General Question on M.2 vs. regular SSD's

1Wolf

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
433
I'm in the early stages of researching a new build. My last build, in 2012, used a 512 GB SSD and a platter HDD for storage. However, this M.2, NVME stuff is a bit new to me. I'm in the process of reading and learning about it. Sounds pretty nifty so far.

My question is that I've been looking at some sample builds on PCPartpicker and I see alot of folks with gaming builds that use a 500 GB M.2 NVME, a 512 GB SSD or two, AND a platter HDD. Why might someone do this? What uses might that setup have? That would be like 3 different performance tiers of drives correct? So if the 500 GB M.2 was the OS/Games drive, and the platter HDD was big storage...what would you use the 512 GB SSD for? I've seen that type of setup in a whole bunch of these builds now so I just wanted to try and understand how and why they might be doing that.
 
M.2 NVME drives are the new hotness, crazy fast, but also very expensive in $/GB.

Old platter drives are dirt cheap in $/GB.

So people get a smaller M.2 drive for the OS and apps, and a platter drive for movies/music, where the speed doesn't matter.

The only reason to add a SATA SSD would be if you have one floating around already. Their speed will be far faster than a platter though, so if you wanted to use the SUPER fast M.2 for the OS, and then put all your games on a cheaper SATA SSD, that might be reasonable.
 
considering the size of games, windows with updates, and software now, i always thought it was done to be OS drive with current heavy use software and games, then ssd got other installed stuff but not super heavy use, then spinner was strictly data. and yeah typically the ssd was previously used as the OS drive and is just moved over and re-purposed.
 
NVMe M.2 drives are #1 unmatched for speed, 2nd to that would be two or more ssd in Raid -0. Large platter drives are perfect for backups and archived files. Some use two SSDs one for OS and the other for data both are fast enough for a snappy system still most will add legacy platters for backups. 500GB OS is the ideal size where you don't need to worry much about running out of space if you keep data on a separate drive all you games can stay and work best on the fastest drive. Bottom line it all depends on what your needs and budget are.
 
From some of us who have moved over to NVME 'hotness' all we can say is 'prepare to be underwhelmed'.

Just get a decent SATA SSD (samsung whatever) for your OS and games and then avoid all the NVME config issues you can get. You won't notice the difference in your gaming rig.

550MBps is not that different to 3000MBps to day to day human perception. Don't waste your money just yet, especially with NVME/SSD RAID0.


Obviously those that can visually detect app loading performance in the hundredths of a second will say otherwise...
 
Honestly the only reason that I am using M.2 is that I ran out of SATA ports, and it is too expensive to buy 2+TB SATA SSDs. It is underwhelming.
 
I've got a 1.2TB Intel SSD 750 with my OS and games on it. I'm constantly having to uninstall games to make room for other games. All my data resides on an array of 2TB Western Digital Enterprise drives with about 15TB of space. With games routinely hitting the 35-50GB mark it doesn't take long to eat up a 500GB SSD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
From some of us who have moved over to NVME 'hotness' all we can say is 'prepare to be underwhelmed'.

Just get a decent SATA SSD (samsung whatever) for your OS and games and then avoid all the NVME config issues you can get. You won't notice the difference in your gaming rig.

550MBps is not that different to 3000MBps to day to day human perception. Don't waste your money just yet, especially with NVME/SSD RAID0.


Obviously those that can visually detect app loading performance in the hundredths of a second will say otherwise...

This seems like good advice, but really tempting to get a nvme drive when all the other hardware is top notch...
 
A big advantage of M.2, NVMe or not, is its lack of footprint. No cabling, no drive bay., it just blends into the motherboard. I replaced my Asus Z170I mobo with the Z270I, a totally gratuitous sidegrade, just so I could use two M.2 drives.

I have a 512GB NVMe M.2 drive for OS and apps and games, a 1TB SATA M.2 drive* for documents and music and pictures and projects, and a 4TB HDD for everything else: movies, MAME, ISOs, cold storage. Next case change, I might omit the HDD entirely and use NAS space as my "everything else" drive.

*SATA because if the motherboard dies, I want to be able to plug my data drive into some other system so I can still access my documents. There are no M.2 NVMe-to-USB enclosures yet, but lots of M.2 SATA-to-USB enclosures.
 
A big advantage of M.2, NVMe or not, is its lack of footprint. No cabling, no drive bay., it just blends into the motherboard. I replaced my Asus Z170I mobo with the Z270I, a totally gratuitous sidegrade, just so I could use two M.2 drives.

I have a 512GB NVMe M.2 drive for OS and apps and games, a 1TB SATA M.2 drive* for documents and music and pictures and projects, and a 4TB HDD for everything else: movies, MAME, ISOs, cold storage. Next case change, I might omit the HDD entirely and use NAS space as my "everything else" drive.

*SATA because if the motherboard dies, I want to be able to plug my data drive into some other system so I can still access my documents. There are no M.2 NVMe-to-USB enclosures yet, but lots of M.2 SATA-to-USB enclosures.

