparison, but one of
the things I like about m.2 is its smaller form factor.

My newest laptop has dual 2.5" drive bays, but Bay 0 can take two m.2
drives, so I have a 256GB NVMe and a 500GB NVMe drive in Bay 0 and a 1TB
regular SSD in Bay 1.

  #4  
Old May 15th 18, 10:02 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 Tue, 15 May 2018 21:49:24 +0100, Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:14:59 +0100, "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 know you're mostly asking about a performance comparison, but one of
the things I like about m.2 is its smaller form factor.

My newest laptop has dual 2.5" drive bays, but Bay 0 can take two m.2
drives, so I have a 256GB NVMe and a 500GB NVMe drive in Bay 0 and a 1TB
regular SSD in Bay 1.


Just desktops I was considering, so size isn't a problem.

--
"The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire."
  #5  
Old May 15th 18, 09:52 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
No_Name
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:14:59 +0100, "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife"
wrote:

Everybody seems to be getting excited about the nvme interface SSDs on M2 connectors.



m.2 is a HUGE amount faster, and is the future.


Don't know WHERE you heard that Sata 3.2 is 16 MBPS, but that's simply
bull****. And m.2 on PCIE x4 is WAY faster than SATA of any kind.





  #6  
Old May 15th 18, 10:01 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,185
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

In article ,
wrote:

Everybody seems to be getting excited about the nvme interface SSDs on M2
connectors.


m.2 is a HUGE amount faster, and is the future.


until something better is created.

Don't know WHERE you heard that Sata 3.2 is 16 MBPS, but that's simply
bull****.


it's a 'promise'. except it's too little, too late.

https://www.bit-tech.net/news/tech/storage/sata-32/1/
SATA-IO, the industry group behind the Serial ATA standard, has
formally released the SATA 3.2 specification with the promise of
boosting transfer rates as high as 16Gb/s in future devices.

And m.2 on PCIE x4 is WAY faster than SATA of any kind.


yep.

technology moves forward.
  #7  
Old May 15th 18, 10:05 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 Tue, 15 May 2018 21:52:15 +0100, wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:14:59 +0100, "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife"
wrote:

Everybody seems to be getting excited about the nvme interface SSDs on M2 connectors.


m.2 is a HUGE amount faster, and is the future.

Don't know WHERE you heard that Sata 3.2 is 16 MBPS, but that's simply
bull****.


Wikipedia. Bit-tech.net Techreport.com Anywhere really.

And m.2 on PCIE x4 is WAY faster than SATA of any kind.


It's 32GBits/s, so only twice as fast as SATA 3.2
And I don't think SSDs internally go faster than 16 yet anyway.

--
"The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire."
  #8  
Old May 15th 18, 10:27 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,185
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

In article , Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:

And m.2 on PCIE x4 is WAY faster than SATA of any kind.


It's 32GBits/s,


sometimes more.

so only twice as fast as SATA 3.2


which only exists on paper.

And I don't think SSDs internally go faster than 16 yet anyway.


they do.
  #9  
Old May 15th 18, 11:18 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 Tue, 15 May 2018 22:05:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:52:15 +0100, wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:14:59 +0100, "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife"
wrote:

Everybody seems to be getting excited about the nvme interface SSDs on M2 connectors.


m.2 is a HUGE amount faster, and is the future.

Don't know WHERE you heard that Sata 3.2 is 16 MBPS, but that's simply
bull****.


Wikipedia. Bit-tech.net Techreport.com Anywhere really.

And m.2 on PCIE x4 is WAY faster than SATA of any kind.


It's 32GBits/s, so only twice as fast as SATA 3.2
And I don't think SSDs internally go faster than 16 yet anyway.


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.

--
The world record for a talking bird is 1728 words by a budgerigar named Puck, having the same vocabulary as an estate agent.
  #10  
Old May 15th 18, 11:21 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 Tue, 15 May 2018 23:18:13 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2018 22:05:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:52:15 +0100, wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:14:59 +0100, "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife"
wrote:

Everybody seems to be getting excited about the nvme interface SSDs on M2 connectors.

m.2 is a HUGE amount faster, and is the future.

