*Official* NBR Desktop Overclocker's Lounge [laptop owners welcome, too]

Great points and well said. In situations where it makes more sense to buy a cpu at a good price to be able to drop into one's existing mobo, absolutely I agree.

I was more so talking about for those who are looking to build an entire system.. However, in some cases I'd still go intel for sure, but for the avg gamer on a budget, even the current Gen AMDs is a good budget choice as something more than capable like a 1700x can be had for >$150.

It'll be interesting to see how much AMD can soak up of the market share beyond the little that they already have with the new chips...

As for Intel and 10nm...You're right, we may just skip right to 7nm and just see the focus of their 10nm on mobile platforms only for now.... It's a very interesting pickle Intel is in current, but since they are a monster compared to AMD company wise, Intel is just watching the puppy run free for now lol.... Intel ain't going nowhere as we know...

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/index.php?posts/10925407

 

By making my own vBIOS.
C1 = Clevo1

 

@Robbo99999 @jaybee83

Here you go guys as promised...

I ran each set of tests that @Robbo99999 ran twice, with exactly 2 minutes between each run.
(1GBx5, 8GBx5, 16GBx5, and 32GBx5) x2

These are both 2TB drives.

As you can see and as expected the Samsung EVO Plus is KING for a reason, while the Sabret falls hard once the SLC is exhausted + thermals.

The E12 Phison Controller on the Sabrent is really bad and gets really hot. Unfortunate. During one of the 32GB runs it completely locked up on me and I had to hard power down the system. It's a decent drive for the money, but I wouldn't touch the Sabrent with a 10 foot pole for professional / important work. Other than that it's a good drive for a basic drive.

(----------------------1GBx5 -------------------------------------------- 8GBx5 ------------------------------------------- 16GBx5 -------------------------------------------32GBx5-----------------------)

2TB Samsung EVO Plus m.2 NVMe (Samsung 'in-house' Phoenix Controller | Samsung memory | Samsung DRAM)

Pros: It gets faster progressively as you can see. (A rising torque curve. Impressive) Faster than advertised speeds of 3500/3300, even at the 32GB runs. Very consistent.

Cons: Maybe price for some, but you get what you pay for.

...

(----------------------1GBx5 -------------------------------------------- 8GBx5 ------------------------------------------- 16GBx5-------------------------------------------32GBx5-----------------------)

2TB Sabrent m.2 NVMe (E12 Phison Controller | Toshiba memory | SKHynix DRAM)

Pros: Price for sure. It's a bargain when you can land one on sale, but you get what you pay for.

Cons: Lack luster performance where it matters for professionals and even some average users. It gets sluggish and hot. Seq Reads are decent as advertised and so are the Writes, but the Writes fall hard with larger file sizes making it a ~70% drop in performance. So although it's half the price, you get 70% less performance (Writes) in areas that may matter to the user depending on their usage habits.

...

Summary:

You get both horsepower and torque with the Samsung EVO Plus, along with quality components and performance that you can count on as seen above. The Sabrent has decent horsepower, but it lacks serious torque and gets exhausted quickly. If Sabrent changed out the controller it could improve it as the memory is decent (although toshiba's gets hot); it does at least have a good SKHynix DRAM.

I'd recommend using the Sabrent in a desktop with good air circulation only. I would not use the Sabrent in a laptop as it would roast itself. If you can find it on sale and need a NVMe m.2, grab it lol. For the price it's a steal... I'm using mine for a beater game drive in the main rig, since there's nothing important on there.

When buying storage there are two ways to look at it. Price to Performance and Quality to Price.

With the Sabrent you are getting 2TB's of Chuck (toughest cut of beef), while with the Samsung you're getting 2TB of Tenderloin (Filet Mignon).

Both drives will serve its purpose well for 90% of users... I've recommended the Sabrent drive on multiple occasions to people when it was on sale. For giggles, I may grab another one and RAID two 2TB's and test it lol.

Something like this (point out the storage capacity). The speeds are for giggles....

 

that´s not due to RAID, but the RAPID mode you activated in the background my friend

thanks for helping out a buddy here, way to go on testing those bandwidths!

