That worked quite well for you then? which motherboard have you got?Use 4t hdd+256 ssd with StoreMI= fast and big size
My old Crucial 300 real ssd 1st sta 6 ssd had this covered 9 years ago!Will a PCI-E x4 SSD let me play Crysis?
I think you are misinterpreting the copy / paste tests
Sequential speeds did not put the PCIe 4.0 SSD on top for this test
Using a 4GB file for "MY" tests....
A 1st gen OCZ SSD's did not outperform 7200RPM laptop hard drives or even 5400RPM laptop hard drives when copying from and pasting to the same drive
On the same computer, an OCZ SSD copied and pasted @ 3.6 MB/sec
A 5400RPM Western Digital Laptop hard drive copied and pasted (the same file) @ just over 17 MB/sec
A Samsung Planar 840 Pro copied and pasted the same file @ nearly 60Mb /sec
A Samsung 850 Pro with 3D Flash copied and pasted the same file @ nearly 120 MB/sec
(twice the speed of the 840 Pro)
It is entirely possible for a PCIe 3.0 SSD to outperform a PCIe 4.0 SSD as the copy / paste test (to and from the same drive) does not depend on the sequential throughput of the drive
I have tested many drives with faster sequential throughput doing worse on a copy/paste test than other drives with slower sequential throughput
You are confusing the speed to, or from the drive with the internal speed of the drive
They are 2 entirely different things
Disclaimer:
All tests were run using Windows XP-SP2 on a SATA 2 port (not SATA 3)
Running the same tests using Windows 7/8 or 10 gave me incorrect speed values as I was getting the same internal speeds for almost every drive
Only Windows XP gave me correct / reliable and repeatable numbers on the specific test hardware
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, 1st gen OCZ SSD's were in no way a massive improvement on hard drives!
We're talking milliseconds here people. I use a WD Blue SN500 NVMe as my system drive in my desktop, a WD Blue M2 drive in my laptop, and have another MX500 Sata SSD in my desktop. I was using much older Kingston V300 SSDs in my desktop before (my son still has one as his main system drive) and the difference between all of them is barely noticeable. I'm more interested in price and reliability than spending twice as much to save 1ms of load time. It does help having an SSD for some games that can stutter when loading large texture files (DCS World), but this is more a compensation for low video RAM (in certain games - I.e. big improvement when I moved from a GTX 1060 3GB to my current 1070).
If milliseconds were all that we are talking about, then all "you" really need is a Samsung Fit Plus thumb drive
https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=samsung+fit+plus
After all, it boot to Windows 10 Workstation in 30 seconds or less on an ancient 35 watt Sandy Bridge
Need XP compatability as well?
An SLC compact flash card will boot to XP in 12 seconds on a 1st gen Atom computer
However, once you are up and in Windows, a compact flash card is painful to use
Your needs may not be My needs!
A crucial MX500 or a Western Digital equivalent may be fine for Windows 8 / 10 since it has compatible caching software to make it usable under "most" circumstances except a power loss
For reliable high performance and compatability, a Samsung 840 or 850 Pro is a much better option
No caching software required so it works fine with Windows XP as well as Windows 8 and 10
A Samsung 840 Pro will boot to Windows XP in 3 seconds flat on an ancient Nehalem dualcore, AND is actually usable once you are there
High enough random reads and writes make Windows 8 and 10 usable with a Samsung Fit Plus thumb drive but the small cache and slow write speed make it painful when moving files
The $8 thumb drive is "good enough" for Internet browsing or playing Counterstrike using Internal HD2000 graphics, but thats about it
No, milliseconds are not what we are talking about here
Yes, milliseconds IS what we're talking about here...the article is comparing speeds. It's a no-brainer at this point (2019) that SSDs are better than HDD and who said anything about thumb drives? For gaming and general computing, you don't need bomb-proof SSDs that run at the speed of light, unless you're into wasting cash. That was my (I thought) fairly obvious point.
I don't like own brand bread, but I love fresh baked sour dough.Don't see the need for 10TB of SSD.... that's about $1000 when you could get a single 10TB mechanical for about $300.... then get a boot drive for $100 and you've got the same storage for less than half the price.
This isn’t about bread... and STORAGE is different depending on what you use it for.I don't like own brand bread, but I love fresh baked sour dough.
"You can get more than double the bread for the same price"
WHY WOULD I WANT THAT!
This isn’t about bread... and STORAGE is different depending on what you use it for.
If you need the stuff on your hard drives to run quickly - you need SSDs... but very few people need that for more than a TB... for the vast majority, your OS, and applications/games can be fit on a 1tb drive (or less).
The majority of people who need more than 1-2tb of storage, on the other hand, don’t need most of that stuff to run quickly. This applies to photos/music/videos etc... backups...
Many of these people have huge collections of stuff (I have over 40TB myself), and would be considered crazy to put that all on SSDs. The difference between HDD and SSD for plain media is virtually nonexistent and yet the cost would be thousands of dollars more!
Wonderbread is fine for that
With 40tb of stuff, I’d need a lot more....and I’d run out of sata ports to connect them all - without requiring even more expensive add-on cards...I've had nothing but luck with Crucial MX500 2TB drives.
I catch them at Microcenter on sale around $200 or less.
I just added another to a build for my cousin yesterday.
I have a total of 10TB and now he has a total of 4TB.
It makes gaming, 8K video editing and just about everything else fast and silent.
Which would also require the use of more PCIe lanes. However that may not be a problem for most.I’d run out of sata ports to connect them all - without requiring even more expensive add-on cards...
I modified my computer to be SSD only. I have five x 2TB Crucial MX500. Each one was just $180 on sale.
As far as I'm concerned, $100 is my breaking point for a 1TB Sata or M.2 while $200 is my breaking point for a 2TB model Sata or M.2.
Crucial, Samsung, Intel (660p) and a few other companies offer a 1TB for $100 and 2TB for $200 while the only company I see offering 4TB under $500 is the Samsung QVO.
I'm more interested in capacity than I am in theoretical read/write speeds.
I feel it ridiculous to spend more than necessary.
Furthermore, I don't see the need for the large heatsink since most M.2 will likely be used in laptops that don't have space for them. I think companies should make the sink seperate so you can choose whether or not to add it on.
I modified my computer to be SSD only. I have five x 2TB Crucial MX500. Each one was just $180 on sale.
As far as I'm concerned, $100 is my breaking point for a 1TB Sata or M.2 while $200 is my breaking point for a 2TB model Sata or M.2.
Crucial, Samsung, Intel (660p) and a few other companies offer a 1TB for $100 and 2TB for $200 while the only company I see offering 4TB under $500 is the Samsung QVO.
I'm more interested in capacity than I am in theoretical read/write speeds.
I feel it ridiculous to spend more than necessary.
Furthermore, I don't see the need for the large heatsink since most M.2 will likely be used in laptops that don't have space for them. I think companies should make the sink seperate so you can choose whether or not to add it on.
So what's your practical speed, uses, value, with all SSDs?
I used to play skyrim and doom 2016 off of IDE HDD and had no problems. Seems I'm lucky. If you see something better, there is no going back.