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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|