Don't know WHERE you heard that Sata 3.2 is 16 MBPS, but that's simply
bull****.


Wikipedia. Bit-tech.net Techreport.com Anywhere really.

And m.2 on PCIE x4 is WAY faster than SATA of any kind.


It's 32GBits/s, so only twice as fast as SATA 3.2
And I don't think SSDs internally go faster than 16 yet anyway.


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.


Blisteringly expensive aswell as blisteringly fast though. 500GB Samsung nvme SSD is 250, the Crucial SATA3 SSD is only 100. I think I'd rather have more SSD capacity (instead of hard disk) than spend that money speeding up the already fast SSD.

--
Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them.
  #11  
Old May 15th 18, 11:36 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,185
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

In article , Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:

Just looked up a Samsung 960 Pro SSD, which is a lot faster. Crucial don't
seem to do nvme,


micron, their parent company, does:
https://www.micron.com/products/soli...terfaces/nvme-
ssds#/

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.


other than there's zero market for it, you mean?
  #12  
Old May 28th 18, 12:26 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,200
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
  #13  
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?"
  #14  
Old May 15th 18, 11:37 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,567
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.


I can give you a simple metric for comparison.

NVMe uses four lanes.

SATA uses one lane (for the regular flavor).

All of these technologies borrow ideas from
one another. As the rates go skyward, the ideas
transfer from one standard to another.

But it's the lane count that decides which one
ultimately has the highest rate. For example,
PCIe Rev.4 is coming out soon, which could, potentially,
make an NVMe double in speed.

There's a Samsung NVMe that does around 2.5GB/sec.
And the reason it stops there, is PCI Express has
a buffer dependency, and the chipset doesn't use
big enough buffers. The wiring supports ~4GB/sec,
the buffers, not so much.

What even comes close, as a competitor ? AFAIK, NVMe
is winning right now.

If a storage tech comes along that used 8 lanes
to connect to the motherboard, then it will be the
next winner.

*******

How fast does my software go ?

1) Naively written program written by home user: 300MB/sec
2) HxD hex editor, when searching for a string: 600MB/sec
2) 7ZIP CRC32 right-click checker: 1500MB/sec

What this means is, there's really no consumer that I know
of, that uses the 2500MB/sec the Samsung gives.

Regular SATA covers "regular" programs, the ones that
aren't particularly optimized for any purpose.

So while the fanbois love their NVMe and "let me RAID0 that for you",
there aren't a lot of other bits in the computer that put the
speed to good usage.

Even an Areca RAID controller, probably delivers around 2GB/sec.
So RAIDing hard drives isn't the answer. Connecting only
four SATA III SSDs would saturate the engine.

And anything faster than that, is probably too expensive to own :-)

There's all sorts of tech out there... that has absolutely
no presence on the web at all. Black technology belonging
to three letter government agencies. I got a view of such
a piece of gear at a storage conference (it wasn't particularly
classified, and was more of a stage prop kind of thing), and
even if I don't know what's current, I know they have better
stuff than we do :-)

Perhaps doing some research on CERN and their Internet 2 storage
schemes, would give some idea what more bleeding edge stuff
looks like.

Summary: Do the lane count, decide who is the (eventual) winner

Paul
  #15  
Old May 16th 18, 12:03 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,185
Default SATA 3.2 or nvme for an SSD?

In article , Paul
wrote:

What even comes close, as a competitor ? AFAIK, NVMe
is winning right now.


has won.

sata 3.2, aka sata express, is stillborn.

If a storage tech comes along that used 8 lanes
to connect to the motherboard, then it will be the
next winner.


https://www.anandtech.com/show/10125...ie-x16-ssd-cap
able-of-10gbs
At the Open Compute Project Summit this week in San Jose, Seagate
will show off a pair of upcoming enterprise NVMe SSDs with impressive
throughput specifications. The drives will have PCIe x16 and x8
interfaces and provide maximum throughput of 10GB/s and 6.7GB/s
respectively. Seagate has provided few details so far, but it's safe
to say those numbers are peak sequential read speeds.
 




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 06:47 AM.


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