My SSD vidya SSD took a shit on me and need a new one. Is this

i got a 1tb evo god bless my short loading times

File: 2016-05-02 09_16_11-CrystalDiskMark 5.1.2 Shizuku Edition x64.png (319KB, 780x428px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 780x428px

if its for games, get the larger one.


The 950 pro is damn quick, but it's mostly wasted unless you do 4k editing or have huge read/writes you do regularly.

>>56721514
Do you have a motherboard capable of M.2 x4?

If so then yes they are great and new ones are coming out.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10698/samsung-announces-960-pro-and-960-evo-m2-pcie-ssds

>>56721538
Can you do a test with a copy to the same drive? (What's the transfer rate if you copy a ~5GB file.)
Because if it gets around half that write speed, it might be more worth it for me to invest in two RAID 0 HDD scratch disks instead of a 960 EVO, since that would nab me 4TB storage on top of 400MB/s transfers between arrays.

>>56721682

>Read 3500 MB/s
>Write 2100 MB/s
>440k IOPS

Jesus, those speeds are getting pretty crazy.
Also the prices on the EVO models are pretty reasonable.
$249 for a 500GB drive which is a lot faster than the 950 PRO which is still in the +300$ range.

I'm getting one of these when they come out.

>>56721682
Interesting
Are all m.2 slots 4x though?
I checked my specs and it just says m.2, doesn't say anything about how many lanes it has

>>56722254
Then it is x2.

>>56722065
Yeah I think they are faster than DDR and approaching DDR2 RAM speeds.

>>56722323
Unlucky

>>56722336
I wouldn't sweat it. PCI M.2. x8 is apparently coming soon. Just the way of computers.

File: 1470695940605.jpg (31KB, 383x487px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 383x487px

>all newer SSDs are NVMe
>motherboard doesn't support NVMe

>>56722446
>buy new motherboard
>windows upgrade license doesn't transfer over
>buy new license
>NVMeX is announced
>PCIE 32x speeds, same as DDR3
>FML

File: r_600x450.png (195KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 600x450px

>>56722334

It'll be interesting to see what the 3D Xpoint brings to the table.
It should be coming out in couple of months and we have already seen some results, pic related.
Only problem is that it's going to be pretty damn expensive.
Fujitsu is going to start producing carbon nanotube Non-volatile RAM in 2018, calls it NRAM and it wants to license that manufacturing tech all over the place.
Apparently that tech is far cheaper than anything else out there and can be manufactured with the machines they have now in use.

I wager that around 2020, we're all going to have DDR3 RAM speed storage.

File: Samsung DDR4 memory.jpg (193KB, 594x334px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 594x334px

>>56722527
>I wager that around 2020, we're all going to have DDR3 RAM speed storage.
Right about the time when Samsung thinks DDR5 will be out.

>>56722564

What the hell is going on with this stuff lately?
It's like someone suddenly pumped steroids into the research branches and they're jumping ahead leaps and bounds in a very short timespan.
DDR4 is only making it's way to the general public and already 3 years from now, we're going to have DDR5 around.

Not to mention the SSD market which is quickly reaching for speeds, where we're talking about some serious diminishing returns for even relatively heavy users.

>>56722673

Technology is general is reaching a pump and dump phase. Might as well make as much money as you possibly can before race riots burn down most of the free world.

Ended up buying a 1tb Evo. I'm planning on building a new computer when the next gen of graphic cards comes ariund. I'm guessing maybe sometime 2018

File: 1382378269086.jpg (77KB, 887x1097px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 887x1097px

>>56721514
Quick note for anyone looking at 950s. You need to slip in a driver to get windows 7 to boot off of them, and booting off of PCI SSD's is quite slow, like 20-30 seconds, for whatever reason. Your system just sits there, and then the windows logo displays for half a second before being idle on the desktop.

Everything else is fucking terrifyingly quick. I legit thought I had modules missing from some of my projects when I was loading them up after moving over because I just couldn't believe it was truly that fast.