 

Good stuff, thanks for testing that after I asked you about it, and for doing it so thoroughly. Yes, those Evo drives are not slowing down even with the 16GB and 32GB writes, which I noticed my Sabrent drive slowing down on some of the writes in 16GB and 32GB. It's true those Evo's are better drives than the Sabrents by the looks of it, at least for pure performance. As you said, the Sabrent's are cheaper and better value, offering the same performance as the Evo's (pretty much) as long as you don't do big writes on them - I know I don't, so the Sabrent's suit me fine. My Sabrent drive doesn't get hot though, which is different to what you noticed, mine only got to 59 degC during the 32GB CrystalDiskMark testing, which is the hottest I've ever seen it - how hot did yours get? I don't have a heatsink on it, but the drive is underneath my Noctua NH-D14 air CPU cooler, and 'near' rear panel and roof panel exhaust fans, so I guess there's quite a lot of airflow there. Good testing, thanks, you deserved some rep for that, and you've got it!

 

Oh gosh I know lol...it was late, but the point is that the set up was in RAID and it was a half/joke to show the insane speeds...really had nothing to do with just only pointing out speeds, although I can see how it would be confusing. (edited)

Very welcome and thanks. Glad to be of help.

You're very welcome brother... it's always fun testing SSD's. The Sabrent (+rebrands) are very decent drives for most people and my gaming rig fits right nto that category of where these drives work great for me since even my game recordings are under 5GB's. For the price it's crazy good. In fact, I plan to pick up some 1TB's for the Ryzen build since the whole point of those builds are to keep the costs low.

The SSD's were tested in is my main gaming rig that's water cooled so there are no fans really near by the m.2, however it's pretty open with decent air flow... The drive temp hit 80C+ and drive temp 2 hit 99C on the 16GB and 32GB runs... I'm curious to see how well this does in the other desktop where it is air cooled with a lot of fans... hmm..

Another observation: As you may know these Sabrent drives are relabeled drives that are the same as Inland, MyDigitalSSD, Corsair etc... one thing that I really want to point out so that people are aware of the trickery going on is the false / over hyped marketing like with what corsair is doing with their MP510 m.2 drive and marketing it as having 1700TBW ROFL ... complete marketing gimmick... now I'm not saying that SSD's can't reach that, but those figures are just inflated marketing BS to trick the masses. Keep in mind that the Samsung 970 PRO advertises their MLC based drives conservatively as 1200TBW, but we all know that it can and will far exceed that. So for corsair to come out and play mind tricks with their relabeled TLC based inferior toshiba memory is comedic. It's important to see past all these circus mind stunts that these relabeled companies are doing with the same piece of hardware.

Thanks for the reps and enjoy!

 

ull only see the 2tb evo's slowing down once u test more than 74 GB for 1tb drives it would be at around 36 GB.

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

Indeed. It's amazing how even 1TB is becoming the new 512GB with the larger file sizes. I was running the 1TB Samsung 960 Pro for a while, until these game recordings started to fill up the drive very quickly....1TB is not enough lol... I know some that use a larger capacity SATA SSD for their games, but I like keeping things all on the same drive...just personal preference...

 

When you put those Sabrent's in your gaming rigs with good air flow I'm expecting you to see peaks of about 59 degC - the same as me, but it depends how hot it is there, my room temp was about 23degC when I ran the CrystalDiskMark runs.

Oh yeah, I agree with you on the TBW point - I think the figures have been artificially inflated for those Sabrent & similar Phison E12 + Toshiba TLC drives - I can't see how they would have more TBW than a Samsung MLC Pro drive! I really don't write much to the drives though, so for me they'd last 100 years anyway!

That's a good piece of info to know, and that's certainly enough SLC cache to avoid slow downs for almost everyone.

 

It may run a bit cooler in the Ryzen build since it has fans. I about to order a few 1TB's for some builds since they are so cheap and plenty for what I need it for...

Also, 5 year warranty so it's pretty worry free... That's one thing that I'm glad to see by a lot of these rebrands in offering long warranty periods like Samsung for 5 years... the duration is nice, but if it craps out the data is gone so it's hard to bank off of warranty lengths for trusting your important data on there; which makes these cheaper drives awesome bargains for game drives where it doesn't matter if it craps out.

I plan to run my 2TB Sabrent to the ground to try and make it kick the bucket lol... awesome deal and so far so good for gaming...

