Want the Best Performance boost? Get an NVMe M2 Drive

[Sticky]

An NVMe M2 Drive is an SSD that installs directly on the motherboard no wires. I was wondering why i wasn't having performance issues when it seems so many others seem to have trouble. For a comparison The HyperX Fury SSD Speed is 500 MB write and read speeds. Where an M2 drive has up to 3500 MB write and read speeds. I just want to suggest an M2 drive as a solution to all performance issues. I run Windows System and any program i consider a System like Discord on the M2 drive and i have 2 other SATA SSD that i install games and movies. M2 drives do not need to have a large capacity just enough for the system, i only spent under $100 USD on my M2 drive. Adding a M2 drive to your PC will require a fresh windows install on the M2.

I have tested moving Steam Library to the M2 drive with system, and tested with the Steam Library on the SATA SSD drive. Both Test Windows is installed on the M2. My findings are Both were very similar although i did test under stressful conditions on a Raptor with a Fleet landing on the Raptor. I did get a tad higher FPS with the Steam Library on the SATA SSD separate from the M2. I'll post the short videos of the two comparisons shortly.

The test were recorded at 1440 with game settings on Ultra.

https://youtu.be/wlgtOC-KVms Test with Windows and Steam on M2 drive.

https://youtu.be/TjWhs-JAUaY Test with Windows on M2 and Steam Games on SATA SSD.

I really can't tell much of a difference in the two Videos what do you think? My original post was for Windows on M2 drive was my claim that will boost a PC's performance. Though after this post was made, someone mentioned they were going to install Steam Games on the M2 so i thought i would give it a try. Though the map seem to load faster and graphics seemed more crisp on the M2, a slight loss of FPS in this initial test with data.

Conclusion thus far: I recommend only running Windows on the M2 and run Steam Games Library on a separate drive.

My M2 drive:Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2

[First5trike]

Publicado originalmente por WarCrime:

M.2 is a form factor, it's NVMe that's making the difference referred to. SATA/AHCI has 1 queue with 32 commands vs NVMe with 64K queues and 64K commands that also run in parallel. You can buy both SATA and NVMe drives in the M.2 form factor.

A lot of games are compressed on disk so as long as your storage device exceeds your decompression rate you won't see those huge performance increases benchmarks would lead you to expect for gaming anyway.

Check.

A Sata 3 SSD will run at the same speed with either a SATA cable or in an M.2 slot.

The advantage an M.2 slot will give you is most will take NVMe drives which bypass the Sata controller and connect directly to your CPU via the PCIe lanes. This can drastically increase speeds.

If you are on Zen 2 with an X570 or B550 motherboard with PCIe 4.0 you can get some utterly insane transfer speeds. The Sabrent 1TB Rocket NVMe 4.0 Gen4 was hitting 5,000 MB/s reads and 4,400 MB/s writes.

[Rhophius]

Publicado originalmente por Sticky:

Publicado originalmente por Rhophius:

i went ahead and bought this one....

https://www.corsair.com/uk/en/Categories/Products/Storage/M-2-SSDs/Force-Series-MP510/p/CSSD-F240GBMP510#tab-tech-specs

Keep us posted, and will wait for your review of your findings on the Performance differences.

Will do its arriving tomorrow but i wont be putting the OS on it, since its requires a lot of reinstalling, ill put the game on it instead.

[Sticky]

Publicado originalmente por Rhophius:

Publicado originalmente por Sticky:

Keep us posted, and will wait for your review of your findings on the Performance differences.

Will do its arriving tomorrow but i wont be putting the OS on it, since its requires a lot of reinstalling, ill put the game on it instead.

I really think its in your best interest to make the M2 the System. But while your at it i suppose you can try it both ways, when you have time to to a full windows install. I have 382 gig remaining on my 500 gig M2 Drive i could even try installing Steam Games to it, and try it out.

Edit: I just talked to my baby brother who is the computer guy in the family. And he said it would be good to put System and X4 on the M2. He build my current computer, and i am just an old guy.

[HoloByteus]

Publicado originalmente por Rhophius:

Will do its arriving tomorrow but i wont be putting the OS on it, since its requires a lot of reinstalling, ill put the game on it instead.

FYI you don't need to re-install windows, you can clone your OS drive/partition to the SSD. You can find videos on you tube with how to go about it and free tools to do it. Only challenge may be if there's a size difference in the drives and you'd prefer one partition but even that can be addressed with free partition software. I used Acronis and I believe EasyUS since I went from a 240GB SSD to 1TB SSD and I wanted one partition.

[Sticky]

I put X4 on the M2 with System and i had an instant performance boost. i i seen the FPS at about 85 FPS the program i use didn't record the stats. But though i'd share what i view at 1440 Ultra settings with my rig.

https://youtu.be/0qs5aAl8etY

[The-Gizmo]

Publicado originalmente por Rhophius:

Publicado originalmente por Sticky:

Keep us posted, and will wait for your review of your findings on the Performance differences.

Will do its arriving tomorrow but i wont be putting the OS on it, since its requires a lot of reinstalling, ill put the game on it instead.

TBH, unless you do certain things like edit 4K or 8K video, or work with large Blender or similar projects, or otherwise fill up your RAM to 80% usage or more regularly, there won't be a massive difference between a good SATA SSD boot drive and a PCIe SSD. This is because one of the main goals of an OS is to use the disk as little as possible and use the RAM as much as possible by caching every file you load if possible into RAM.

