Subject: NVMe versus SATA in desktops?
@MSGID: <64AD84F0.5108.dove.hardware@realitycheckbbs.org>
@TZ: c1e0

I have a 4th generation i7 desktop running Windows 10. It's got 16GB of ram and a SATA SSD. I'm debating about upgrading my desktop PC, I'm looking to upgrade to a newer (10th gen or higher CPU), more cores, and trying to buy some
extended life for my PC.

The one question I was hoping to get was some real world comparison of SATA versus NVMe in desktops. I'd like to get a system that has NVMe since it seems like everything's going that way and I'd hate it if I ended up being limited by SATA in a couple of years. Does anyone have experience running NVMe on your desktop, especially if you could compare real-world speeds with running SATA?
I know the difference in design speeds, not sure how that maps to a desktop OS. ---
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

On 11 Jul 2023, poindexter FORTRAN said the following...

The one question I was hoping to get was some real world comparison of SATA versus NVMe in desktops. I'd like to get a system that has NVMe
since it seems like everything's going that way and I'd hate it if I
ended up being limited by SATA in a couple of years. Does anyone have

SATA SSDs might as well be spinning drives compared to NVMe. 100% the only reason you would buy SATA SSDs is because you've used (both) the NVMe slot(s) on your mobo.

i bought an NVMe along with my first ryzen 7 in 2017 and that one is /still/ faster than the SSDs they sell today because of that giant SATA bottleneck.

this is only going to get worse for SATA because as of now the future plan is a NVMe->GPU direct pipeline, and 10gbit networking is already 2x what a sata ssd can keep up with.. hell 2.5gbit might even be pushing it if your drive is pretty full.

i sound a bit like a zealot but it really is awesome. and significantly cheaper than when i first got into it.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Re: NVMe versus SATA in desktops?
By: poindexter FORTRAN to All on Tue Jul 11 2023 09:36:00

I have a 4th generation i7 desktop running Windows 10. It's got 16GB of ram and a SATA SSD. I'm debating about upgrading my desktop PC, I'm looking to upgrade to a newer (10th gen or higher CPU), more cores, and trying to buy some extended life for my PC.

You're going to have to replace your motherboard and ram as well... and even an RX 6600 is likely faster than the GPU from ~8 years ago (assuming it's that old as well).. so best to just plan on a replacement, unless you really like your case. Your PSU may be comming close to EOL as well.

The one question I was hoping to get was some real world comparison of SATA versus NVMe in desktops. I'd like to get a system that has NVMe since it seems like everything's going that way and I'd hate it if I ended up being limited by SATA in a couple of years. Does anyone have experience running NVMe on your desktop, especially if you could compare real-world speeds with running SATA? I know the difference in design speeds, not sure how that maps to a desktop OS.

Real world, you won't notice the difference from SATA too much. I mostly notice when building large projects or doing things like a message scan, where you're accessing the contents of many files in a relatively short turn around... For a very large web project, HDD to SATA SSD goes from minutes to around a minute. Going from SATA SSD to Gen 4 PCIE NVME is a couple seconds. So it depends on your usage, but for playing games, web, general use you aren't likely to notice.

That said, the pricing is on par between the two, with NVME being much faster in some cases. Most current motherboards have at least 1 and as many as 3-4 NVME slots, so you might as well. Bonus, no cable clutter. Those last points (mb support, similar price, no cables) aare the main reasons I just say go nvme.

Things to look for are DRAM cache over "SLC" cache... the former is dedicated dram, the latter is a portion of memory that is using SLC mode for faster access... The drives of the former being a bit better quality generally speaking, but again, unlikely to notice a difference in day to day usage.

I'm partial to Samsung, WD Black, Solidigm and Sabrent (Rocket Line).


--
Michael J. Ryan
+o roughneckbbs.com
tracker1@roughneckbbs.com

---
■ Synchronet ■ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

Re: NVMe versus SATA in desktops?
By: poindexter FORTRAN to All on Tue Jul 11 2023 09:36 am

I have a 4th generation i7 desktop running Windows 10. It's got 16GB of ram and a SATA SSD. I'm debating about upgrading my desktop PC, I'm looking to upgrade to a newer (10th gen or higher CPU), more cores, and trying to buy some
extended life for my PC.

The one question I was hoping to get was some real world comparison of SATA versus NVMe in desktops. I'd like to get a system that has NVMe since it seems like everything's going that way and I'd hate it if I ended up being NVMe on your desktop, especially if you could compare real-world speeds with running SATA?
I know the difference in design speeds, not sure how that maps to a desktop OS.

