Are PCIe SSDs a meme?

Are PCIe SSDs a meme?

Yes speed is a meme, keep your PATA hard drive.

yeah, becasuse PCIe m.2 exists. and SSDs are not available in the capacity that is required for the tasks that benefit from the speed

>Are PCIe SSDs a meme?

No:
If you're running a system/program/application/fabric that is heavily bandwidth dependent
If your system/program/application/fabric needs incredibly low-latency, high-speed read/write cycles for reliability or durability of the data being utilized
If you've got more money than sense and don't mind an intangible benefit over M.2 or SATA SSDs for your everyday tasks

Yes:
In basically every other case.

They're fantastic for enterprise use, where you might have portions of databases that need to be quickly moved, edited, backed up, and copied across entire campuses. For example, a call center for a group like Grainger that takes calls not only from individuals/businesses but also from local Grainger supply warehouses, and hundreds of sales personnel across 5-floors/multiple buildings may need to be able to search millions of items in a catalog, dig through years old sales orders, and update client information all at once, while holding another on the phone and answering a vendor email. For this, it's great to have incredibly fast PCIe SSDs mounted in arrays, attached to local servers per floor/building, feeding back to a primary "controller"
For loading Skyrim with your lewd anime girl mods .005 seconds faster than a M.2 SSD, they're a bit overkill and definitely a meme in that case.

m.2 ssd's are pcie ssd's, you silly dunce

>Are PCIe SSDs a meme?- 4 posts shown.
Depends.

If you buy expensive NVMe ones, they are like 4x faster than SATA III. If you buy regular/cheap M.2 drives, they're the same speed as SATAIII ones so there's no fucking point in buying something 30% more expensive.

tl;dr: don't fucking bother unless you're rich... and since you're on fucking Sup Forums asking questions, you're not rich. Just stick to cheap SATA SSDs.

90% of m.2 ssds are SATA based...

>For loading Skyrim with your lewd anime girl mods .005 seconds faster than a M.2 SSD, they're a bit overkill and definitely a meme in that case.
Heck, even a regular SATA3 SSD is fast enough for that... look at almost any benchmark that uses real-world application timings and there'll be no real performance difference between any SSD.
In reality there is no single program the average or even most advanced PC users have that could saturate the capabilities of any SSD.

>of any ssd
there is an easy way to reach maximum speed of a sata ssd

copy a file

To what, another SSD? Most people own just one for their boot drive and everything else, all mass and removable storage will be slower than it. So you'll never see 500MB+ data rates unless you need to copy a file to a different location on the same drive, which is a fringe case.

Overheat and won't get anywhere close to their advertised speed

to a different folder..

to be clear to anyone that doesnt render heavy shit or edit some 4k 8k content yes its a meme you wont notice any difference what so ever between an evo and a pcie ssd...(unless you storage all of your shit on an ssd then you are just dumb)
on the other hand what amd did with their new pro cards (gpu with a ssd on it ) is far more effecient and faster than any other pcie ssd

...which simply updates a 4kb file that tells the OS where the file is stored on the drive. Moving a file around the hard drive doesn't cause any actual information to be physically copied on disk, that's just retarded.

i chuckled

m2 ssds still havethe same 4k block read-write speeds as sata3.

>using SSD for write access to database/cashe in enterprise
stopped reading right there.

SSD is good for read only tasks, using it for writing is counterproductive with enterprise matters since SSD kills itself doing so

Are you like what, too poor for RAID10?

>store read-only index on SSD
wow, everything works fasters! here is your raise!
>store cache/rebuildable index, write table on SSD
fired and with a lawsuit for damages

The point of using SSD in raid? Since you dont win in speed, it performs badly with SSD. SSDs LOSE speed in raid.

So i`d rather use ram drive than SSD for expendable buffer/cache. SSD performance gain is read only.

No.

4x SATA SSD + 3x PCIe SSD in RAID 0

give me the best 500gb m.2 pcie ssd Sup Forums for the cheapest

I remember I wrote in to a company offering a RAM Drive quote. (a proper one, not virtual)
They never responded. ;_;

Now how will I be BLEEDING EDGE?

Are memes a meme? How many cores do I need to shitmeme all over Sup Forums all day long?

Id Sup Forums a meme?

Are computers a meme?

Are you a meme?

> Trick question, that last one.

Yeah, no. Flash memory is in 50% of servers today. IOPS matter.

That was because backwards compatibility for the SATA SSD controller chips, in a few years it will be the other way around. Most m.2 sockets don't even support SATA anymore, it's not a requirement.

If you're not enterprise, probably.

SATA and PCIe/NVMe drives have similar latencies, so a normal single thread doing random IO will get comparable performance on either one, since most time will be spent on the drive processing the request or the software processing the data.

It's only when you get multiple threads (or lots of pending asynchronous requests as in a high-performance database) that you begin to see a difference, since the NVMe drives can start approaching their theoretical bandwidth peaks when they have operating Queue Depths of 32 requests or whatever in flight.

Otherwise, you might only notice a few scenarios where very large very linear reads/writes are happening, like suspending to/waking from disk. Almost nobody really needs to load 10+GB to RAM randomly ASAP, though maybe advanced Photoshop users have a claim here.

> but for m.2 drives, I'd still recommend NVMe anyway, since someday normal software might get more adept at exploiting asynchronous file IO

>similar latencies

My SATA SSD has a latency of 0.1ms
My NVMe M.2 drive latency is tested at 0.0ms using HDTune.

I'm sure there are some SSD latency specific benchmarks out there that could show a great disparity though.

On a laptop, no. On a desktop, yes.

