Need advise on SSD upgrade...

ThrashZone said:

970 evo or evo plus run at 60c+- I sure don't like hot spots.

Click to expand...

Mine run no where near 60C

ThrashZone said:

Hi,
If you don't look you'd never see the heat lol
HWinfo64 clearly shows temp-1 & 2 on sammy m.2's and even these sensors are 10c apart.
HWiNFO - Download

970 evo or evo plus run at 60c+- I sure don't like hot spots.
850-860 pro sata's run at 30+- for daily activities these are fine even for storage.

Click to expand...

I have been using HWiNFO for two decades.

ThrashZone said:

Hi,
If you don't look you'd never see the heat lol
HWinfo64 clearly shows temp-1 & 2 on sammy m.2's and even these sensors are 10c apart.
HWiNFO - Download

970 evo or evo plus run at 60c+- I sure don't like hot spots.
850-860 pro sata's run at 30+- for daily activities these are fine even for storage.

Click to expand...

But you know that 970 evo NVMe is a much more powerful device, both hardware-wise and speed-wise, right? 850/860 don't even come close, especially not with sata...
It generates a lot of heat as it doesn't have a heat sink unlike some of the PATRIOT pro-grade SSDs do. This is normal, but these drives aren't really designed with the average "daily activites" you mention. These are designed to perform, and they are quite good at it. I love SAMSUNG's 970 EVO/PLUS and this is exclusively the only NVMe drive I install nowadays, because it is so reliable.

ish4d0w said:

But you know that 970 evo NVMe is a much more powerful device, both hardware-wise and speed-wise, right? 850/860 don't even come close, especially not with sata...
It generates a lot of heat as it doesn't have a heat sink unlike some of the PATRIOT pro-grade SSDs do. This is normal, but these drives aren't really designed with the average "daily activites" you mention. These are designed to perform, and they are quite good at it. I love SAMSUNG's 970 EVO/PLUS and this is exclusively the only NVMe drive I install nowadays, because it is so reliable.

Click to expand...

From what I gather, the 980 Pro in PCIe 3.0 mode (which is what I have) runs cooler by a few degrees when compared to the 970 Evo Plus, but I haven't been able to confirm this. Either way, inside my laptop with the laptop's cooling fan running in silent mode I have to force a sustained read of more than a whole TB worth of data before it finally reaches above 60 degrees at some point after the CPU hits 40 degrees, so it is safe to say it doesn't cause any trouble because the normal temp is in the low 50s and that's it.

I was confused among the following choices:

1. Samsung 980/ 970 Evo Plus 1TB AND an USB C enclosure: $150: Good external device that will serve better in the future than now because my current motherboard and ports cannot make use of its full capabilities. Even in future, it is more likely to be used as an external device only, given how technology is evolving and newer products will be much faster than those available today.

2. Seagate Firecuda 120 2TB: $270: Excellent internal upgrade, but for current use only. Also expensive. In the future, this device will only be used as an external device and there are much better NVMe drives that are significantly faster for the same price.

3. Samsung 870 Evo 2TB: $240: Same reasons as for Seagate Firecuda 120 2TB.

4. Samsung T5/ T7/ SanDisk Extreme Portable 2TB: $215 to $250: Great external disks but using option 1 with 2TB capacity would be better because they are faster at similar price points.

5. Crucial MX500/ Samsung EVO 870/ Samsung QVO 870 1TB: $100 to $120: Good internal upgrade, but for current use only. In the future, this device will only be used as an external device and there are much better NVMe drives that are significantly faster for the same price.

However, given the modest price, and the fact that it will serve now really well when the future is distant and unpredictable, this was the best/ most optimal choice that is a perfect balance between current and future requirements, as well as price.

I chose Crucial over Samsung for the following reasons:

1. Crucial MX500 uses TLC while Samsung QVO 870 uses QLC. Also, I think the QVO is best suited only for sizes 2TB and above because the DRAM (2 GB) and SLC cache (78 GB) are adequate for most use only at higher sizes.