 

Oh yeah, one more thought, it might be that the 2TB Sabrents run hotter than the 1TB versions - maybe there's more work for the controller to do. The 1TB drives are faster than the 2TB drives anyway, and they were also lower cost per GB here - so all in all a better deal!

You could just back up your data, but 2TB worth of data is essentially the size of a backup drive already, so I see your point - you can at least system image your OS and main programs if you keep them on a small partition (Macrium Reflect).

 

Yea that's true...It does feel like the controller is getting over worked and not a good match for the 4x 512GB memory on there. I've just got done backing up 256GB worth of photos, videos and files from my phone and having done this a million times on the 960 and 970's the sluggishness on the 2TB Sabrent is noticeable. One folder that I normally drag and drop is 100GB+ in file size...mostly all 4K video of events etc... During this transfer it hit a wall in proportion to the speed test data with the 32GB runs... so as expected definitely not for heavy use...

I do keep a pretty comprehensive back up on my network from the NAS to Cloud back ups so it makes experimenting with different drives pretty worry free. All my iso's are custom and tweaked and I'm an avid macrium user...great program.

I'm curious to maybe partition this 2TB into 1TB partitions and see how it runs... hmmm. Maybe when I have some free time lol. All these projects are piling up.

 

I think the sluggishness of your Sabrents aren't gonna be helped by your high temperatures you're seeing, you said you saw over 80 degC for one temperature monitoring point and 99 degC for another. Throttling temperature is 70 degC, so you're not getting the full performance. Yes, I saw write slowdowns in CrystalDiskMark 16GB and 32GB tests, so your 970 Evos are gonna be faster like you've shown, but you must be getting temperature throttling on your Sabrent drives if they're getting that hot, which probably slowed down your 256GB photo transfer you mentioned just there. You definitely need to put some heat sinks on those Sabrents in those current rigs of yours, because it seems the air flow is not good enough for them (because my Sabrent drives don't go above 59 degC in my rig like I mentioned, and that's without a heatsink). It's strange that you have 2 temperature readouts for your Sabrent drives, I've only got one sensor reading displayed in HWInfo. I don't think I'll post much more on SSD drives in this thread, as this is an overclocking thread, but I don't think a quick aside into performance SSD's is a bad thing, as we're all enthusiasts and it kind of goes along together with the overclocking spirit, just that it's not totally directly related so don't want to hijack this thread with pages of talk on this one.

 

Oh man, that's terrible, Brother John. Sorry that happened. Glad you're dealing with EVGA on this. That should help reduce the hassle. Glad nothing else was hurt.

Can you tell where the leak came from? I was looking at the photos trying to spot where it was leaking and didn't notice if there is a crack or something. Maybe because of all the Vaso. Looks like it got water everywhere.

I haven't been benching much lately. Been really busy at work, and binge-watching "The Strain" on Hulu or playing with Linux in my free time.

 

Thanks Brother.

It's coming from underneath the manifold where the acyclic and manifold meet. I'm 100% certain it's cracked underneath. And that's not Vaseline as I had cleaned it up so I could try to see where it was leaking. That's the fluid from inside the block all over everything. 50/50 is pretty greasy.

I ran a few benchmarks for testing purposes as I needed to get back to it. Now that i'm no longer binging watching anything in my spare time. haha. Just playing the Division 2 though.

 

Well this is kinda relavent lol... but I know you guys would be interested...

Ol' Frankie is outta here... Here's the thread if yall want to post something there.

@Mr. Fox @Prema @Johnksss @Papusan @ajc9988 @Robbo99999 @JoeT44 @jaybee83 @ajc9988

 

They gave his butt the boot!

Yes, I'm going to be first with the instigations and what nots.

 

I'm already stirring it up.

 

@iunlock , I did some file copy tests on my Sabrent Rocket 1TB NVMe drive. I did tests up to 100GB, and it's stable at 2.3GB/s write - see the pic.


That is not a slow transfer write speed of a massive file. That's not hitting any SLC buffer issues. I used fsutil file createnew Testfile100GB.exe 107374182400 command in a command prompt to create a dummy test file, and by selecting copy and paste (rather than move), you can see the write performance. This makes me think that write performance of large file transfers is not an issue with this drive. It's not slow when dealing with large writes like we previously thought, or is there a peculiarity with the file transfer of a dummy file. This file transfer speed is faster than the 970 Evo Plus when they tested file transfer over at Guru3d: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/samsung_970_evo_plus_nvme_m_2_(1tb)_ssd_review,8.html . They only achieved 1.98GB/s and transfer speeds dropped to 1.5GB/s after about 80GB of data written.

