I have a 4th generation i7 desktop running Windows 10. It's got 16GB of ram and a SATA SSD. I'm debating about upgrading my desktop PC, I'm looking to upgrade to a newer (10th gen or higher CPU), more cores, and trying to buy some
extended life for my PC.

The one question I was hoping to get was some real world comparison of SATA versus NVMe in desktops. I'd like to get a system that has NVMe since it seems like everything's going that way and I'd hate it if I ended up being limited by SATA in a couple of years. Does anyone have experience running NVMe on your desktop, especially if you could compare real-world speeds with running SATA?
I know the difference in design speeds, not sure how that maps to a desktop OS.
---
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: NVMe versus SATA in desktops?
By: poindexter FORTRAN to All on Tue Jul 11 2023 09:36:00

PF> I have a 4th generation i7 desktop running Windows 10. It's got 16GB of
PF> ram and a SATA SSD. I'm debating about upgrading my desktop PC, I'm
PF> looking to upgrade to a newer (10th gen or higher CPU), more cores, and
PF> trying to buy some extended life for my PC.

You're going to have to replace your motherboard and ram as well... and even an RX 6600 is likely faster than the GPU from ~8 years ago (assuming it's that old as well).. so best to just plan on a replacement, unless you really like your case. Your PSU may be comming close to EOL as well.

PF> The one question I was hoping to get was some real world comparison of
PF> SATA versus NVMe in desktops. I'd like to get a system that has NVMe since
PF> it seems like everything's going that way and I'd hate it if I ended up
PF> being limited by SATA in a couple of years. Does anyone have experience
PF> running NVMe on your desktop, especially if you could compare real-world
PF> speeds with running SATA? I know the difference in design speeds, not sure
PF> how that maps to a desktop OS.

Real world, you won't notice the difference from SATA too much. I mostly notice when building large projects or doing things like a message scan, where you're accessing the contents of many files in a relatively short turn around... For a very large web project, HDD to SATA SSD goes from minutes to around a minute. Going from SATA SSD to Gen 4 PCIE NVME is a couple seconds. So it depends on your usage, but for playing games, web, general use you aren't likely to notice.

That said, the pricing is on par between the two, with NVME being much faster in some cases. Most current motherboards have at least 1 and as many as 3-4 NVME slots, so you might as well. Bonus, no cable clutter. Those last points (mb support, similar price, no cables) aare the main reasons I just say go nvme.

Things to look for are DRAM cache over "SLC" cache... the former is dedicated dram, the latter is a portion of memory that is using SLC mode for faster access... The drives of the former being a bit better quality generally speaking, but again, unlikely to notice a difference in day to day usage.

I'm partial to Samsung, WD Black, Solidigm and Sabrent (Rocket Line).


--
Michael J. Ryan
+o roughneckbbs.com
tracker1@roughneckbbs.com

---
■ Synchronet ■ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

Re: NVMe versus SATA in desktops?
By: poindexter FORTRAN to All on Tue Jul 11 2023 09:36 am

> I have a 4th generation i7 desktop running Windows 10. It's got 16GB of ram
> and a SATA SSD. I'm debating about upgrading my desktop PC, I'm looking to
> upgrade to a newer (10th gen or higher CPU), more cores, and trying to buy
> some
> extended life for my PC.
>
> The one question I was hoping to get was some real world comparison of SATA
> versus NVMe in desktops. I'd like to get a system that has NVMe since it
> seems like everything's going that way and I'd hate it if I ended up being
> NVMe on your desktop, especially if you could compare real-world speeds with
> running SATA?
> I know the difference in design speeds, not sure how that maps to a desktop
> OS.

I have 4 NVMe 2tb drives in my desktop along with a single 2tb SATA drive. While I don't have any numbers to post, the SATA is by far the slowest drive on the system and it is noticeable. The desktop is a core i9 12th gen running Windows 10 Pro.
/s

---
■ Synchronet ■ TIRED of waiting 2 hours for a taco? GO TO TACOPRONTO.bbs.io

-=> Tracker1 wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

PF> I have a 4th generation i7 desktop running Windows 10. It's got 16GB of
PF> ram and a SATA SSD. I'm debating about upgrading my desktop PC, I'm
PF> looking to upgrade to a newer (10th gen or higher CPU), more cores, and
PF> trying to buy some extended life for my PC.

Tr> You're going to have to replace your motherboard and ram as well... and
Tr> even an RX 6600 is likely faster than the GPU from ~8 years ago
Tr> (assuming it's that old as well).. so best to just plan on a
Tr> replacement, unless you really like your case. Your PSU may be comming
Tr> close to EOL as well.

Upgrading = replacing the whole kit. Sorry I wasn't clearer. I'm
looking for a new system. BTW, I have an Nvidia GTX 1030 in my current
system. I can get 50 fps playing the only modern game I play.

Tr> Real world, you won't notice the difference from SATA too much. I
Tr> mostly notice when building large projects or doing things like a
Tr> message scan, where you're accessing the contents of many files in a
Tr> relatively short turn around... For a very large web project, HDD to
Tr> SATA SSD goes from minutes to around a minute. Going from SATA SSD to
Tr> Gen 4 PCIE NVME is a couple seconds. So it depends on your usage, but
Tr> for playing games, web, general use you aren't likely to notice.

I have 2 Proxmox servers - my old one is a Thinkpad with an i7, the new
one is a Dell Optiplex i5 with a NVMe. I definitely see a difference
running VMs, wasn't sure about desktop results. I'm mostly doing web,
office, photoshop and games here, some transcoding of media.

Tr> That said, the pricing is on par between the two, with NVME being much
Tr> faster in some cases. Most current motherboards have at least 1 and as
Tr> many as 3-4 NVME slots, so you might as well. Bonus, no cable clutter.
Tr> Those last points (mb support, similar price, no cables) aare the main
Tr> reasons I just say go nvme.

After growing up with MFM and floppy drives, I can appreciate a lack of
cables. :)

Tr> Things to look for are DRAM cache over "SLC" cache... the former is
Tr> dedicated dram, the latter is a portion of memory that is using SLC
Tr> mode for faster access... The drives of the former being a bit better
Tr> quality generally speaking, but again, unlikely to notice a difference
Tr> in day to day usage.

Tr> I'm partial to Samsung, WD Black, Solidigm and Sabrent (Rocket Line).

Thanks for sharing! This is very helpful.

.... Feedback recordings into an acoustic situation
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
� Synchronet � .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

-=> Bf2k+ wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

Bf> I have 4 NVMe 2tb drives in my desktop along with a single 2tb SATA
Bf> drive. While I don't have any numbers to post, the SATA is by far the
Bf> slowest drive on the system and it is noticeable. The desktop is a
Bf> core i9 12th gen running Windows 10 Pro. /s

My goal here is to future-proof a new system, your insight confirms that
even though I'd be happy with SATA SSDs now, I'd end up regretting it in a
couple of years when NVMe gets cheap and SATA SSDs feel like spinning
rust does now.

.... Emphasize the flaws
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
� Synchronet � .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.