2. Crucial MX500 is currently cheaper than Samsung QVO 870.

3. Crucial MX500 is also currently 30% cheaper than Samsung EVO 870 or Seagate Firecuda 120 (all of which use TLC), hence I chose this over the other two. If the prices were same, I would have preferred the Firecuda (for maximum endurance) or 870 EVO.


I know some of you may see this as an easy decision made unnecessarily complicated, but I guess everyone comes across such situations.

In this case, I wanted to make a future-proof purchase, but given that my current laptop limited me to conventional SATA disks which are becoming increasingly obsolete, buying a high capacity SATA storage made little sense. It boiled down to choosing between a low capacity storage that can be most useful now or a high capacity one that will potentially be more useful in the future. Since the future is distant and unpredictable, it made more sense to meet current requirements optimally than invest heavily in a future requirement which is more likely to be a bad decision since technology is constantly evolving and improving, making current purchases increasingly obsolete in the future.

I have put out the details just so someone in a similar situation may find it useful to make a decision.

Hi,
QVO's are the hdd of ssd's = stay way from them.

hdmi said:

I have been using HWiNFO for two decades.

Click to expand...

Are you saying the NVMe SSDs don't run any hotter than their SATA counterparts?

ThrashZone said:

Hi,
QVO's are the hdd of ssd's = stay way from them.

Samsung 870 QVO 1 TB Review - Terrible, Do Not Buy

The Samsung 870 QVO is the company's new QLC-based SSD that reaches capacities of up to 8 TB. In our Samsung 870 QVO review we're taking a close look not only at synthetics, but also real-life performance, which is surprisingly weak, especially considering they want $115 for the reviewed 1 TB...

www.techpowerup.com

Click to expand...

That isn't entirely true. There is huge segment of the market who will do just fine with the limitations of QLC. How often does the average user transfer files over 42 GB (assuming he has a 1 TB QVO)?

The QVO is a good value product but I think it should be priced 25% lower than current levels in the current market.

TheMystic said:

That isn't entirely true. There is huge segment of the market who will do just fine with the limitations of QLC. How often does the average user transfer files over 42 GB (assuming he has a 1 TB QVO)?

The QVO is a good value product but I think it should be priced 25% lower than current levels in the current market.

Click to expand...

Hi,
Three year warranty is a large pass.

hdmi said:

I wasn't trying to argue against that. The point is that you might not be able to transfer a 2.5 inch SATA SSD to your new laptop that you probably will end up buying sooner or later, especially if it will be later rather than sooner, excepting only if you can live with using this SSD externally later. That's right... "good" laptops with internal 2.5 inch drive bays are already slowly but surely getting harder to come by, or at least you will have limited choices if you decide to wait too long, possibly you will need to pay extra, like, for example, if you will be forced (in a certain sense) to buy one that, while still being new and unused (or maybe), uses older tech so that the total value for money may in fact be lower as opposed to be higher. But your current laptop has no M.2 socket, so as a result from that, if you can NOT live with the potential problem described above, then you will be forced to look for an external solution, in which case it will be possible to opt for an M.2 NVMe USB enclosure (that can already be had for less than $20), i.e. with an NVMe SSD in it. And that can later be transferred to a newer laptop, either externally or internally, and without having to worry as much about any performance related factors so you'll gain the advantage of a wider flexibility in pure terms of future upgrade possibilities─and at a relatively small extra cost, also in addition to that. Like it or not... trying to squeeze several more years out of a 2013 laptop will be always a big gamble, and that is putting it mildly. But hey, it isn't MY money to burn. People should buy whatever it is that they want to buy, so if you really feel like doing an internal 2.5 inch upgrade anyway after all, then by all means go for it. I am just saying I would never do that, and why.

Up until the beginning of 2018, I didn't even own an SSD, and that is in spite of the fact that people on Sevenforums had been saying for more than 8 years that it is impossile to live without one. So how did I do it, then? Simple. For the most part, putting the laptop to sleep instead of shutting it down, and using Diskeeper in concert with Romex Software Primo Ramdisk (with the Dynamic Memory Management option enabled) was how.