And here's some TweakGuide testing on the 970Evo using the exact same dummy file testing, and 100GB dummy file threw all sized version of 970 Evo into the ground at 630MB/s once the SLC cache had been exhausted. https://www.tweakguides.com/Hardcon19_7.html
You can see that's not happening with my cheap Sabrent drive, that's pretty cool to see.

What do you think I'm seeing here, it goes in contrary to what we previously thought about the capabilities of this cheap Sabrent Rocket drive?

EDIT: it's even a stable and constant 2.3GB/s write on a 170GB file transfer! See following pic:

That's way better than the Samsung 970 Evo and Evo Plus that crap out at under 100GB. I'd try an even bigger file transfer, but I don't have any free space to try, well I already extended my partition just for this test to allow a 170GB file transfer.

 

I just tested that and mine dropped to 325MB per sec.

 

@iunlock , @Mr. Fox , @Papusan @jaybee83 (and @tilleroftheearth because I'm that impressed with the results) - I updated my previous post with a 170GB file transfer (see previous post for pic after the EDIT), and it's 2.3GB/s write stable throughout that test even!

 

Try creating the file, rebooting the computer and then copying the file again with the Task Manager open to the same Drive and see how long it takes to actually become idle.

You may also want to test with a large downloaded PDF file, PSD file, etc. or any other 'real' file too. They sometimes perform very differently.

How much RAM does your system have? What OP %age are you using?

 

I'm using a 30% OP during the 100GB file transfer test, and then for 170GB file transfer test I had to extend the partition to make space, so it was only 15% OP during the 170GB file transfer test. (That's OP on top of whatever the manufacturer sets aside as OP, it's 954GB total usable if I was to allocate all available space.) What's your thinking behind the rebooting thing you're talking about in your first sentence, as well as what you mean by how long it takes to become idle?

16GB RAM I have.

EDIT: I think I know what you're getting at, you're wondering if Windows is reporting the correct transfer rate. Well HWInfo was showing a constant 2442MB/s transfer rate at the end there, which you can see in the pics - which is 2.38GB/s. And the drive returns to idle (seen in HWInfo) as soon as Windows says the transfer is complete.

 

Thanks for testing. When I have some time I'll test very large file transfers again. I'd take a lot of those online reviews with a grain of salt, because often times they don't really stack up to reality. One example is how one of the well known review sites bow down to the phony figures Corsair put out on their TLC drive (the same relabeled one as the Sabrent) LOL ... it's complete false advertising and a cheap way to manipulate the consumer base.

The fact is, there is no way the inferior toshiba TLC on those drives outperform Samsung MLC memory, yet they are going as far as trying to claim that it has a higher endurance...complete nonsense.

Don't always believe what you read... this is why I have very little respect for the blind reviewers who just look at numbers on paper. Their incentive is to create a buzz article, even with it being absent of any substance or track record, rather simple short run tests that doesn't do much justice to the overall picture.

I have the 2TB Sabrent in the desktop right now and using it as a game drive. So far so good... it works well as expected. It does get warm when transferring larger game files, but that's not often so it's not a big deal. As mentioned before the larger capacity looks to have different characteristics than the smaller capacity drives.

I also wouldn't go as far as to say that the Sabrent is better than the EVO Plus or even the EVO, but that is your opinion. For the money the Sabrent is a crazy good deal and one not to pass up on, which is why I'm using it myself lol.

What type of file was that 170GB transfer? The file types do make a difference along with the other variables mentioned... usually with single large files the rates will be higher. Nevertheless 2.3GB/s is really good and way more than enough for the average user, but I'm curious what type of transfer that was.

I'm curious to know what type of file that 170GB was... When I run my tests, I'd like to use the same file (type/kind) so that it's similar.

 

hmmmm...what kind of a copy test was that? copy paste from one drive to another? or copy paste onto the same drive?