>>56724216
>and booting off of PCI SSD's is quite slow, like 20-30 seconds, for whatever reason.

I haven't experienced this with Windows 10 and an SM951. Once post happens it is very quick.

>>56724233
I'm not sure what causes it, but if you look at the reviews on amazon/newegg for the drives, it's quite common.

Might just be a 7 and 8 thing where it has to initialize some dumb shit, but 10 keeps it 'loaded' in the hybrid sleep/off block that 8 and 10 have. Might also be mother board specific.

I really don't know. Just something to be aware of as a possibility.

>>56722254
It may just be a sata m.2 slot, which would give you sata3 speeds

>>56724216
Exactly this entire post, just built a ~$10,000 system running Windows 7, can confirm.

File: Capture.png (37KB, 405x370px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 405x370px

Based Intel NVMe M.2

What's the point if they have the same limitations as the other sata3 ssds? As in they'll eventually wear out after some fixed number of writes? Besides the speed and form factor/power consumption... even though they get extremely hot, relatively.

>>56722673
DDR5 is going to start as server only memory. It'll take years before even high-end consumer hardware supports it.

File: 1419238800344.jpg (34KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 375x375px

>>56726206
>What's the benefit of something fast and efficient, besides the part where it's fast and efficient?

>>56726206
Hdds wear out too. You can't put a number on it, but it still wears out.

>>56726245
Irrelevant for day-to-day casual stuff. And it dies just the same. Actually it'd die faster because if you're doing 4k editing at 1gb/s and you'll reach the manufacturer-warranty (200TBW for the 256 and 400TBW for 500) and actual endurance limit much sooner. But I guess the 850 Evo having a warranty of 75tb (256)150tb (500tb), and the 950 being 2x as fast (~1gb/s), in terms of warranty, makes the 950 is a better choice. But eh I think that's just a marketing gimmick since the 850 evo can last 800tpw-1pbw.

>>56726292
Eh you can kill an ssd in a month by constant writes(~1pb). Chances are the controller goes first. HDDs won't die that way. Apples and oranges. I'm not discussing this from the perspective of an HDD.

>>56726320
You can kill a hdd by shaking it while it's running.

>>56722503
>buy windows
Retard

>>56722446

>Have Z97-A
>Find out these fucking thing only supports M.2 2x
>No better than SATA3

Fuck my life

>>56724216
>and booting off of PCI SSD's is quite slow, like 20-30 seconds, for whatever reason

Booting off SSDs is going to be slower in Windows 7 regardless of what connection it's using.

Windows 7 doesn't allow Ultra Fast Boot, modern Linux distros and Windows 10 do, completely bypassing your UEFI/BIOS splash and cutting your boot time in half or more.

>>56722348
X4 PCIe has 32GB/s bandwidth
Show me one hard drive on earth that utilizes all that

>>56727531
it's 32gbps which is 4GB/s

SM 960 Pro has 3.2GB/s read speeds.

So next year?

>>56722503
Shoulda called microshaft, that's what I did. Ezpz.

>>56727665

One reason why things like the 3D Xpoint storage goes into the RAM slot.
I bet that most of the future storage is going to work through the RAM interface, so they don't have to deal with any potential bottlenecks.

>>56721514

Unless you move around GiBs worth of data on a daily basis.

M.2 SSDs are bloody overkilll.

The load time for games and overwhelming mainstream applications are CPU-bound even on a low-end SATA 2.5" SSD drive tied to a OC'ed Skylake rig.

>>56726443

Boot times for OS under any decent SSD is CPU-bound aside from stupid UEFI/BIOS shenanigans.

>>56728455

True, which is a very interesting situation we're getting into.
It really makes no sense whatsoever for the average person to upgrade from a SATA SSD
Even enthusiasts are hard pressed to find reasons to go from some other PCIe solution, to the new super fast Samsung 960 drives.

Not to mention we're now seeing technologies like MRAM,NRAM,Xpoint and who knows what else being developed.
The market is going to have to result to some serious gimmicky jewish bullshit to sell these products, because there's simply no reason for anyone to upgrade.