I disagree. While it's convenient, the form factor sucks ass for the desktop. It takes up way too much real estate on the motherboard PCB. It brings cooling issues into the equation and really isn't ideal for a form factor that has so much room to offer when it comes to drive locations. Even the smallest SFF cases could remote mount a couple of U.2 NVMe drives easily.

As for your note about the SATA M.2 drive and that makes little sense. PCIe to M.2 adapters aren't exactly expensive. Also, many motherboards these days have more than one M.2 slot to work with.
 
It takes up way too much real estate on the motherboard PCB. It brings cooling issues into the equation and really isn't ideal for a form factor that has so much room to offer when it comes to drive locations. Even the smallest SFF cases could remote mount a couple of U.2 NVMe drives easily.

As for your note about the SATA M.2 drive and that makes little sense. PCIe to M.2 adapters aren't exactly expensive. Also, many motherboards these days have more than one M.2 slot to work with.
You are okay with mounting drives in your case. That's fine. I would prefer to have drives on my motherboard rather than in my case, as would others. Can you accept that? Yes, they take up motherboard real estate, but that would only matter if the motherboards were sacrificing features for it.

Sure, PCIe-to-M.2 adapters are cheap. I have one, too. Did you miss the part about USB to M.2? My other computers in-house are an ultrabook, a thin-ITX HTPC, and a NUC or two. If the motherboard in my main PC dies, or otherwise has a problem, that PCIe-to-M.2 adapter is not going to be at all useful for me to access my data drive.
 
You are okay with mounting drives in your case. That's fine. I would prefer to have drives on my motherboard rather than in my case, as would others. Can you accept that? Yes, they take up motherboard real estate, but that would only matter if the motherboards were sacrificing features for it.

Again, thermal throttling can occur due to excessive heat. This is something people with multiple GPU's, or even a single GPU may have to content with. Not only that, but the physical size of M.2 drives limits their storage capacity more than they would if they used a 2.5" or 3.5" form factor. M.2 eats up a lot of space making it difficult to add more drives. Why do you think that 3 is the general limit? There isn't enough room on the PCB to do more. Given the shit location of some M.2 slots, that's even questionable. Again, for cooling and space reasons, M.2 sucks. You may like how clean it is, and I do to an extent.

Sure, PCIe-to-M.2 adapters are cheap. I have one, too. Did you miss the part about USB to M.2? My other computers in-house are an ultrabook, a thin-ITX HTPC, and a NUC or two. If the motherboard in my main PC dies, or otherwise has a problem, that PCIe-to-M.2 adapter is not going to be at all useful for me to access my data drive.

Fair enough. I didn't catch this.
 
My Intel NVMe is covered end to end in aftermarket copper heatsinks (used 2 part adhesive, not tape, to attach).

I use SSD's for my game library. My games are more expendable then my "system" files. I also use the Windows Storage Spaces to jbod the SSD's so that I can just keep adding as needed as game library grows, and 512GB should be plenty for a long time for the system drive.

I also have a 2TB spinner for all the bluray ripping I do (before sending off to server).....no advantage to ripping to SSD and they take up lots and lots of room.
 
I just stuck a set of Raspberry Pi heatsinks on my PM961. Dunno if it needed them but it makes it look a little more 'butch'.

 
The only advantage and reason to go m.2 is form-factor. I've got one Samsung 961 in my NCase small form factor PC and it works great. But from a user standpoint, I can't really tell the difference between my other laptops / desktops with 2.5" sata SSDs. As everyone else has already said, except for very specific circumstances (large databases, file copies / transfers, etc.) it will be very difficult to perceive anything beyond 500MB/s.

So unless you are cramped for room in your case and saving $$$ is a priority, go with a large single 2.5" sata SSD. It will still be world's better than any spinner drive.
 
I'm getting an M.2 SATA for my next build as my case only has room for two 2.5 or 3.5 drives. My M.2 is also on the back of the mobo so heat shouldn't be an issue like if it was near the GPU. For gaming you won't notice any difference between NVME and SATA.

Eventually I'd like to have every program on an SSD of some sort so that my HDD is purely data files.
 
Thanks everyone :) That will certainly help me make some more informed decisions.
 
This looks like this is the thread to ask my question, I currently have a Sandisk Extreme Pro SATA SSD and am about to do a new Ryzen system with a mobo that has an M.2
Should I:
A) Install the OS on the Extreme Pro and use the M.2 for a larger (1TB) SSD
or
B) Use the M.2 on a 960 EVO and eventually get a larger SATA SSD once the Sandisk is full?

Looking to buy during the inevitable Cyber Monday Sales.

Also I'm building in the Dan A4 case if that matters.
 
Hmmm dunno. The Extreme Pro was one of the best SATA SSD and traded blow for blow with the 850EVO. Certainly no slouch. Maybe slap the OS and the core software on the Pro and use a larger M.2 for data/Games etc.
 
The only advantage and reason to go m.2 is form-factor. I've got one Samsung 961 in my NCase small form factor PC and it works great. But from a user standpoint, I can't really tell the difference between my other laptops / desktops with 2.5" sata SSDs. As everyone else has already said, except for very specific circumstances (large databases, file copies / transfers, etc.) it will be very difficult to perceive anything beyond 500MB/s.