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

We're all curious to know, because there definitely is a difference.

btw can you email me some of your download and upload speeds? lol

 

Yeah, I'm not overly influenced by tech sites, I do read reviews though & see if what they test stacks up to be good rigorous testing, most of the time the testing is good, but I don't believe in the inflated TBW endurance figures of the Phison E12 Toshiba TLC drives - which I mentioned before I think. Yes, my testing on my Sabrent Rocket 1TB drive is 'real world' testing, in as much it was a copy and paste of a dummy 170GB file from one folder to another folder on the same drive - you have to make sure it's "copy & paste" rather than "move", because "move" will just reassign the file attributes to the new folder rather than actually writing the data to the drive again - choosing "copy & paste" will instead actually write a copy of that file into the NAND, so that's a proper test of the write speed of a drive.

I mentioned in my earlier post how I created a dummy file. I used fsutil file createnew Testfile170GB.exe 182536110080 command in a command prompt to create a dummy test file (you'll need some kind of experience with DOS or the command line to do that, minimal). Using the command line you have to navigate to the directory where you want to create the file, and then you just type in that command I gave you - as it will create the file in the directory that you are currently working in within command line. I then just used windows explorer to copy & paste the newly created 170GB file to another folder on the same drive - you know the simple right click the file & choose copy, and then right click the folder you want to paste it to & choose paste (ha!). Then you get to see the transfer speed as it copies - just like you can see in my attached pics in my earlier post.

This Sabrent drive definitely outpaces all the reviews I've seen of any other TLC drive in this 170GB file transfer test - like I mentioned the Samsung 970 Evo and Evo Plus crap out to 'slow' write speeds at well under the 100GB write point - whereas my Sabrent drive was just writing at a constant 2.3GB/s the entire time for that 170GB file - I'm impressed, I think that's even faster than the 970 Pro, but I'm gonna Google that now.
EDIT: actually it's about the same speed as a 1TB 970 Pro. ( https://www.kitguru.net/components/ssd-drives/simon-crisp/samsung-970-pro-1tb-ssd-review/16/). A 100GB data file was written to 970 Pro at 2561MB/s which is 2.5GB/s, so that's only a little faster than the 2.31GB/s I saw with my cheap Sabrent Rocket drive.

Hi Jaybee, I answered that in this post I'm typing right now.

 

hmmm, this is actually an interesting question. i never thought about how the SLC cache might come into play / how it behaves when u do file copy operations onto the same drive. could u do a comparison with a non-artificially generated file? say, a large movie file or smth like that?

 

Unfortunately I don't have any large 'real' files, which is why I created a dummy file, and I'm not gonna download a 170GB file for testing purposes, ha! Point is, the Samsung Evo drives crap out at well under the 100GB write mark even with a dummy file, whereas my Sabrent drive stayed at the same write speed for the entire 170GB file transfer. That's got to be a win for the Sabrent, I like it how the cheap underdog is taking names, ha!

 

thats the thing though, usually copy testing during reviews is either done with a second drive or against a RAM drive to avoid any bottlenecks that's why this is hard to compare against other data...

 

Copying & pasting a dummy file from one point to another on the same drive did not cause any bottlenecks from a Read point of view, as you can see from my HWInfo screenshots in my previous posts (not this one below, that's different) - the Read Activity was under 100% mostly and very low generally, while the Write Activity was fairly constant at close to 100%. I already posted a link to dummy file transfer testing within the same drive with Samsung Evos, and they crapped out at below 100GB. Here's this link I'm talking about, and one I posted earlier: https://www.tweakguides.com/Hardcon19_7.html

I agree though that ideally you want to be transferring from a seperate drive that reads faster than your drive you are testing can write. In fact, I did some testing just now (see first pic below) with a 170GB dummy text file that is created that contains random information, which is different to the fsutil command line dummy file that just contains zeros. What I saw was that the Read Activity was at 100% while the Write Activity was fluctuating and at about 50% on average. I therefore concluded that this is not showing the true write speed because the drive is too busy trying to read the data (see following screenshot). I created this different dummy file using this program ( https://www.mynikko.com/dummy/), and it's something about the random data within the file that means that the Read activity of the drive is the bottleneck in this case - needless to say the transfer speeds were quite low/embarrassing!

To properly test transfer of this random data containing 170GB text file it would have to be on a seperate drive that can read it faster than the receiving drive could possibly write - it seems like this randomly generated text file is a bugger to read fast, as you can see read activity is at 100%).

