M.2 vs standard SSD

Thai1On

Slave to my route
Mainly thinking about Trainz (TANE and TS19) perfomance is there much of a difference in using an M.2 over a standard ssd?

Dave
 
Thai1On - In terms of SATA SSDs that are in 2.5" format or M2, very little difference - apart from the physical form factor and connectors - they usually sport the same components and operate at similar speeds.
M2 PCIe SSDs using NVMe on the other hand can be considerably faster. (For example: Samsung 960 Evo SATA ~550 MB/s read and ~520 MB/s write vs M2-format Samsung EVO 970 PCIe with ~3500 MB/s read and ~3000 MB/s write)
The difference is in the higher throughput/ bandwidth made possible by PCIe.
 
It's basically how fast can you shovel things on to and off the SSD. So a different interface.

You want to use the PCIe bun for the fastest interface, an PCIe M.2 card can hit 4 GBs per second one connected by a cable probably around 600 mb/sec.

The SSDs also differ in performance so you need to look at both factors.

What speed does your computer support on which interface.

Note the difference between an SSD and a hard drive in TANE etc in frames per second isn't very much maybe 1 fps but the scenery will load faster and the game starts quicker.

Cheerio John
 
Some of the cheaper M2 cards are no better than an SSD regarding speed which is another thing to watch out for.
I doubt it would make any difference to TANE or TRS19 over a decent SSD anyway.

I've stopped using Samsung Magician as it make no difference to TRS19 or TANE, my Samsung SSD seems to be doing the job very well without the Magician caching and frees the memory for something more useful.
Comment, I'm of the opinion that Samsung Magician is more of a benchmarking toy than a practical benefit. Never been a fan of smoke and mirror speed up utilities........ Waits for the protests ;o)
 
The difference you are looking for when making a purchase is the controller type. a SATA based M.2 drive will perform no better than a traditional SATA3 implementation. However, an NVME based drive will operate over the PCI-E bus, and will therefore be capable of significantly greater sustained read / write performance. There are marginal gains to be had for this performance, and in some circumstances, such as OS usability, one might not notice an observable difference.

The price per GB of capacity for NVME can be almost twice that of SATA, so consider if one requires the performance, or would benefit from more capacity at the same cost.
 
Hi,
I have an SSD SATA III disk connnected via a PCIe card in my computer (having ~ 400 speed) and I'm considering buying such disk (to have ~3000):

http://www.xpg.com/en/feature/583

I understand a bit from the tech language but I have to ensure. Do I put this disk directly to a PCIe slot? Or do I have to buy a PCIe interface card? My system is a MacPro 5,1 (6x2.93GHz Xeon) with Win10 (exclusively for TANE and TRS19 purposes), 28GB RAM and GTX 1080 8GB. Having all components squeezed to almost the max the only thing I can upgrade now is SSD.
 
Hi,
I have an SSD SATA III disk connnected via a PCIe card in my computer (having ~ 400 speed) and I'm considering buying such disk (to have ~3000):

http://www.xpg.com/en/feature/583

I understand a bit from the tech language but I have to ensure. Do I put this disk directly to a PCIe slot? Or do I have to buy a PCIe interface card? My system is a MacPro 5,1 (6x2.93GHz Xeon) with Win10 (exclusively for TANE and TRS19 purposes), 28GB RAM and GTX 1080 8GB. Having all components squeezed to almost the max the only thing I can upgrade now is SSD.

Yes you would take up a PCIe slot with your add-on disk-card. Here's an interesting article that explains this stuff in more detail than I can.

https://mygaming.co.za/news/hardwar...es-of-ssds-explained-sata-vs-m-2-vs-pcie.html
 
I faced similar dillema 3 years ago. Two SATA6G SSD disks in RAID 0 on Intel chipset are quite OK for me since then. I voted for Kingston this time, so far no problem. Crucial SSD had been crucial for me when crashed.
 
Back
Top