>he fell for the NVMeMe

File: 1005161815a.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

Office is dum

>>56943834
says the guy who works at toys r us in order to be closer to the children he molests

>>56943855
>2x the price
>20% more performance in best case

Is that true?

>>56945259
really makes you think

>>56943814
>not showing M.2 drives

>>56945636
Those slow ones are m.2 pleb

>>56943814
I know this is a bait thread, but what was the real underlying cause there?
misaligned >=4kB partition sectors or something?

>>56946608
because it is glitching the cpu out

>>56946973
wtf does this even mean?

>>56944095
Sounds like the price development of every consumer product in existence. You always pay more for the last couple percent, especially in tech.

m.2 thermal throttling lol

>>56947037
It means he doesn't know what he's talking about

>>56943814
>caring for install speeds
>something you only have to do once
>not wanting superior day to day performance

Hey /g/, happy to see and SSD thread here as i am looking for advice.

I am choosing between there 2 SSD's:

SSD Crucial MX300 275GB - 65€
SSD SAMSUNG 850 EVO 250GB - 88€

Which one would you suggest going for and why? This is my first SSD, i will be putting it into my gaming rig.

>>56943814

>Install speeds

Woah

>>56947140
>56947140
This sounds plausible, but if true, doesn't disprove OP...

It would mean that in a desktop situation IF the user adds heatsinks to the SSD, it might be as fast as advertised, but in a standard desktop, laptop or tablet scenario, it's slower than the equivalent SATA3 SSD in realworld applications.

>>56947613
Get the Crucial, it won't explode in your system

File: 111.png (669KB, 663x594px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 663x594px

>>56947739
Yea i am leaning towards Crucial as well. Saw this screenshot in Amazon reviews, looks quite amazing

>>56947621
Is almost like we're back in 1997

>>56947739
After reading this review http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crucial-mx300-750gb-ssd,4544-2.html i kinda have mixed opinions?

>>56947650
Though thermal throttling should really only be an issue if you are hitting the drive a lot, perhaps they didn't leave enough time between their benchmarks to prevent heat buildup.
In "realworld" applications you probably won't cause it to thermal throttle.

>>56947754
Those speeds are physically impossible for a SATA SSD.

>>56947613
About to go and buy one of these, still need some opinions for final verdict. Reviewers on Amazon are praising Crucial drive, but some review sites are showing very inconsistent performance for the MX300

>>56947754
Fake speedtest.jpg

>>56948364
Anyone?

File: Capture.png (543KB, 799x692px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 799x692px

>>56947754
Speedtest thread?

>My 950 Pro

File: IMGP1523_575px.jpg (37KB, 678x457px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 678x457px

>>56945259
>Is that true?

The current NVMe drives have issues with thermal throttling under sustained loads. They're faster under normal use.

Use a heatsink and performance improves dramatically. Samsung is even going to use a layer of copper in the 960 Pro labels to help dissipate heat.

>>56947037
It means the nvme protocol is failing to communicate to the CPU effectively.

>>56949890
I wish Samsung would make some 2.5" u.2 drives to compete against Intel's prosumer stuff.

I know that m.2 NVMe is more than enough for the average user, but there are enough people who'd want bigger drives that are guaranteed to never throttle.

>>56943814

while load times isnt any better (in games, applications etc)

the response time is better tho, you notice your computer feels "snappier".

either way, m.2/nvme is the future. Having a 2.5" ssd connected through a cable is stupid.

>>56952256
>Having a 2.5" ssd connected through a cable is stupid.

Maybe for the laptop through mid-tier workstation market segments.
Enterprise and professional grade NVMe SSDs can have a sustained power draw of 25W, which is not even remotely thermally feasible in the m.2 form factor.

>>56952256
That's placebo

>>56943834
Nvme is dum

>>56947613
The difference will be minimal in actual use. The crucial is cheaper and bigger so go with that.

File: BENCHMARK950.png (217KB, 401x368px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 401x368px

lulz implying I gave a shit about the cost anyway