>tfw enjoying my 15.6" laptop being lighter than most 13.3"

>SATA and PCIe/NVMe drives have similar latencies
Compared to spinning rust and maybe on a human-perceivable subjective level, yeah, but there is still a fairly big relative quantitative difference.

Top of the line NVMe drives can have best can latencies down around 50 microseconds, while SATA is maybe around 200-300.
That equates to maybe 4,000 vs. 20,000 dependent small reads per second, which you could probably perceive if you were doing a bunch of FS walk over small files not in cache or whatever. In reality though the other comment was generally right in that software needs to make an attempt to do more file IO in parallel via multithreading or multiplexing in order to take real advantage of SSDs. Even 50-100 microseconds is a pretty long stall from a CPU's point of view.

Why don't we use SSDs as L1 cache if they have zero latency?

Can you not shit post. Anyone can look at the benchmarks, prices and specs to see obviously they aren't a meme

test

his numbers are only have 100usec precision, on-die and even system ram are way faster than that

Core i7 Xeon 5500 Series Data Source Latency (approximate) [Pg. 22]

local L1 CACHE hit, ~4 cycles ( 2.1 - 1.2 ns )
local L2 CACHE hit, ~10 cycles ( 5.3 - 3.0 ns )
local L3 CACHE hit, line unshared ~40 cycles ( 21.4 - 12.0 ns )
local L3 CACHE hit, shared line in another core ~65 cycles ( 34.8 - 19.5 ns )
local L3 CACHE hit, modified in another core ~75 cycles ( 40.2 - 22.5 ns )

remote L3 CACHE (Ref: Fig.1 [Pg. 5]) ~100-300 cycles ( 160.7 - 30.0 ns )

local DRAM ~60 ns
remote DRAM ~100 ns

He said copy, you dipshit

I only use IDE HDD's. They are superior in reliability. SATA and SSD are memes.

>writing is counterproductive with enterprise matters since SSD kills itself doing so
not in 2016 is my understanding

>Deathstar HDDs

>there are people in 2016 right now without two ssds

Then the enterprise market has successfully been falling for the meme for over 10 years

SSDs scale almost perfectly in raid...
Have you ever tried it? It's more or less a straight up doubled speed advantage from dual raid 0

Well, they're small and m2 drives anyways aren't that expensive at all. I wouldn't buy them for a desktop because why, but for a laptop its not a bad idea and allows for more storage in a smaller form factor, which goes a long way in the long run. I wouldn't buy a laptop because of that either, but if mine had an m2 slot, I'd throw one in just because why not

nice b8

SSD in a thinkpad = heaven

shame about my cpu temp and im just on Sup Forums.

I bought 2 samsung 950 pro nvme pcie m.2 ssds and put them in raid 0 and well everything is pretty much just instant, but wasnt a big leap over an ssd. My read and writes are around 3300mb/s since pcie overhead.

user time to repaste that or change the HSF.

wew lad

clean your fucking heatsink, all it takes is removing like 4 screws

Most PCIe drives also have higher power consumption (even in the idle state) than SATA drives, so a high performance PCIe in an ULV laptop might noticeably affect battery life.

Yeah planing to when i'm home from my mums boyfriends place.

The latest Samsung M2 drive uses like 6w under load, and just milliwatts at idle

...but still four times as much as Samsung's latest SATA drive.

>.06W more than SATA at idle
Battery life btfo

>Samsung drives lowest power consumption at idle
Now let's see those under load tests
I got some water to boil

6W under load is quite a lot for a tiny PCB in a laptop from a thermal standpoint. Some M.2 drives throttle on sustained write operations.
One positive side to Apple's retarded decision to solder the SSD to the mainboard is that the controller can dissipate heat better.

The 960 is the only drive that manages that, and it's pricey. 0.4W at idle will eat like 8% of a typical laptop battery over 8 hours.

How much power do HDDs use while idle and under load?

It's not bad at all. And SATA drives are completely cool (though since they're slower, the total power consumed for the same amount of work may be higher)

Around 1W idle, 2-3W under load for laptop drives. For desktop drives it's 5-10W depending on rpms.

Mine uses 15

SATA drives are cool because they're a "small pcb" surrounded by a big aluminum rectangle heatsink

>over 8 hours
That's about 3watt-hours out of your battery, I assume 8 hours of usage would make that 3Wh irrelevant in the scope of battery life

And of corse were not talking about a total of .4W were talking about a difference of .06W
The argument that an M2 drive would significantly lower a laptops battery life is dumb

3 Wh out of a 35 Wh battery is small but not insignificant.

>a difference of .06W
...but only for Samsung drives. Literally no other M.2 drive comes close.

Mostly yes but there are cases where they are needed.

Obvious points are:
-Not all motherboard's have M.2 Sata SSD slots (although this is now becoming a common feature on almost all motherboards now).
-Some high performance M.2 SSDs can suffer performance from thermal throttling and having an M.2 SSD in a PCI-E adapter with heatsink can enable the M.2 SSD to perform to it's full potential (recommend AngelBirds Wings PX-1 for this example an a NV-E Samsung M.2 SSD).

Other than that yes, mostly meme tier and a normal 2.5" Sata SSD is good enough for real world performance boost in comparison to a HDD.

M.2 or PCI-E are only better for the slightly quick boot screen, game screen or zone load, benchmarks (most visible with this one, not the other examples), etc.

35Wh
What the fuck are you using?

Good thing my MacBook Pro with touch bar has a BEEFY THICC 77Wh battery
TWICE YOUR PUNY THINKPAD VAPING BATTERY

Probably an Atom laptop.

most lolthin ultrabooks are like that