I have a 500GB SSD with 520mbs read and write 510mbs Should

Depends on the cpu. If you have monster single core performance (7700k/7600k/7350k) then you will notice a difference if paired with a nvme 960 pro. Otherwise no

>>60945800
I have 4770K overclocked to 4.5Ghz so it's basically worth the upgrade?

>>60945756
Let's use a 1.2GB file size for a thought experiment
Average 5400-7200rpm HDD speed: ~150MB/s
transfer time: 8 seconds
Average SATAIII SSD speed: ~480MB/s
transfer time: 2.5 seconds
The jump from ~150MB/s to ~480MB/s is a significant 3.2 times reduction in transfer time
Now for that particular drive
WITH faux-SLC caching: 2100MB/s
transfer time: 0.57 seconds
The jump from ~480MB/s to ~2300MB/s is much less noticeable due to our perspective on time, ~2 seconds and ~0.6 seconds doesn't seem to different compared to ~8 seconds to ~2 seconds.

Your programs won't load that much faster because there usually is a bottleneck elsewhere in the system, be it the NVMe controller waiting for the PCIe bus, or the PCIe bus waiting for a single CPU cycle to open up.

I'll say save your money for the 1TB SSD, since capacity is usually more important than outright speed for the vast majority of users.

>>60945835
See:

>>60946610
This.

You will notice it in some cases, but like he said it's not like going from old spin HDD to SSD.

If you do handle very large files on a regular basis like big renders etc for work, it may be something to invest in.

For your everyday use/programs/gaming.. No, just buy the 1TB Evo if you feel you need all that fast space.

>>60946610
you're right that the delta between HDD and SATA SSD is >>>> that between SATA and NVMe, but most of the rest of your analysis is not great.

most applications don't do 1GB+ linear reads *and* wait till transfers to complete before starting to process the results.

NVMe drives are designed mostly for handling tons of small-ish parallel reads from separate threads, which is great for enterprise but worthless for most consumers.

The biggest benefit honestly is probably just the lower CPU overhead on handling heavy IO transfers.

I fell for the NVMe meme early on with an Intel 750.
Like >>60946610 said: The real world difference is barely noticeable.

I still believe NVMe has its use once the OS and most programs are optimized for it (it's theoretically much faster when opening thousands of small files)
But I can't recommend upgrading today.

File: SpeccyR7.png (38KB, 725x491px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 725x491px

>>60945756
Why not both?

File: Untitled.png (3MB, 1934x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1934x1080px

I have one and it's pretty damn snappy. Although coming from an fx6300 and crucial mx100 it's a little harder to judge. Definitely not as drastic as the jump from HDD to SSD, and it's obviously much more expensive, but 500GB is enough for windows/applications/games for me so I figured why the hell not.

>>60948744
This. I ordered a 500 GB NVMe 960 EVO, which will replace my 256 GB 850 Pro next week. I also have a 1 TB EVO for games and will get another 500 GB SATA for caching, video editing and fast file storage.

>>60948744
>still using speccy