They should just cut the crap and start pumping the CPU cache to absurd sizes, so we could store everything there.

>>56728274
>3D Xpoint storage goes into the RAM slot.
They will more than likely use PCIe 3.0 x8 or x16 slots.
That's 7.87GB/s and 15.75GB/s, more than enough for currently announced 3D XPoint drives.

3D XPoint will be used as memory, but I highly doubt it will use DIMM slots.

960 is already out, get it.

>>56721514
Get the new 1tb sandisk sd card.

>>56728923
Boot times have become shorter than bios loading for over 2 years
>but muh big numbers

>>56728907
>PCIe x16 hard drives
There's a point where we should have stopped...

>>56728505
>CPU bound

I highly doubt that. It's going to spend most of its time waiting for memory access.

Are SSDs worth it if I never turn off and on my machine? All I really do is web browse and do simple tasks. I don't game as much as I use to, but I was thinking SSD as an OS drive.

>>56721514
just get a raid10 of enterprise hard drives

>>56729269
what is latency?

>>56729176
I do anything and everything on my computer, it's turned on for months at a time. Currently it's running off off HDDs, but SSDs are tempting as hard drives get slow when they are full, and even worse when you run low on memory and your OS actively uses paging.

>>56729280
It's something that doesn't matter in any computer that costs less than $10,000

>>56729297
wew fucking lad, latency is what general system responsiveness is tied to, the lower the latency, the faster applications open, the faster your applications can respond to an input, etc.

Dont be retarded anon. Try searching for a single specific file on that RAID array for me and let me know how long it takes to find it.

>>56729312
Lots of people on /g/ only understand sequential speed or MB/s.

>>56729287
My HDDs are not fully used at all, basically empty.

And I have 16GB of RAM so it's good.

My hard drives actually seem pretty fast, everything boots fast and is snappy.

I don't think I need an SSD.

>>56729312
as i said, if you need to look through your 150G database thousands of times a day then you're not in the target demographic here
SSDs are great for the OS on client computers, but for storage it's just pointless.
Server world is a lot different though, the data is the most frequently accessed as the applications it's set to use is always in RAM and use the storage actively at all times. Hell for hypervisors it's a common practice to run it off of a USB drive, something I even do myself. While the guests are still blazing fast.

>>56729478
I'm at 16G used memory in no time. It comes down to what you do.

>>56729481
>run it off of a USB drive
a USB flash drive will have a decent performance advantage when it comes to latency when compared to an HDD...

Flash drives are literally the cheapest option for quick but relatively small amounts of memory, SSDs are the next step(glorified flash drives with better controllers), then you get Nvme SSDs on the PCI bus, and now 3D XPoint drives also on the PCI bus. Then is system memory with DRAM, then you get in some CPUs an L4 cache, then L3 cache, L2 cache, L1, and finally the registers.

everything from RAM downwards is volatile memory (meaning it needs power to hold data). Everything from 3D XPoint up is non-volatile, so it holds data even when the power is off.


But the point remains, the number one bottleneck of any system is the OS drives latency and read/write speeds.

SSDs are ~500x lower latency than HDDs, NVMe drives are another 10x lower latency, and 3D XPoint another 10-20x lower.

Obviously SSDs are the easiest and cheapest option for the biggest difference from HDDs, which is why most people now use an SSD for their boot drive.

File: 37558936deffb179da97c03a59d68e17.png (369KB, 712x534px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 712x534px

>>56728907

Apparently the tech can be utilized through any interface, whether it's RAM, PCIe or SATA.
But they're definitely making Xpoints that you can stick into the RAM slots.

>>56729647
Maybe in embedded systems or SFF or similar...