So unless you are cramped for room in your case and saving $$$ is a priority, go with a large single 2.5" sata SSD. It will still be world's better than any spinner drive.

Despite not being able to "tell the difference", I see no reason to go with a SATA SSD over an NVMe version. To be honest, I don't believe that either. I can tell a huge difference in game load times (in some games) and large file transfers between using a drive like the Intel 600P compared to my Intel SSD 750 1.2TB. Both are NVMe but they aren't even close to the same speed. Why have less performance? Why support an older standard? I just don't get it unless you manage to find a SATA driver super, super cheap. Even then, I'd be willing to pay a little more to get more performance. You may not see that performance all the time, but I'd still rather eliminate bottlenecks across the system wherever possible.

SATA SSD = oft
NVMe SSD = [H]ard

Again, you brought up form factor, and excluding SFF builds, M.2 as a form factor is NOT an advantage in the desktop. It is a disadvantage. Issues with cooling, increased difficulty to upgrade (depending on location) and capacity limitations due to those size constraints are all cons, not pros. You could argue that it brings costs down due to SSD makers making one drive form factor for both desktops and laptops, and you don't have a casing or U.2 interface. However, it isn't as though they are necessarily passing the savings onto us. It's more likely that they simply keep the price point the same and have a larger margin on such drives as a result.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day buying a high speed NVME is not a bad choice. Not at all. Especially if the price cost is not that much.

It's just important to realise that this time round for some reason, six times the read performance doesn't really translate all that well into real tangible benefits. Not like if your GPU/CPU suddenly got six times the speed performance.

I think the future of storage is to reduce latency far more and then we need a far better efficient modern file system to really take advantage of the storage and CPU power we have.

NTFS is old...way old. The one thing that kills me for modern computing is small/micro file transfers. Probably not something they thought a lot about back in the early 1990's.

The hardware is willing, the software is weak!
 
At the end of the day buying a high speed NVME is not a bad choice. Not at all. Especially if the price cost is not that much.

It's just important to realise that this time round for some reason, six times the read performance doesn't really translate all that well into real tangible benefits. Not like if your GPU/CPU suddenly got six times the speed performance.

I think the future of storage is to reduce latency far more and then we need a far better efficient modern file system to really take advantage of the storage and CPU power we have.

NTFS is old...way old. The one thing that kills me for modern computing is small/micro file transfers. Probably not something they thought a lot about back in the early 1990's.

The hardware is willing, the software is weak!

NTFS doesn't control whether or not an application uses lots of small files or makes lots of small requests. How do you envision changing that?
 
NTFS doesn't control whether or not an application uses lots of small files or makes lots of small requests. How do you envision changing that?

You missed where I'm coming from. The fact that millions of small files exist is not the issue. The fact that the current hardware and software used in transferring and handling them cannot handle them without losing 99% of performance.

You don't think the current situation whereby you have hardware that's able to transfer data at nearly 4000MBps can drop for large parts of a transfer to 400Kbps needs a little attention? 25 years ago we didn't have applications in the 100GB+ range that now have 20GB of microfiles buried in them. We didn't have the Appdata folder which can be 60GB of mostly microfiles.

We need better.
 
You missed where I'm coming from. The fact that millions of small files exist is not the issue. The fact that the current hardware and software used in transferring and handling them cannot handle them without losing 99% of performance.

You don't think the current situation whereby you have hardware that's able to transfer data at nearly 4000MBps can drop for large parts of a transfer to 400Kbps needs a little attention? 25 years ago we didn't have applications in the 100GB+ range that now have 20GB of microfiles buried in them. We didn't have the Appdata folder which can be 60GB of mostly microfiles.

We need better.

This actually IS a hardware limitation. It's called IOPs. It's very similar to the performance hit CPUs take when a program is hitting a ton of random memory addresses causing a large number of cache misses.

Also, NTFS today isn't the same NTFS from 25 years ago.
 
This actually IS a hardware limitation. It's called IOPs. It's very similar to the performance hit CPUs take when a program is hitting a ton of random memory addresses causing a large number of cache misses.

Also, NTFS today isn't the same NTFS from 25 years ago.


Ah yes it got an update or two...the last back in 2001?
 
NTFS gets updates all the time. You may not see them publicized. The on-disk structure is very static and of course very VERY rarely gets breaking changes, like you say, probably 2001. There's a difference between the operational usage and what the disk layout is.
And unfortunately, it is simply the nature of reality that not everything can be distilled to a max-bandwidth transfer problem. There are round trips between memory layers requiring OS/application servicing which really aren't going to be avoided unless you are literally just moving giant blocks.

This is really something for the other thread, but while we're on this topic - this is where things like XPoint memory get very interesting :

<morpheus voice>
What if I told you your "DRAM" (primary operational memory) and "storage" ended up being all on the same media, with the same speeds - all the same? You don't ever "load" anything into memory, it's there.
</morpheus voice>

THAT is the sort of thing which can really shake things up. There's no transferring around at all - run it in place.
 
Back
Top