I'm not sure what to make of my previous dummy file transfer speeds in my earlier posts where it's at sustained 2.3GB/s for 170GB file. It's true that the Evo's crapped out way earlier, so it does make me think that the SLC buffer implementation of the Sabrent Rocket is better than the 970 Evos. This transfer test in this post with the randomly generated text file above is not valid though, because my drive is at 100% read activity just trying to read it! That didn't happen with the dummy file that just contained zeros, so I think my testing in my previous posts is more valid for showing the write performance and SLC buffer limitations.

EDIT: I also tested copy & paste of an 80GB Battlefield 1 game folder from one folder on the drive to another folder on the same drive:

Again Read Activity is at 100% the whole time, so not totally valid, but the faster writes at the start do look like SLC buffer issues, but as you can see Read Activity is at 100% the whole time, so that could happen to be the bottleneck. It's not clear. This BF1 folder transfer test might be a good test to compare different NVMe drives anyway though, even if you're copying & pasting it from one folder to another on the same drive, as it seems to be a mix of both read & write performance. You guys could test that if you have BF1.

Hmm, I'm not quite as impressed with my drive now, as I was kind of expecting to see the same stable 2.3GB/s I saw with the dummy file, but I've explained the issues with Read Activity being at 100%, but I reckon that BF1 folder copy & paste test within the same drive could be a good general indicator of NVMe drive performance (both read & write) - a means of comparison, because loads of people have BF1.

( @tilleroftheearth , some new developments and contains some of the testing you referred to in your earlier post)

EDIT#2: To sum up I suppose I'm just trying to see where the SLC cache limitations are with my Sabrent Rocket 1TB NVMe drive. Earlier testing from previous posts with a dummy file containing just zeros showed that there were effectively no SLC cache limitations - ie a constant 2.3GB/s write rate over a whole 170GB file, which destroys the Samsung 970 Evo drives when the same testing is done - just how valid is that testing in exposing SLC cache limitations, is it something to do with the fact that the dummy file just contains zeros that makes it work so well on the Sabrent vs the Samsung perhaps? My second lot of testing done in this post with files that don't contain just zeros shows slower transfer rates, but this looks like it's largely due to Read Rate bottlenecks rather than Write - so I don't think this testing does anything to expose SLC cache limitations on my drive, because of Read bottlenecks.

 

(Moderators, I'm happy for this SSD discussion to be moved to a different thread if necessary, maybe it can have a new thread created for it, but I'm equally as happy for the conversation to continue in here as long as no one is feeling uneasy about it).

 

hmmm im suspecting there are two factors at play here with regards to that initial 2.3 GB/s sustained copy that u got before.

first one being the type of data being copied. the artificial file u created consisted of all zeroes, thus highly compressible data. rule of thumb is, the more compressible a data stream is, the easier it is to handle by ssd controllers and NAND flash and the faster the throughput.

the second factor might be your overprovisioning. is definitely helps in endurance and performance, so i'm guessing a good apples to apples comparison would have to include those factors, as well.

nevertheless, i would actually have expected to see some kind of performance degradation at some point, especially with a TLC based drive. so yeah, all in all quite the mystery those initial results you provided... lemme sleep on that and maybe ill come up with some more thoughts

in any case, interesting data so far!

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

I just did some more testing to try to work out the rough size of the SLC cache on my Sabrent Rocket 1TB. You know that dummy file creator program I used to create a file containing random incompressible data, well when it's actually creating the file and writing it to disk I can see the speed of write - at the start it's the typical 2.2GB/s write speed, and then it slows to about 1GB/s write speed after a short period of time. I used HWInfo to work out the size of the SLC cache. See following screenshot, I pressed the print screen button as soon as the write performance slowed, and then found the difference between two numbers I've circled in red - which is how much data has been written to the drive during the test at that point in time - turns out it's 25GB! I tried different file sizes, and it always slows down after 25GB written.

I got the same 25GB SLC cache result when I asked the program to create a file that didn't contain random data, so I'm a bit puzzled about my earlier 2.3GB/s file transfer speeds of a 170GB file that contained only zeros (dummy file created by fsutil command) which we thought was due to writing highly compressible data. Unless this dummy file creator program I'm using for the testing in this post is limited by the RAM size of my PC maybe somehow (16GB RAM) - maybe some one else can test what sustained write speeds they get when creating a large file of say 40GB using this program ( https://www.mynikko.com/dummy/)? The 25GB SLC cache figure is a figure I've seen in a few obscure REDDIT posts regarding Phison E12 drives, so it tallies.

