Is M.2 a meme?

Is M.2 a meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

pcgamer.com/msis-m2-shield-shown-to-raise-ssd-temps-and-could-lead-to-throttling/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

only to poorfags

No.

yes coming from a 960 pro owner

no, it's the future

what utilizes pcie x4 vs sata 6gbps?

M.2 pci-e x8 is coming soon.
The speed is just getting crazy!

No, its fast as fuck.

Whats the largest M.2 drive available?

Give me a quick rundown of what it is about and how it can improve my life.

The form factor is dogshit, but I guess it takes up less space than a PCIE card. They should have designed it like RAM or Slot 1.

M.2 PCIe is the start, the endgame is the end of RAM.
If your storage is as fast as RAM, why bother.
Consider the implications.

This why Intel has such a boner for Optane.

about 70mm

M.2 is better than a traditional SSD in every way. Sucks you can only have 2 of them at most.

Even the black ones?

Is the 960 EVO still the best price/performance?

Will there by a point in computing where RAM sizes will be so huge that there will be no need for secondary storage? Can RAM ever become ROM?

RAM is volatile. Until the cost of making super fast nonvolatile memory becomes the same as volatile memory, RAM isn't going anywhere.

No because the point of RAM is to essentially be a fast access cache that is volatile, meaning that the data wouldn't persist once you power cycle your device. If our storage got that fast we wouldn't even need RAM.

However, the problem with removing the need for RAM means that schedulers would have to be rewritten, BIOS, kernels and operating systems would need to implement this. There's also always a need for cache/temporary files and your storage medium would have to either be partitioned or have a dedicated spot.

I think it's made to be volatile because it's small and other data has to be loaded onto it so the old one needs to be cleared. But what if they were huge enough to avoid that problem altogether. You don't have to clear it anymore.

No, U.2 is

M.2. was never supposed to be for gaymen or mass appeal. It tailors to the embedded PC market. You all got memed by gaymen motherboards

1 NVME m.2 drive takes up 4 PCIE lanes. Where are you getting you can only have 2?

Only for SATA users

Is linux support finally ironed out?

No, nigger. I've got a big one in my laptop.

>Is linux support finally ironed out?
It's never been an issue for me.

I believe power management was the issue.

PCIe drives might be a meme, the speed improvement isn't that noticeable over a good SSD for 90% of tasks, but the m.2 form factor isn't a meme. I have a sata m.2 drive just for cable management reasons, it's much more convenient.

NVMe drives, not SATA
There's plenty of SATA M2's but what's the point of that?

No it's volatile because it loses all data once it loses power

Nope, never noticed any negative qualities.

Other than price.

The what's the point of needing two cables and a mounting space in your case when m.2 SATA drives are tidier and don't cost more than 2.5" drives?

I like not having to plug more cables in.

SATA M2s are the same price as 2.5" SATA SSDs, and since nobody once mentioned NVME in the replies, not an argument

It's volatile because transistors need electricity to work. Non volatile memory, hard disk drive, floppy disc, tape are magnetic. SSD's are similar to RAM except they can retain data once the power cuts out. How they do this, I'm still not entirely sure.

>Bigger board with more durable component layout
>Room for capacitors, which significantly extends the power-off retention
>Giant 2.5" heatsink
>Better boot support for older OSes
>Can be set up in RAID without losing more SATA ports
Pathetic arguments sure, but the work of plugging in two cables is a pretty pathetic argument as well

>NVMe
ctrl f, nvme,highlight all.

im a pro gamer and my org did research to find the lowest latency pc parts

m.2 drive is 72% lower in latency than sata drives (not that storage latency matters for gaming)


also microatx is 24% lower in latency than atx in terms of frame time, 56% lower for ram latency, and 2% lower for network latency

>muh minimalism in hardware
>muh thin&light motherboard
THIS is sexy

well to be fair the problems I talked about were referenced to be from NVME drives

>Ctrl-f
>find what I posted
>read it again

I hope not, this is going in my upcoming build

>bigger = better
I hate the fact that I share this board with men.