I have 4 NVMe 2tb drives in my desktop along with a single 2tb SATA drive. While I don't have any numbers to post, the SATA is by far the slowest drive on the system and it is noticeable. The desktop is a core i9 12th gen running Windows 10 Pro.
/s

---
■ Synchronet ■ TIRED of waiting 2 hours for a taco? GO TO TACOPRONTO.bbs.io

Subject: Re: NVMe versus SATA in desktops?
@MSGID: <64AF8B7D.5119.dove.hardware@realitycheckbbs.org>
@REPLY: <64ADE6C6.17901.dove-hlp@vert.synchro.net>
@TZ: c1e0

fusion wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

i sound a bit like a zealot but it really is awesome. and significantly cheaper than when i first got into it.

That's exactly what I was hoping to hear - thanks! I'm looking to get as
much life out of my systems as I can, and sometimes that means spending
more up front to delay the inevitable obsolescence. I'm leaning towards
NVMe thinking that in 5 years SATA will indeed feel like spinning
drives, as you mentioned.


... Feed the recording back out of the medium
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Subject: Re: NVMe versus SATA in desktops?
@MSGID: <64B2BCEA.5147.dove.hardware@realitycheckbbs.org>
@REPLY: <64AEC731.1923.dove-hwswhelp@roughneckbbs.com>
@TZ: c1e0

Tracker1 wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

I have a 4th generation i7 desktop running Windows 10. It's got 16GB of ram and a SATA SSD. I'm debating about upgrading my desktop PC, I'm looking to upgrade to a newer (10th gen or higher CPU), more cores, and trying to buy some extended life for my PC.

You're going to have to replace your motherboard and ram as well... and even an RX 6600 is likely faster than the GPU from ~8 years ago
(assuming it's that old as well).. so best to just plan on a
replacement, unless you really like your case. Your PSU may be comming close to EOL as well.

Upgrading = replacing the whole kit. Sorry I wasn't clearer. I'm
looking for a new system. BTW, I have an Nvidia GTX 1030 in my current
system. I can get 50 fps playing the only modern game I play.

Real world, you won't notice the difference from SATA too much. I
mostly notice when building large projects or doing things like a
message scan, where you're accessing the contents of many files in a relatively short turn around... For a very large web project, HDD to
SATA SSD goes from minutes to around a minute. Going from SATA SSD to
Gen 4 PCIE NVME is a couple seconds. So it depends on your usage, but
for playing games, web, general use you aren't likely to notice.

I have 2 Proxmox servers - my old one is a Thinkpad with an i7, the new
one is a Dell Optiplex i5 with a NVMe. I definitely see a difference
running VMs, wasn't sure about desktop results. I'm mostly doing web,
office, photoshop and games here, some transcoding of media.

That said, the pricing is on par between the two, with NVME being much faster in some cases. Most current motherboards have at least 1 and as many as 3-4 NVME slots, so you might as well. Bonus, no cable clutter.
Those last points (mb support, similar price, no cables) aare the main reasons I just say go nvme.

After growing up with MFM and floppy drives, I can appreciate a lack of
cables. :)

Things to look for are DRAM cache over "SLC" cache... the former is dedicated dram, the latter is a portion of memory that is using SLC
mode for faster access... The drives of the former being a bit better quality generally speaking, but again, unlikely to notice a difference
in day to day usage.

I'm partial to Samsung, WD Black, Solidigm and Sabrent (Rocket Line).

Thanks for sharing! This is very helpful.




... Feedback recordings into an acoustic situation
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Subject: Re: NVMe versus SATA in desktops?
@MSGID: <64B2BCEA.5148.dove.hardware@realitycheckbbs.org>
@REPLY: <64AF7810.397.dove-hwswhelp@tacopronto.bbs.io>
@TZ: c1e0

Bf2k+ wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

I have 4 NVMe 2tb drives in my desktop along with a single 2tb SATA
drive. While I don't have any numbers to post, the SATA is by far the slowest drive on the system and it is noticeable. The desktop is a
core i9 12th gen running Windows 10 Pro. /s

My goal here is to future-proof a new system, your insight confirms that
even though I'd be happy with SATA SSDs now, I'd end up regretting it in a couple of years when NVMe gets cheap and SATA SSDs feel like spinning
rust does now.



... Emphasize the flaws
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.