(I've had a look at the text files that the program creates, and if you select random incompressible data, then the file is composed of random Chinese symbols, if you don't tick that box in the program, then it just contains an empty text file, nothing written in it.)

Might be interesting for some folks with NVMe drives to do the same testing I've done here using that program I linked? I'd be curious to see what kind of SLC cache sizes you've calculated based on it, as it would help to confirm my testing and place more weight on my observations. (Just before you start the test, you obviously have to press the Reset button in HWInfo to reset min & max write totals, otherwise you won't be calculating the amount of data written during the test, it would include data written before the test too, which would be innaccurate).

 

Hey guys, any reason Mini DP port would stop working after VBIOS Flash? Any fix? I went from 80w rtx 2060 notebook to 90w 2060 notebook and lost mini do functionality.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

im guessing u flashed a vbios for a different machine? so stuff like that is to be expected...

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

Yeah I assume the one I flashed to probably doesn't have a DP.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

Getting bored with my gt83, considering getting a desktop or the gt76 titan. I want to re-use my so-dimms. Can anyone point me to a high end desktop mobo for overclocking that takes so-dimms(intel of course)?.

 

You'll want to not limit yourself to such a small selection of choices by setting SODIMM's as a requirement, there's just a small number available. On newegg just now I checked and only 2xSODIMM was available in power search, and nothing came up as being available for LGA1151, only older sockets:
https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?Submit=Property&N=100007627 4814 600077295

I also did a search within LGA1151 (7 pages) and searching for SODIMM found nothing:
https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?Submit=Property&N=100007627 600567584 4814

When you sell the laptop you can use those $ to get something awesome as a desktop, like a new Ryzen 3xxx x570 with PCIE 4.0 NVME SSD's.

The GT8x series is / was awesome, I hope MSI brings it back in a new more powerful form with 18"+ high FPS / res screen.

 

I want to repurpose my 4x8gb 4000mhz so-dimms ;/ instead of having to buy new desktop ram. Only thing I could find was an x299 motherboard by asrock but it only uses skylake-x chips. Is skylake-x any more complicated than a 6700k/6820hk/7700k/7820hk etc?

Ya the gt8x series is fantastic. I'm just so in love with the chassis/mech keyboard/removable hood etc. I'm just ready for something more advanced now that i've got a little bit of oc experience under my belt. Also looking for something completely silent so i'mma go with liquid cooling.

 

Is this the motherboard? https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X299E-ITXac/index.asp

Here's a build article, and it mentions:

"Now that we know we have one choice for the motherboard let's talk about how we have many choices for SO-DIMMs, and since ASRock added great OC capabilities to the memory DIMMs, G.Skill decided to up the ante and sent over their unreleased 3800MHz quad channel SO-DIMM kit. While some notebooks have four SO-DIMM slots and support memory overclocking, ASRock's motherboard only supports CPUs that can support up to quad channel, so the kit is basically designed for the motherboard. Intel's X299 CPUs can run 3800MHz, at least most of them can, and this guide will go getting the memory up to speed and even tweaking it a little bit. It's an amazing kit, to say the least, and it should launch later this year."

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/guides/8426/asrock-x299-mini-itx-dimm-oc-build-guide/index.html

Here are the supported CPU options:
https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X299E-ITXac/index.asp#CPU

There are so many cool new options coming that limiting yourself to something that will support 4xSODIMM's - a motherboard that is 2 years old, and looks like it's currently $500+!

Maybe sell the SODIMM's for a little loss as compared to what you paid for them at the height of the DRAM bubble, and save money on new DDR4 desktop RAM?

I'd at least wait until the Ryzen 3 models are released as the rumored performance - and demonstrated performance by AMD - shows the 3xxx CPU's beating the 9900K, and with the 16c/32t 3950x outperforming the top x299 CPU the 9980XE.