Click to expand...

Interesting: Everyone thought the SATA SSDs were faster: :)

ThrashZone said:

Hi,
Three year warranty is a large pass.

Click to expand...

Their TBW is higher than that of Crucial MX500 which offers warranty for 5 years. This is quite bad for Crucial.

Hi,
MX500 is a very old model

Current versions of it are far worse than when they first came out
All manufactures are using the cheapest available parts now days for ssd's so unless you got one and tested it lately you just can't go by old test data.

ThrashZone said:

Hi,
MX500 is a very old model

Current versions of it are far worse than when they first came out
All manufactures are using the cheapest available parts now days for ssd's so unless you got one and tested it lately you just can't go by old test data.

Click to expand...

That's bad news for me because I just ordered one (Crucial MX500 1 TB) earlier today. Let's see.

TheMystic said:

That's bad news for me because I just ordered one (Crucial MX500 1 TB) earlier today. Let's see.

Click to expand...

Hi,
Well like you said numbers are just numbers
The warranty overrules some bad numbers on downgraded parts

One thing I do not like about crucial is they do not replace with new products
They send refurbished as rma replacements.

I had one mx100 "which I still have 2-256gb and 2-128gb ssd's" but linux killed one 256gb and they sent a refurbished back.

Buy on ebay M.2 NGFF B B+M Key SSD to SATA 2.5" Drive Enclosure 2230 2242 2280 Adapter Case and buy belonging m2 ssd 120, 250, 512, 1TB long 80 mm and you will have a higher speed of writing and reading.

TheMystic said:

Are you saying the NVMe SSDs don't run any hotter than their SATA counterparts?

Click to expand...

No, just saying that it depends, and, even in situations where they do run hotter, it still isn't necessarily an issue, as it, too, typically depends. And then I am not even mentioning the fact that the issue─if it does exist─is very often just an easy fix (but certainly not always an easy fix).

That being said, only a few months ago I was saying that my 512GB M.2 SATA SSD was more than fast enough for almost anything I do, and that I didn't need more internal storage capacity, as I also have two old (but used only moderately) identical 256GB USB 3.0 flash drives with acceptable performance:



But that was then and this is now. So, I wanted more internal storage, but I still couldn't justify the high price of a 2TB SSD, because I didn't really need it, and so I decided to just wait. Next, I found the 2TB 980 Pro at just 229 Euros, and, to date, I haven't regretted the fact that I caved. Three weeks from now, my laptop will be already one year old. So, about two years from now or maybe sooner, I will probably start looking to buy a new one. I am only saying this because it is a non negligible part of the reason why I didn't want yet another SATA SSD. Especially not a SATA SSD that costs like almost half of how much my current laptop is currently worth. As for the people on the internet who complain that their 980 Pro reaches 90 degrees. I don't know what they do different. Maybe they just use the kind of computer that only can be good for cooking lasagna.

In my desktop, I have a 2TB WD SN850, which is a PCIe Gen 4 drive and benches over 7,000MB/sec. But it started filling up recently with a few games and a bunch of VM's taking up space.

Over Thanksgiving break, I got a decent deal on a 2TB Sandisk Ultra 2.5" SATA SSD that benches around 480MB/sec. I moved over a few games including Halo, Call of Duty and Flight Simulator over to the SATA SSD to free up space on my NVMe. Other than the file copy over to the SATA SSD, game load speeds are pretty negligible...like 13 seconds versus 11 seconds. Considering that the SATA drive is less than 1/2 the cost of the NVMe, it's totally fine for me and my games. Save that NVMe for apps and Virtual Machines.

Yep, I keep my all my game files on another drive. If I wanna do a clean install, I just point the game client at the particular folders on that drive.

AddRAM said:

Yep, I keep my all my game files on another drive. If I wanna do a clean install, I just point the game client at the particular folders on that drive.

Click to expand...

The way I do it as well

TheMystic said:

Interesting: Everyone thought the SATA SSDs were faster: :)

Click to expand...

That's no surprise to me BTW. But I don't play games so it's completely irrelevant to me.