Not all 2.5" drives actually have large PCBs inside.

Is the protocol related to power?
I thought NVME drives were supposed to be "super low power" or "muh muthafucking milliwatts" or some marketing bullshit like that?

>nobody once mentioned NVME

That particular model apparently gets too hot and throttles under intense load apparently. If you haven't bought that yet, I'd hold off until the next generation.

But when they need to, they have that option
Try fitting a capacitor that lasts 4 years without power on a stick of gum

All I heard was that it was a driver problem that supposedly got fixed
there's also the question of kabylake support, which supposedly hasn't changed since skylake but I haven't heard a concrete answer.

>in the replies
Ohh wee all you had to do was read three more words!

have a source on that? I can still return it, but that is my pic

How did you go about testing this?

>I need all this space, I swear!

The 950 did for sure (boiling water within minutes) but the 960 claimed to deal with that issue, I believe the sticker is actually an important heatsink
Either way the 960 is still insanely fast, and unless you're regularly moving 100's of GB around i doubt it will be a problem, even if it does throttle for the last minute of a file copy

The one I posted does, because it's not shot and is overbuilt, due to having plenty of space to do so.
Also that specific drive is loaded up with thermal pads on the case, even utilizing the empty space for better performance

The 960 is better than the 950, but the 960 still throttles.

I'll be coming from an 840 pro, so it should be much faster all around, my current build is very dated.

Is MSI's shield thingy actually worthwhile as a heatsink? Still shopping for a motherboard.

There was an issue with older versions of grub. I don't know if they fixed this in Debian Jessie, but Stretch works fine.

No, the MSI heat shield has been shown to make M2 temps worse and essentially just hotbox the drive
pcgamer.com/msis-m2-shield-shown-to-raise-ssd-temps-and-could-lead-to-throttling/
Little 1 inch stick on heatsinks do work a little bit though
But I mean you have to do something intentional to make it get that hot and stay that hot

>Is MSI's shield thingy actually worthwhile as a heatsink?
It's more like a heat shield. Shielding all other components from the heat of the M.2 drive, that is.

The shield keeps the heat in the drive. It's design has low surface area so it's dissipation capability is low.

Ok, I am not worried then, I only use my ssd for windows/games/apps.

Yes, any speed above 500mb read or write puts you in a position where it now takes longer to uncompress the files you are loading then to read them, VERY few applications can take full advantage of nvme speeds.

WITH THAT SAID

The cost of an ssd that can saturate sata is on par with an equally large nvme ssd so there is no real point in going the higher quality sata drive over nvme m.2

Have been using m.2 with linux for about a year now. Has never been an issue

>Is M.2 a meme?
>implying going from powered off to Windows 10 desktop in 4 seconds is a meme

Envy is a meme.

Basically this. I'm planning on buying a 960 evo for linux and personal files and putting windows and my games on a cheap high capacity SSD. Debating if I should shell out a bit extra for crucial or go with the cheapest/GB and buy mushkin.

needing to replace drives every other week because of shit read write cycles.

lets also not forget needing 40-80 pcie lanes (currently) do replace ram if it is just based purely on speed, on hardware that is 30% slower then what samsung did.

Its a potentially interesting concept, but until everything we use is not compressed, which would make ssd storage unviable or so far in the future that its not worth thinking about right now, its a pipedream

Personally im looking at a 1tb nvme from intel i saw that had a read of 1800 and write of 600-700, it was about the cost of a 1tb crappy sata ssd.

>implying you power off

>, the endgame is the end of RAM.
but how would this work when loading files from conventional disk drives?

>3,200 mb/s w/r
How to put one of these on x220?

Don't forget that 500-600MB/s write is almost on par with SATA
I'm not complaining, it was about the same price as a top end 2.5" SSD and I don't need speed that badly, but seq reads are really the only big advantage here

600p? It's certainly a middleground but crappy sata ssds have hit really low prices.

And a 960 pro, which I'm happy enough without, but I would've gotten it if speed was worth the extra money to me, because it is pretty damn fast

I have one, I was looking at that sticker and wondering what the fuck was up with it. It looks like a copper sheet

use the dock and an adapter

L3 Cache.