Don't by an SSD, they are placebo

>>56729572
The USB drives are good because your entire hypervisor is in RAM, they cost nothing and a lot of servers have internal USB ports for this exact purpose

>>56729572
also about the bottleneck that's absolutely incorrect. for some tasks the storage is a bottleneck, but for more important and sophisticated tasks the storage is not

>>56729696
I'm not denying any of that, im just saying home users should have an SSD for the boot drive at this point.

It's fine for a server with huge RAID arrays to do other things, but for a home computer it really should have a SATA SSD just to remove the biggest bottleneck of the system.

I can't wait for Black Friday / Cyber Monday. SSDs are going to be so cheap thank to this new meme technology

>>56729725
Such as? Almost everything a computer does is wait for data to come from a storage device so the CPU can do something with it.


Watch this 5 minute intel video for a brief run down with some nice graphic explanations.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/3d-xpoint-unveiled-video.html

>>56729755
It doesn't when data is in RAM and it's working on heavy processing, either on large amounts of memory or more compute heavy applications.
I've seen the xpoint technology from Intel, it's impressive but it doesn't help all applications. If you're processing data that can be stored almost exclusively in L1 cache, your storage device has absolutely nothing to do with it

>>56729839
And what use scenario is that?

You're making up imaginary scenarios that simply don't exist very often on a home computer.

Most of what you're doing is going to be RAM or HDD/SSD

Very rarely will a home user be doing something specifically in L1 cache.

File: Untitled.png (16KB, 449x531px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 449x531px

>>56721814
Anyone?

See, top is copying from my 2TB HDD to itself. Slow because it has to switch between reading and writing. Bottom is going from my 2TB to my 1TB. One drive can read at its max 200MB/s, the other can write at its max.

My cheap SATA SSD will do 150MB/s writing to itself. I'm wondering what an M.2 will do.
I do throw around large files all day and am wondering if one would be a good investment vs two 2 HDD RAID 0 arrays, which for $190 would give me 400MB/s and 4TB of storage.

>>56729918
In a home computer none of this matters at all. Since you wanted to discuss cases where it matters I'm talking about things like simulation in supercomputers/datacenters

>>56730010
>he still thinks latency doesnt matter for home use

nigger you're really fucking stupid, look you dumb cunt.

Lower latency means faster general use, it doesn't matter what it is, if you have a lower potential latency in the worst case scenario you will fucking notice a difference.


Jesus, you obviously know some things, but you don't know as much as you think you do.

>>56729440
>using poorly optimized applications
KEK
YouÄRE A MeME RaATITE=!?

>>56721538
>doing huge read writes
>on a consumer grade ssd

I wanna get one of those cheaper M.2 ssds.
But i want to get a 1tb, which would be the fastest drive in my computer...
I'd feel weird having all my porgrams on my boot drive again, I kind of liked being able to wipe it like no big deal.

File: copy.jpg (130KB, 438x371px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 438x371px

>>56729997

Can't speak for the m.2 drives, but here's a 500GB 840 EVO copying to itself and then copying to a 500GB 850 EVO.

I assume the m.2 drive works in a similar manner, but gets 2-3x these speeds.

>>56730038
95% of all data fetches I do comes straight from RAM. The other 5% is for stuff like bulk data or music that doesn't need latency guarantees.

>>56730287
wow, it's 10% faster than my hard drives, with 1/10th the capacity

impressive

>>56730324
When you launch your web browser, it launches from RAM?

When you open up word, it launches from RAM?

etc etc.

Not to mention, if your OS is stored on an HDD/SSD, some system files will be loaded into RAM, but it's not like everything will, it will be reading from your OS drive, not RAM.

>>56730352
>When you launch your web browser, it launches from RAM?
Yes
>When you open up word, it launches from RAM?
Yes

>Not to mention, if your OS is stored on an HDD/SSD, some system files will be loaded into RAM, but it's not like everything will, it will be reading from your OS drive, not RAM.
No, the vast majority of my OS drive is in RAM actually.

My average disk latency is 1μs-2μs (both reads and writes). Go compare that against your shitty SSD.