 

The thing about the new options outside of the new 2080 super(it's going to be a monster for 240hz), is they don't offermuch in terms of improvement for the gaming experience. A 6700k overclocked to the max can play any game maxed out at 144hz in 1080p when paired with the right gpu. A 9900k overclocked to the max can play any game maxed out at 240hz in 1080p when paired with the incoming 2080 super(unless it is some terribly terribly optimized game but even then...). Outside of the 2080 super coming out, What can the new equipment bring to the table that will improve my gaming experience? Like, I don't mind spending the money on top end stuff, its just that it needs to bring something to the table that I couldn't already experience with say a 9900k or a 7820x paired with the 2080 super that is coming out. Like, how much more is loading speed when launching a game going to improve with pcie 4.0 nvmes over pcie3.0? 5 seconds? PCIe 3.0 nvme ssds in raid0 are already lightning fast.

As far the so-dimms, I paid 400 for the 4 sticks. Bought these when ram came down. original MSRP was like 575 or something when they were first released. They ended up going up again in price after i bought them by 10% to 430 or 440 on newegg but still 475 on corsair website. Hate to sell them but if I had good reason to I'd go that route. Maybe i'll sell them if anything new makes sense.

Currently thinking about a 9900k or 7820x to save money on ram with the new 2080 super or maybe the gt76 from hid.

 

I think @hmscott is right here and if you're going to build a desktop, it doesn't make good sense to limit yourself to a motherboard that can use your SODIMM sticks. I think you'd end up regretting doing so. Best to go with everything possible in a common desktop form factor and SODIMMs were not designed with desktops in mind.

 

errr after some research, I'm wrong here, looks like the 2080ti will still be needed to maintain a steady 240hz max settings on any game thrown at it(rtx off of course).

 

Wow guys I had a lot to read to catch up lol...

@Robbo99999 in regard to the 170GB file, I was suspicious about the accuracy of that, being that it was a generated file with perfect data sequences. As you've seen with real world files like the game file, things are very different.

BTW interesting note, the 2TB sabrent that I have was pulled on some sites due to reports of there possibly being something wrong with it LOL... Already integrity issues?

I think the best way to test is to use real world data like the BF1 game file.

As for destroying the Samsung EVO or EVO Plus, you have to keep in mind that drive integrity & quality wise, the Samsung drives destroy these cheap sabrent rebranded drives. Sure it's a great bargain and that is why I own and use the sabrent drives as well, but IMO if you have important data I would not count on these sabrent drives over Samsung memory. This is just a fact that is unanimous across the professional realm.

Look at my 2TB sabrent drive for example and the tests that I've done with it vs my 2TB Samsung EVO Plus ... the sabrent hits a wall hard and can not keep up. It was interesting to see the merchants pull the 2TB sabrents... maybe it can't handle as I've experienced with slow write speeds (large) files and hot temps...

I don't experience these issues on the Samsung EVO Plus.

Maybe next week I'll do another round of testing with the exact same real world files that you've tested with to compare. For now I'd refrain from using artificially generated files as it has already proven to be misleading. 2.3GB/s did seem off and too good to be true, especially for an inferior drive like the sabrent. The side by sides tests that I did also showed it (2.3GB/s : 170GB) to not be true, because the sabrent hits a wall hard on writes even at 32GB as expected.

Anyhow, for those in the States, hope you guys have a great 4th!

 

Mostly I was just curious about the size of the SLC cache on the Sabrent drives, simply because that is likely to be the main differentiating factor when it comes to real world performance when talking about transferring large files - if it fits in the SLC cache of these drives then there isn't really any noticeable performance difference to the more expensive drives. I think I've worked it out to be 25 GB SLC cache size for my 1TB Sabrent drive, so I answered my own question, which also tallies with some REDDIT posts where they talk about SLC cache size, and a few tech reviews of other E12 Phison drives talk about around 30GB SLC cache size - so there we are. For me it was cheaper than a SATA SSD (or was it the same price per GB, wasn't more expensive anyway), so was a no brainer to get this faster 1TB Sabrent Rocket NVMe.

 

The summer heat is not playing well with my OC'ing adventures. I'm thinking of throwing one of these MO-RA3 rads into an ice bath. I have to rethink my approach to cooling. I'm probably going to experiment with a single MO-RA3 for both the CPU and GPU's. I'll post updates soon.

 

right on! the SLC cache is indeed the deciding factor in everyday ops when it comes to TLC drives thats why extended tests like over at anandtech are a good way to really differentiate all the drives on the market. second thing being long time reliability, of course, but thats a difficult thing to "bench".

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk