Seriously, who has SSD IO speed issues?

I'm genuinely curious who has IO bottleneck issues that spending $500 for a 128GB Samsung latest blah blah is worth it?

I'm using 512 M6 from Micron m.2, and have no IO issues. So I'm wondering why the fuss for the newest Samsung SSD that supposedly have minor improvements in speed, and questionable difference in real time use, actual user experience improvements.

Go at it, troll whatever.

 

No, it's obiviously not worth it ! maybe if you have to copy billions of 1Ko files, you can see the difference
i think it's more ..... geek fap.....

Elispsus

 

Benchmark numbers have magical effects on perception. Look at the thermal paste nonsense all over too.

I have some SATA II SSDs around that still provide very satisfying speed. When it comes to SSDs it is all about the move away from the terrible performance of HDDs when they need to read/write multiple files at once. The nearly instantaneous access time. Almost any SSD made in the past 5 years will give you that big speed boost, even if you run it on SATA 1. For that matter I've run SSDs on a PATA/SATA bridge at UDMA66 speed and it's still awesome compared to a hard disk.

 

Exactly. I used a mSATA on SATA2 port and I had no problems with speed. So when I'm reading on NBR of folks drooling over the Samsung XP941 is already priced horribly, SM951 no doubt will put that pricing to shame.

I understand on paper, theoretically the SM951 will be 3x faster than standard SSD SATA6, but what are folks doing where SATA6 was holding them back, or too slow?

 

if it was all about "need" in terms of high performance hardware, forums like NBR wouldnt even exist....

 

I might bite on the 850 evo m.2 since prices are so good. Will see how well it fares as OS, but if it doesn't live up to expectations I'll just use it as the Linux virtual machine and get the sm951 or hopefully Samsung will step up and do an 850 pro m.2 though there is no rumors they will. I am fine with sata3 on a m.2. Just no m.2's that meet my wants currently.

 

the problem with M.2 is that most M.2 drives are actually bottlenecked by CPU/RAM/internet connection.

Anything beyond SATA 3 is bottlenecked.

Hell, SATA 3 is bottlenecked in some cases. I've checked my read/writes when playing games. I'll *PEAK* at 140MB/s. For 1/2 second. Sometimes. In certain games. PEAK.

If you copy a large number of files, then RAM/CPU is less of an issue, but who realistically copies files between SSDs for no reason? I don't understand. Now I HAVE noticed a whole lot of differences between say... my plextor and my Samsung. But my plextor has 300MB/s write versus my Samsung's ~90MB/s write in most ops, but again. I rarely notice this, or get into a situation where it matters.

So yeah. I don't know why there is a huge rush for M.2 drives. I guess people like the numbers.

 

where we WILL see a significant performance bump in real life situations is once M.2 drives are out with insane IOPS performance numbers. if u bump those 4K QD 1 numbers from 40 / 130 MB/s up to like 140 / 450 MB/s (with, say, a mushkin hyperion M.2), the OS will literally take off, even with heavy multitasking @tab whores, streamers, gamers, creatives, etc

 

Fast sequential speeds don't mean much to most people. Yes it is the 4K QD 1 numbers that need improvement, but we don't need an M.2 bus to get there because they don't even exceed SATA 2 speeds. I'd rather they focus on that aspect than getting light speed sequential numbers purely for marketing.

 

Any speed increase reducing IO bottlenecks is a welcome improvement, another iterative step in the direction of overall improved computer performance.

Faster components make for a faster system. As the faster components remove a bottleneck, the next bottleneck shows up - and bottlenecks are resolved iteratively - it is a progression that has been going on for many years, and will hopefully continue for many more.

M.2 is a form factor, the performance improvements are created from the performance difference between the interfaces contained within. SATA III to PCIE x2, to PCIE x4.

From the HDD speed of 60-80MB/second SATA II HDD of the time to 250MB/sec SATA II SSD's of the time, it was an amazing 4x improvement. And, having just moved from SATA I speeds, that was an rapid improvement.

From HDD speed of 120MB / sec for SATA III HDD's of today to the 2.5"/M.2 SATA III SSD speed of 500MB/sec is again a 4x speed up. It is still an amazing improvement.

Now, from the 500MB/sec 2.5"/M.2 SATA III speed of today to the 2100MB/sec of M.2 PCIE x4 (Plextor 7, Samsung SM951, etc) is another impressive 4x speed up. Another amazing improvement.

Will it improve FPS? Unlikely. But, the PCIE x4 performance improvement of the next generation of M.2 PCIE x4 SSD's are still a welcome addition

Samsung SM951 512GB M.2 PCIe SSD Review
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6951/samsung-sm951-512gb-2-pcie-ssd-review/index.html

Plextor M7e M.2 PCIe SSD Performance Numbers From CES 2015
http://www.legitreviews.com/plextor-m7e-m-2-pcie-ssd-performance-numbers-ces-2015_156766

 

Going from Samsung 850 Pro as my main OS drive to the Plextor M6e that has inferior I/O performance really hasn't been noticeable to me (other than in benchmarks). Perhaps the superior sequential performance has compensated for the loss in 4K read/write speeds, I don't know. All I know for certain is that the OS still feels super responsive to me, as someone who multitasks heavily and plays demanding PC games. Super-enthusiasts who use professional-grade software would probably notice a difference, but it's barely apparent (if at all) in the the general everyday user experience for people like me, who I guess you could call a 'softcore' enthusiast - heavily multitasks, PC gamer but doesn't delve into professional level video editing or other advanced rendering programs etc.

 

Cakefish, the Plextor M6E PCIE is faster than the Samsung 850 Pro, no wonder it doesn't seem any slower

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2104...a-sata-drive-and-not-much-more-expensive.html

And, all top end SATA III SSD's are hitting the SATA III performance limit, so all of them will be within a range of like performance.

The only jump is when going RAID 0 with SATA III, PCIe desktop slot and PCIe x2/x4 with M.2 form factor.

As a comparison that is noticeable, my G750JH came with a 2x128GB RAID0, and when testing OS installs I used a Samsung 840 Pro 512GB, and upon finalizing the Windows install I kept it running for a while, and finally moved back to the 2x128GB RAID0, and I could feel the difference in both directions, the RAID0 performed 2x better in reads and 50% better in writes.

Maybe run a couple of benchmarks across your 850 Pro and M6e to get an idea of the performance delta between the two, please post results.

 

The main difference comes in small file transfer speeds and performance consistency across different types of load.