Try it both ways yourself if you feel like it, or just leave the OS on the SATA SSD.

That said, aside from the ability to have many SATA drives at once, I often times find PCIe 3.0 M.2 drives to be just as cheap as SATA SSD drives, and thus not a lot of reasons to buy SATA ones anymore.

[MericSever]

Thing is Nvme M.2 are not that more expensive then Sata 3 SSD normally $100 more ... except Samsung 860/960 though that's just branding.

As to performance the only advantage is in mass data transfer (ssd - ram) like load times, if the game was designed without loading assets in bulk then it would be awesome for m.2 but that not how it works, outside of load times and extra data being shifted to ram there is no benefit over Sata 3 ... unless you include cable management then its a godsend.

In other words M.2 benefits video compilers, streamers and graphic designers who need to use a LOT of data transfers.

ALSO be aware of the type of SSD NAND - SLC, MLC, TLC and QLC ... Smaller memory but more stable and lasts longer to more memory but less stable and shorter life time, i.e instead of 5 years of life you might get 3 ... though this may vary greatly on user to user ... most gamer's won't know or see a difference and probably will still have it for 6+ years.

@The-Gizmo Dang it you beat me to the punch XD

[_placeholder]

I have an m.2 and no noticeable issues, but I’m running a 2080ti and an i7 10700k.

[arrak]

I build my own gaming PC 5 years ago. So it is a bit old and outdated now. Am still happy :)

2 times RAID 0. (One raid 0 for system, and one raid 0 for gaming.)
= 4x identicle Normal 260GB Sata HDD's
1x Sata HDD = 750MB/s (Thats Why i do not go higher than 250 GB/drive).
Raid 0 sees two sata HDD´s only as One HDD.
iN my Raid 0 setup, i manually maxed Write Size to 64Kb´s per alternating write/read. (Windows
default setup configuration of 4KB´s sucks, so you have to do it manually as in BIOS setup.)

16GB Ram:
4x 4GB identicle modules.
A 4GB module is the highest volume margin for the lowest latency

Dual, or dual within duel even better

GDDR5

Radeon RX 580 (Do not notice the difference between my new RX or my old HD 9070)

4K monitor and 4K graffik setting. Grafic property setting is low i think....

Framerates are consistant and fluid.
X4 runs stable on my old system

Edit: i5-3470 CPU running at 3.2GHz

Edit: jUst checked my settings is on high

[LordDeimosIV]

Publicado originalmente por Sticky:

I put X4 on the M2 with System and i had an instant performance boost. i i seen the FPS at about 85 FPS the program i use didn't record the stats. But though i'd share what i view at 1440 Ultra settings with my rig.

https://youtu.be/0qs5aAl8etY

Placebo mate. You can see how the asteroids still pop in (engine limitation) and how the fps drops a lot when you open up the map. Lots of tests have been done on this and any perceived fps increase you think you got is only an illusion.

[Asmosis]

From everything i've experienced and read, single core performance is the main contributor to FPS, much more than storage or GPU performance (past a certain point). It's not my SSD or 2080 that drops my framerate to <10 when entering certain asteroid belts.

[arrak]

Publicado originalmente por Asmosis:

From everything i've experienced and read, single core performance is the main contributor to FPS, much more than storage or GPU performance (past a certain point). It's not my SSD or 2080 that drops my framerate to <10 when entering certain asteroid belts.

Have just tested. Set my graffics from 4K (High), to 1980 x 1020 (Ultra) and my Game then has Double the Frame Rates. Is my graffic card responsible for the big boost in frame rate, or my CPU?

i find it strange that lowering my resolution, but therefore tuning to Ultra gives me double the frame rate

It seems that the more pixels you have is what drop your framerate heavy. But my big screen is adictive. Not going back to the smaller screen just to have better frame rates. Very notice-ably though.

[LordDeimosIV]

Publicado originalmente por arrak:

Publicado originalmente por Asmosis:

From everything i've experienced and read, single core performance is the main contributor to FPS, much more than storage or GPU performance (past a certain point). It's not my SSD or 2080 that drops my framerate to <10 when entering certain asteroid belts.

Have just tested. Set my graffics from 4K (High), to 1980 x 1020 (Ultra) and my Game then has Double the Frame Rates. Is my graffic card responsible for the big boost in frame rate, or my CPU?

i find it strange that lowering my resolution, but therefore tuning to Ultra gives me double the frame rate

It seems that the more pixels you have is what drop your framerate heavy. But my big screen is adictive. Not going back to the smaller screen just to have better frame rates. Very notice-ably though.

1920x1080 is about 2 million pixels. 3840x2160 is just over 8 million pixels. So yes 1080 ultra will have a higher framerate than 4K high. At 4K your GPU will be at 100% usage most of the time limiting your framerate. At 1080p your CPU will be what will limits your max fps.

[Tiny Pocket Ninja]

Publicado originalmente por Typharius:

The best way to optimise this game is to wait about 6 years until technology can run it's ragged engine.

QFT

[Shavanna]

At least pricewise, some (M.2)PCIe SSDs became rather cheap lately. According to a price comparison site https://geizhals.de/?cat=hdssd&v=e&hloc=at&hloc=de&bl1_id=30&sort=r&xf=252_960%7E4832_3 , some of these SSDs are at ~85€ atm, comparable to regular SATA SSDs.