Will I notice a real world performance hit using SSD over NVMe?

I think you mean NVMe and SATA, both are NAND SSDs (well, sata can be HDD).

Most likely you will not see a difference since the primary performance gains from SSDs are the much faster access times rather than the raw throughput.
 
vegeta535 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

So if I were to use NVMe the only thing I would obtain is bragging rights. Got it. Thanks.


ryan_975 said:
I think you mean NVMe and SATA, both are NAND SSDs (well, sata can be HDD).

Most likely you will not see a difference since the primary performance gains from SSDs are the much faster access times rather than the raw throughput.
Click to expand...

Yes. Thank you for the correction.
 
ryan_975 said:
I think you mean NVMe and SATA, both are NAND SSDs (well, sata can be HDD).

Most likely you will not see a difference since the primary performance gains from SSDs are the much faster access times rather than the raw throughput.
Click to expand...

Apparently an M.2 SSD such as this:

https://www.newegg.com/intel-660p-series-1tb/p/N82E16820167462

Is not supported on this laptop. Which I thought was weird because I thought these types of SSD's have their own controllers on the drive itself.

But I'm sure there's more to it than that. Otherwise there would be no issue.
 
They do have their own controller, but the slot has to have the PCIe lanes to feed the controller. In this laptop, it looks like they only set up the slot for SATA devices, which the NVMe controller can't talk to.
 
ryan_975 said:
They do have their own controller, but the slot has to have the PCIe lanes to feed the controller. In this laptop, it looks like they only set up the slot for SATA devices, which the NVMe controller can't talk to.
Click to expand...

Hence the 'e' in NVMe. Got it. Makes sense.
 
Just noticed that the M.2 is an NVMe slot. Is it compatible with an SATA III SSD?
 
Yes. You want m.2

And no you will NOT be able to tell a difference in feel between m.2 sata and NVME. Benchmarks will show a slight difference, but even then we are talking fractions of a second on a 10 second scale.

From another post of the same natural with benchmark data to backup the minimal difference

Archaea said:
There is benchmarking and there is observable real world differences.

The first shows twice or even 4x as fast, the latter is nearly entirely moot.


There is a huge difference going from spinning drive to SSD. There is a exceptionally minimal human observable difference going from any modern SSD to NVME. There is probably literally no human observable difference between difference NVMEs unless you have your stop watch out and are trying to observe fractions of a second on the scale of 10 seconds.

https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8661/best-ssd-gaming-over-120-ssds-tested/index2.html

"In each chart, we further divide products by color. The dark blue bars show NVMe SSDs while the light blue bar shows SATA SSDs. The orange bars show hard disk drives."


Here's a $55 m.2 SATA 500GB SSD highlighted compared to many other popular much more expensive NVME options
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...x-_-InternalSSDs-_-20156177-S1A1D&ignorebbr=1

The difference in a real world use case?

14.75 seconds loading time on the Crucial m.2 SATA style SSD vs. 14.46 seconds with the WD Black 4X PCI-E NVME on the same test. (The WD Black NVME is the same 500GB size, big costs over twice as much as the Cricial m.2 SATA.)

1/3 of a second on a nearly 15 second timeframe is not observable to humans absent a stop watch. Wouldn’t you rather have $75 bucks in your pocket in this type of scenario? Talk about diminishing returns!!!

Unless you are doing production database type work - no reason to sweat your NVME or even SSD purchase. Price in this realm is probably the greater criteria of selection for most sane people. Just look for decently priced deal, IMO.
Click to expand...
 
As long as you have plenty of RAM you won't even see the difference (except maybe at launch) between an SSD and a hard drive (PMR not SMR of course).
 
As much as I wanted it to be faster, I didn’t notice a change in “feel” or responsiveness across a Samsung 830, 850 Pro, Intel 480, Intel 730, or Intel 900p.

Even when I went backwards from a 900p to a Intel S3520 (roughly equivalent to a 480) I didn’t notice anything.
 
It depends on one's definition of, real world. There are plenty of apps that can utilize the bandwidth for a massive performance increase. But for basic tasks like MS office, internet, random little things, and whatnot, no there's not much of a difference in that case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top