Was doing some research the past few days and tomshardware and techradar i think it was had some people doing mathematics etc, even though it would never be 100% accurate you could see the basic idea.
SSD PCI-E or not?
- Thread starter Loxa
- Start date
Was doing some research the past few days and tomshardware and techradar i think it was had some people doing mathematics etc, even though it would never be 100% accurate you could see the basic idea.
Permabanned
Ignore morons... they are clearly coming up with some crap to justify what they want to express.
Going from 1 drive to 2 drives... DOUBLES the chance of hardware failure. Literally.
Add in to the mix the chance of software raid failure, which does happen... a lot more than a dedicated controller (which motherboard onboard controller IS NOT) and that adds an extra layer of failure potential as you can't always just stick the drives on another board and rebuild.
Over the life of 3-5 years the failure rate of a particular drive may only be 1 in 100... make it two drives and the probability becomes 1 in 50.
I wouldn't know how to propose the chances of software raid failure... but if you lose one drive, or the raid corrupts - all data is gone... so make sure you have an active backup of what you want to keep.
I've raid drives fail and raid arrays corrupt... it's not fun if there's something on there you want to keep
If it really is just a basic boot drive and game storage... then you won't lose anything critical at least... but don't kid yourself about failure potential.
Ignore morons... they are clearly coming up with some crap to justify what they want to express.
Going from 1 drive to 2 drives... DOUBLES the chance of hardware failure. Literally.
Add in to the mix the chance of software raid failure, which does happen... a lot more than a dedicated controller (which motherboard onboard controller IS NOT) and that adds an extra layer of failure potential as you can't always just stick the drives on another board and rebuild.
Over the life of 3-5 years the failure rate of a particular drive may only be 1 in 100... make it two drives and the probability becomes 1 in 50.
I wouldn't know how to propose the chances of software raid failure... but if you lose one drive, or the raid corrupts - all data is gone... so make sure you have an active backup of what you want to keep.
I've raid drives fail and raid arrays corrupt... it's not fun if there's something on there you want to keep
If it really is just a basic boot drive and game storage... then you won't lose anything critical at least... but don't kid yourself about failure potential.
Yeah i don't have anything important on any drives i own ever but if on the rare case i did i always put it on a USB stick as well. The only thing eating away at me is if i am spending £300ish on a SDD or x2 would it not make more sense to buy the Intel 750 series? I will also be upgrading my whole rig once skylake is upon us.
Permabanned
Up to you... I like the speed of the SM951, which is on-par with the 750... but I already had over 1.3TB of SSD based storage in my main PC before I purchased that drive.
If I still only had my 250GB drive... then I would have spent the money on the 2x500GB or 1x1TB before buying an SM951 or 750... I think.
But like you, those drives would have been peaking my interest.
I have easily 60-70% filled these drives on a 6mbit internet connection
Just Windows + GTAV + BF4 + BF:H take up over 200GB... so I don't think I would be too happy having only 400GB total... but then it's not so easy for me to uninstall/reinstall on a whim... I still haven't finished repopulating my Steam library since the SM951 was installed as I need to schedule downloads for usability.
If I still only had my 250GB drive... then I would have spent the money on the 2x500GB or 1x1TB before buying an SM951 or 750... I think.
But like you, those drives would have been peaking my interest.
I have easily 60-70% filled these drives on a 6mbit internet connection
Just Windows + GTAV + BF4 + BF:H take up over 200GB... so I don't think I would be too happy having only 400GB total... but then it's not so easy for me to uninstall/reinstall on a whim... I still haven't finished repopulating my Steam library since the SM951 was installed as I need to schedule downloads for usability.
You could consider seeing it differently:
You can get 500GB of very high performance SSD* for just under £150.
That leaves you with £180 in your pocket and once you feel that is no longer sufficient, you can probably buy 1TB at the SM951 performance level for that.
SM951 is the pretty much the fastest option, but it does carry an enourmous price premium.
*I'm not bothered about the 840 EVO Issue. The 850 EVO is build on 40 nm process rather than the 1x nm process for the 840 EVO. This is such a change in cell size, even using TLC it probabbly has more electrons per charge level than 1x nm cells at MLC.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 1,265
Up to you... I like the speed of the SM951, which is on-par with the 750... but I already had over 1.3TB of SSD based storage in my main PC before I purchased that drive.
If I still only had my 250GB drive... then I would have spent the money on the 2x500GB or 1x1TB before buying an SM951 or 750... I think.
But like you, those drives would have been peaking my interest.
I have easily 60-70% filled these drives on a 6mbit internet connection
Just Windows + GTAV + BF4 + BF:H take up over 200GB... so I don't think I would be too happy having only 400GB total... but then it's not so easy for me to uninstall/reinstall on a whim... I still haven't finished repopulating my Steam library since the SM951 was installed as I need to schedule downloads for usability.
Btw steam can move a library locally. You dont have to redownload When changing disks
Don
I personally wouldn't raid ssds.
If you want our need raw performance, buy a new motherboard that can take an m.2 slot ssd for crazy read write performance.
Otherwise, stuck to something like 850 evo.
Crinkleshoes, why not just move your steam dir, no need to redownload it all.
