>can't boot from pcie drives such as NVMe is the ride

for you

R5 1600 is a worthy replacement

>>60768800
NVMe drives dont even boot faster than SATA ones.

>>60768800
Can't you just put a NVMe to PCIe card and boot from PCIe?

>>60769238
So if you build a system with some NVMe drive you have to buy another SATA SSD for the OS? That's fucking retarded.

>>60768800
If I can boot from a ram drive on any pc, then that CPU should not have an issue with nvme

>>60768800
finally a use for grub floppies

>>60769262
he's saying nvme ones have no benefits outside of some very specific cases

>>60769262
They don't really boot slower either, well sometimes they do if the motherboard's chipset is slow but there's no significant difference in either direction.
There is no point in wasting the space though, if you have something you need NVMe speeds for you might as well just leave it empty.

>>60769306
>well sometimes they do if the motherboard's chipset is slow
Dunno about Intel, but Ryzen's has the NVMe controller baked in the CPU directly through 4 lanes of PCIe Gen3.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

>>60769563
That'll just affect latency.
What's most significant for boot times is the difference between standard bios and UEFI firmware post times. Some motherboards just take longer to post in UEFI mode and UEFI is required for NVMe

>>60769619
Didn't know about that.

>>60768861
What I'd go for if you're looking for a nice sweet spot. You'll lose some OC potential but real world IPC is a bit better. And of course cores- having replaced my 2500k with a 5820k, the tripled thread count is glorious.

>>60768800
This is the only downturn of this platform. But not really necessary, the 2500K is entry-performance level now. A SATA SSD suffices.

PCIe is more for a lane monster like a 5820K.
>>60769238
I'm going to get one anyway, they are the same price. 960 EVO TBW reads good.

Probably. I'm sitting on a 3570k leering at the 1600 and 1700. I think I'm going after the latter after all.