Even current thinkpads outside of the x1 carbon and p series don't support NVME drives.

The thing is, next to nothing uses write speeds that fast outside of capturing raw footage and next to nothing reads that fast due to compression.

you can argue moving files, but I can also argue back that its not a common everyday thing to move gb's worth of files to make the speed worthwhile.

The main issue is a sata drive that saturates sata costs nearly the same as a nvme if not the same, so may as well go the nvme.

saw 1tb ssd cost around 250$ and it wasn't saturating sata, saw the 1tb 600p (i believe) for 250 and it hit the limits I wanted it to.

Yeah I knew (you)'d reply
>Speed just doesn't matter
People can make their own decisions

so is there a reason not to buy m.2 instead of sata for a new build?

I have one in my server for use as a cache. It works extremely well for that purpose, since I move a shit ton of data

A start, yeah. The finish line is still a long way away. There's things like latency to work out, and write cycles.

m.2 -> small
2.5" -> "big"

No other difference really, so I'd say no. If you can package the same thing but make it smaller, it's good. M.2s aren't so high performance yet that overheating and throttling are a concern appropriately sized heatsinks can't address.
Also nvm.e is fucking great - and if your mobo can support it I'd rather have it in the m.2 form factor than as a PCI-E card.

If you get a top end 2.5" drive it may have additional endurance/durability features that the SATA M2 version would not have
Also most m2 drives don't have smart or even temp sensors, but to be fair many 2.5" drives don't either

But user there's boards out there with 3 slots built in, not to mention adapter cards for PCI-E.

But it's not even expensive??

Working with HDD cages sucks and I'm glad those days are coming to an end.

Same nand, same memory controller, same cache (between the 2.5" and M2 versions of the same drive)
Get it if you want to

>$100 off the current price
Damn nice find.

it doesn't because literally you hit a wall and shit cant load that fast.

The only real argument in favor of nvme is if you are in production where moving or creating an uncompressed multi gb file is an everyday thing

The reality of the situation is drives that are on sata that saturate sata, and lets be clear, even sata is faster than many applications can load, is that an equally large nvme drive costs the same so why not, that is literally the only argument that m.2 or nvme has is that sata costs the same.

there is older os compatibility
potentially there are sales on sata drives that saturate sata that make them cheaper then m.2 nvme, or budget reasons, say you want a 1tb drive but cant find the money for the nvme and go with a sata.

generally right now barring a sale, no real reason to not get an m.2 nvme over sata.

a use case where it make sense.

if your computer bottlenecks these fast drives and makes them "pointless", what hardware upgrade would remove this bottleneck? RAM?
I can't imagine the 4GHz CPU can't keep up with a measly 3GB/s data transfer

mobo.

But why? What does the motherboard control that the RAM/CPU/SSD/NVME protocol is limited on? What's the maximum "usable" data transfer speed of Z170 for example?

It's a bus thing. I don't know specifics.

What is everyones boner with Sequential w/r speeds its fucking useless measurement.

So why is PCIe (the same datastream as NVME) not limited by these data decompression speeds? Shirley the GPU or something like a coprocessor can't have such a powerful overhead like that?

people do read and write large files. backups and so on.
I don't know where data decompression came in, it's not like nvme does anything THAT nuts with the data afaik.
But if there's a limit on the drive output, there'll be a limit on the GPU.

The bottleneck is CPU, not mobo like that other guy said.

These nvme drives export a series of hardware queues. You need to pair up a hardware queue with a cpu. For each hardware queue you have a per-cpu submission queue. So if you want to actually saturate the drive you need a few cpus submitting IO at a queue depth of about 16 for non 3d cross point media.

Shit, this make me sad...
>tfw u will never have those speed in x220

m.2 is not necessarily a meme
but it did make mSATA a meme.

>people do read and write large files. backups and so on.

Yeah but like what once a fuckin week at 2 am? I would rather have a drive with shittier linear r/w bw and better Rand 4k read writes throughput