If you want our need raw performance, buy a new motherboard that can take an m.2 slot ssd for crazy read write performance.
Otherwise, stuck to something like 850 evo.
Crinkleshoes, why not just move your steam dir, no need to redownload it all.
I noticed it.
Obviously it's performance is more than double that of the Sammy as well as it's price, however benchmarks will tell you a lot about the MB/s and IOPS of a storage device but not how it feels, going from a Sammy 850 to the Intel 750 is a noticeable upgrade, it is more noticeable than going from one of the old SATA-II SSDs to the Sammy.
In all honesty I would put it almost on par with going from a Velociraptor 300GB to an OCZ SATA-II SSD (from a performance increase pov not a perceived performance increase pov, obviously the is diminishing returns with perception as the worse it is to begin with the bigger a fixed increase will appear).
I did not realise how "slow" the Sammy was until I used the Intel, things that appeared instant/rapid before I know know were only rapid/fast.
Personally having used both I would recommend you save up and go with your original choice.
Permabanned
I know... only for some reason this last time, many of the files corrupted so I had to re-download... I have a backup sitting on one of my NASes... but it doesn't like it this time... Far Cry 4 also corrupted for no apparent reason... I wonder if it has anything to do with my installing on a different drive letter this time around, as it's worked in the past without issue.
BF4 and Crysis 3 copied from their backups without any issue.
Permabanned
Exceptionally good deal on this week only.
Beats the Intel 750 is most real world tests.
Only heavy heavy workstation/datacentre/sql server type use is where the 750 wins.
And for £250 for 512GB... I'd recommend this:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/show...il&utm_term=0_c199b69777-fbfa9bf05f-212489261
Beats the Intel 750 is most real world tests.
Only heavy heavy workstation/datacentre/sql server type use is where the 750 wins.
And for £250 for 512GB... I'd recommend this:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/show...il&utm_term=0_c199b69777-fbfa9bf05f-212489261
Got a deal on a Intel 750 i could not refuse.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 1,265
Nice price heading in the right direction.
Ignore morons... they are clearly coming up with some crap to justify what they want to express.
Going from 1 drive to 2 drives... DOUBLES the chance of hardware failure. Literally.
Add in to the mix the chance of software raid failure, which does happen... a lot more than a dedicated controller (which motherboard onboard controller IS NOT) and that adds an extra layer of failure potential as you can't always just stick the drives on another board and rebuild.
Over the life of 3-5 years the failure rate of a particular drive may only be 1 in 100... make it two drives and the probability becomes 1 in 50.
I wouldn't know how to propose the chances of software raid failure... but if you lose one drive, or the raid corrupts - all data is gone... so make sure you have an active backup of what you want to keep.
I've raid drives fail and raid arrays corrupt... it's not fun if there's something on there you want to keep
If it really is just a basic boot drive and game storage... then you won't lose anything critical at least... but don't kid yourself about failure potential.
Except your odds that you quote are heavily im your favour
I would be surprised if the chance of failure in 3-5 years is as large as 1 in 100, 000 ( rathar than your 1 in a hundred)
So the theoretical change from 1 in 100, 000 to 1 in 50, 000 with two drives atill make the probability unlikely
Lol, nope.
The 750 has an extra 3 years warranty, slightly higher read MB/s, slightly lower write MB/s and almost double the IOPS.
The Sammy may have better £ per GB but so does every other SSD.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 1,265
the feedback ive seen suggests that most users would get more from where the sm951 shines than the 750 shines....definitely worth reading the reviews to check which camp you fall into...although extra 3 years warranty is worth quite a bit when comparing performance aspects in the same class albeit a bit higher or lower...
Permabanned
And yet the review sites all mentioned they would choose the SM951 over the 750.
Due to the simple fact that in the usage scenarios where each device wins heavily favours the SM951 in general end-user workloads.
The Intel 750 shines in very heavy small IO load... like a SQL server with heavy data aggregation and many user access... it's a datacentre SSD that has been made available to home users. This does not necessarily mean it is the best for home users.
If you had actually read the reviews, rather than just taking the headline figures... you might have realised this.
As with all SSDs the figures are useless unless they are from real world tests... like the review sites have taken them through - check them out?
I got 3 year warranty with the SM951... 2 extra years with the Intel is nice, sure.
Exactly...
Nope, the THG one may because they didn't get the memo that you need to install the nvme drivers but other sites I.E PCper showed the 750 beating the 951 in tests, sometimes by a lot.
You see the MB/s figures are great if you want to spend all day copying .ISO files between drives but in real world usage IOPS are king and that's where the 750 batters the 951.
Permabanned
I hadn't even looked at the THG one... Anandtech & Techspot... where they've done real-world tests.
I only see a handful of synthetic benchmarks in use at PCPer - perhaps I am looking at the wrong article? Care to show me how they demonstrate the 750 beating the 951 in usage scenarios?
I only see a handful of synthetic benchmarks in use at PCPer - perhaps I am looking at the wrong article? Care to show me how they demonstrate the 750 beating the 951 in usage scenarios?
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 1,265
perhaps its similar to sata ssds, the theoretical specs show a difference, but in real world devices of the same class perform roughly the same.