• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Worth changing/upgrading the OS SSD?

No, it isnt enough to be worth the effort you wont notice.

Unless you wan tot upgrade to a larger boot drive just leave it as is.
 
Probably not worth the bother for general use, at all, if you're doing something particularly disk intensive (photo/video edit, etc) you could tweak it so those things use a bit of the 500GB (like moving Adobe app's scratch location to it etc).

If you have another use for the 128GB tho you can always shrink the current partition on the 500GB, create a smaller one alongside it, and image over the 128GB unto it then pull it. Outside of those two scenarios I'd just leave them be.
 
Yeah in a game or general usage rig situation you are good, leave them be.
 
Thanks for the help guys. I guess that, deep down, I already knew that and was just looking for confirmation :D
 
those are still decent SSDs unless you are hitting an endurance wall or straight up picky it isn't worth while.

Either wait til more M.2 NVMes come out or wait for XPoint. XPoint will be expensive but disgustingly fast. Google it....I want to throw my money at it NOW!!!

Granted your OS could use a larger drive personally. 128GB drives are slower than 256/512 especially the m4.m500 128s but again just wait a year. I got an extreme pro and i was going to buy a 750 or some NVMe but seeing it is only 1 year out for XPoint I am saving my 1 grand :)
 
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-MX100-512GB-vs-Crucial-M4-128GB/3475vs1929
Def a difference, but, I would just leave as is, and continue using the 128 as OS or OS specific type stuff like anti-virus and what have you leave the 512 as a game drive.

I have a 256 MX100 and a 500 MX200 and while "close" to same performance, I dont benchmark I just use real world gaming and such and honestly zero perceptible difference day to day that I can/could tell at any point, maybe with your 2 drives being that much larger difference it would be more noticeable if you could compare directly with the same setup, but is it really really worth that hassle.

and yes generally 128 are slower then larger drives but some can hide this quite well if not filled to the brim, example MX200 with that fancy SLC cache type stuff. alas, no matter.

For that 750 I have read there are precious few boards that can use it full speed so IMO the way it was built/released is more a hindrance for anything but epeen talk XD.

Xpoint however, o la la late 2016 apprently, lets see the actual real world performance, if need certain boards, power use, cell life, most importantly, price.
 
dragonstongue said:
For that 750 I have read there are precious few boards that can use it full speed so IMO the way it was built/released is more a hindrance for anything but epeen talk XD.

Xpoint however, o la la late 2016 apprently, lets see the actual real world performance, if need certain boards, power use, cell life, most importantly, price.
Click to expand...

You're exaggerating or misunderstanding what's required to take full advantage of a 750, all you need is a PCI-E slot with the proper bandwidth... And there's plenty of usage cases that benefit greatly from a drive like that, hardly a case of epeen or a very limited implementation like early PCI-E drives.

Boot support might require a more modern mobo but it's hardly what you'd call a "precious few"... Most Z97 & all Z170/X99 will boot off it. If anything it's the first of it's kind that'll "just work", that's neither here nor there to the OP tho, but I don't see how injecting misinformation is of any use either.
 
As far as I know you need pci-e 3.0 x4 to be exact, not all boards out there will provide the full or proper bandwidth required (not counting OS specifics etc), so yes by default virtually all Z97/x99/Z170 will support, but all depends on the specific board or cpu used in Intel chipset case, the makers exact implementation on the board in question and how in fact the user uses it, not enough lanes available OR being used for other things such as graphics cards etc, will not give its full performance, period, nothing will change this.

I can call "precious few" as how many folks actually use z97/x99/z170 (that have available lanes or whatever) vs all the legacy chipsets that are simply not compatible bandwidth or otherwise, I suppose not everyone goes out and gets the creme of the crop just because they can, but rather maybe sometimes they just want to boost their speed via a new SSD or whatever see my point.

Does not matter either way, as you said, OP is not in this boat, so maybe not 100% descriptive but also not pure exaggeration either I might add. Anywho
https://communities.intel.com/thread/75802
https://communities.intel.com/thread/80076
 
What's the point of those two links? First one looks like user error, second one is just some dude asking if it'll work... I can answer that for ya, even budget Z170 boards seem to make an x4 slot available in addition to the two x8 GPU slots AND the M.2 slot you could use with an M.2/U.2 adapter (if buying the 2.5" 750)...

Yeah it can be a little confusing but it's not that hard. The average user is still best served by SATA SSD, of course, the bleeding edge enthusiast or professional can upgrade to one of those "precious few" modern platforms if they think it'll help... I did, it was one of my bigger motivators for moving on from my Sandy build. :cool:

Still not sure what all this has to do with the thread tho...
 
Last edited:
BTW the 128/256 in the m550 and mx200 run better because crucial added more channels IIRC. They changed the design in order for the smaller drives to perform at best speeds. It didn't have to do with SLC. The m550 major change was the fact that they redid the chip layout or whatever. I forget the specifics. I read it in the anandtech review when they first released them.

IIRC it was 256 because same performance as 512/1TB (not counting endurance) and the 128 equaled former 256GB drive in speeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top