I do have an SSD to help recover after a cache purge, but it only gets a 30% hit rate overall, indicating that the other 70% are for large and very infrequently accessed data (e.g. movies, music)

>>56729488
All I do is web browse basically, doesn't require a lot to do that.

>>56730397
>im a special snowflake and am in no way representative of the average home user

well okay then, glad this is settled.


Fucking autists I swear.

>>56730455
>well okay then, glad this is settled.
What, because average home users don't have disk caches in RAM?

I thought every major OS has that these days, even Wangblows

>>56730342

When moving large files, yeah the difference isn't really that big when you compare a raid HDD vs a single SATA SSD.
But when it comes to seek times, SSD is about 100x faster.

>>56730598
>But when it comes to seek times, SSD is about 100x faster.
Can you spread more FUD and bullshit please? Even a medium-sized RAID with more than nonzero amounts of RAM will wipe the floor with your SSD in seek latency and IOPS, and while also being significantly larger *and* fault resistant, for roughly the same price.

Stop recommending people buy overpriced meme hardware just because they aren't capable of setting up ZFS. Jesus christ, I thought this was the technology board.

>>56730287
So that is pretty close to full 1/2 speed. That's good. Still wondering how the M.2 compares since its read vastly outstrips the write, so it should be closer to its max write.
Muxing on my SSD @ 150MB/s is slightly faster than working between the two drives, and is more convenient, so if an M.2 is putting out 700MB/s or so it would certainly be a drool-worthy work disk for me.

>>56730598
Also lol at using SATA to push your pro-SSD agenda. Just no. SATA/AHCI is terrible at seeking, even if you hook it up to a fancy SSD. Could you at least have used M.2/NVMe as the basis for your comparison? It's fucking 2016

>>56730342
>>56730720
Will you shut up? I'm trying to get some information here.

>>56730720

>Overpriced
>Meme hardware
>pro-SSD agenda

It's like you're having a legit meltdown over at your end.
In few short years, HDD is only going to serve a purpose as a long term external storage and that's about it.
Besides SSD prices are getting very affordable, even for total NEETs. They're not that expensive.
Sooner or later you too are going to have to embrace the inevitable future, don't fight it.

>>56731021
>In few short years, HDD is only going to serve a purpose as a long term external storage and that's about it.
HDDs will stick around until SSDs are cheaper by the GB than HDDs, at which point it will become logical to buy them.

>Besides SSD prices are getting very affordable, even for total NEETs. They're not that expensive.
Last I checked you're still getting an order of magnitude less capacity per drive (comparing enterprise SSDs and enterprise HDDs).

>Sooner or later you too are going to have to embrace the inevitable future, don't fight it.
I already fell for the meme. I have two Samsung 850 Pro SSDs lying around, pretty much doing nothing. I use each to like 1% of their capacity, because it's just so rare for them to actually get touched.

The only thing they could possibly improve is boot times with persistent L2ARC, but I reboot so rarely it's absolutely not worth the money.

>>56721514
> got cucked by a SSD
> wants to buy another
It's like they don't learn

>>56731328
Well, what do you suggest thern?

>>56731458
Punch cards

>>56730658
But you're wrong tho

>>56731458
8 raptors in raid 0

>>56731306
>you need capacity not speed!
>I have hundreds of gigabytes of speedy storage I refuse to use

>>56730658
>HDD
>fault resistant
Good luck pushing that meme

>>56732083
I have them in my system, simply so I don't have to throw them in the trash. I use one as a cache device and another as a log and swap device.

They're used like 1% of the time, respectively. I could live without them.

>>56732153
But you couldn't live without 16TB of snail drives

>>56732116
Google RAID

Jesus christ I thought this was supposed to be the technology board

>>56732170
>kick HDD
>breaks
>kick SSD
>field goal
I thought /g/ was supposed to be the technology board

>>56732204
>kicking your hard drives
I thought /g/ was supposed to be the technology board

Do SATA Express drives even exist?
It seems like it's on most high end motherboards

>letting a script modify your post
And I thought /g/ was supposed to be the technology board