NVMe SSD for Gaming

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Just how overkill is an NVMe SSD compared to a regular one (by regular I mean an M.2 form factor, no SATAs)?

I always wanted the Western Digital Blue 3D NAND 2TB for pretty much to install all my games on it. For just $15 more, however, there's the Intel 660p Series 2TB which is an NVMe and its read/write speed is about 1,300 more than the average 500 to 550 from the standard SSDs.

So my question is. Would getting an NVMe SSD for gaming be overkill?

[Autumn_]

M.2 is a form factor - NVMes and SATA drives can be M.2.

NVMe is the faster of the two, since it uses PCI-e, not limited by SATA(3)'s limit of 550MB/s.

But an NVMe drive is kinda pointless for a purely speed (in gaming) point of view. You're looking at shaving HALF a second or less off loading screens.
But they are the same price as 2.5" SATA drives, so why not grab the faster one?

Those rared read/write are only for sequential performance. Mean only things like large file transfer will benefit, gaming uses Random r/w, which is slightly faster than SATA. Overall not that much of a difference, half a second off loading screens, at best.

I don't think it's overkill, I don't think it's a waste of money.
Just make sure you have enough storage and go for the one you like the most.
They both will do a fine job, just what appeals more, more (fast) space, or (slightly) faster and less space.

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Messaggio originale di Autumn_:

M.2 is a form factor - NVMes and SATA drives can be M.2.

NVMe is the faster of the two, since it uses PCI-e, not limited by SATA(3)'s limit of 550MB/s.

But an NVMe drive is kinda pointless for a purely speed (in gaming) point of view. You're looking at shaving HALF a second or less off loading screens.
But they are the same price as 2.5" SATA drives, so why not grab the faster one?

Those rared read/write are only for sequential performance. Mean only things like large file transfer will benefit, gaming uses Random r/w, which is slightly faster than SATA. Overall not that much of a difference, half a second off loading screens, at best.

I don't think it's overkill, I don't think it's a waste of money.
Just make sure you have enough storage and go for the one you like the most.
They both will do a fine job, just what appeals more, more (fast) space, or (slightly) faster and less space.

Seems to me the Intel one is all-around the right pick then. Had I not discovered it, I would've gone with Western Digital in a heartbeat. Maybe I still will, but I'm waiting for other comments in the meantime to see if other people have different opinions.

[Kaihekoa]

NVME is only going to marginally reduce load times relative to a SATA SSD, but it can't hurt to have a faster drive than you might need for $15 more. I have the Intel 2TB 660p as my game SSD, but there is a newer version, Intel 665p that should be the same price.

[SoldierScar]

Intel 660p is a very good bang for buck ssd, i have it, but it's meant more for mass storage like games for example, it uses QLC cells, which means it has lower lifespan and when you move very big files after a while it lowers transfer speed to hdd speeds, so it's a good drive just make sure you don't move hundreds of gb on it daily.

[_I_]

since the sata and nvme ssds are about the same price there is really no reason not to go with the nvme drive

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Messaggio originale di Kaihekoa:

NVME is only going to marginally reduce load times relative to a SATA SSD, but it can't hurt to have a faster drive than you might need for $15 more. I have the Intel 2TB 660p as my game SSD, but there is a newer version, Intel 665p that should be the same price.

Unfortunately, I don't have the newer version available in my country, but the 660p will suffice, I'm sure. So since you literally use it for the same purpose I intent on using it, how do you like it?

Messaggio originale di SoldierScar:

Intel 660p is a very good bang for buck ssd, i have it, but it's meant more for mass storage like games for example, it uses QLC cells, which means it has lower lifespan and when you move very big files after a while it lowers transfer speed to hdd speeds, so it's a good drive just make sure you don't move hundreds of gb on it daily.

Should I be worried about the lower/short lifespan? My plan is to simply install all my games on it and once I'm done with the games, then I'm done. I have no plans to move any files besides eventually deleting them (meaning, uninstalling games).

That being said, how does it compare to the rather standard SSD from Western Digital, if quality is something to consider despite that model's standard read/write?

Messaggio originale di _I_:

since the sata and nvme ssds are about the same price there is really no reason not to go with the nvme drive

Yeah, sounds like the smartest purchase.

[Kaihekoa]

It works well for my needs, loads games very quickly,, and has a good warranty. The lower write durability for QLC is not a concern for 99.99% of users. By the time you are anywhere close to the max TBW durability rating, you will likely want to upgrade the drive anyway. I have a ton of games and have gone through 2 system reinstallations since I bought the drive a year ago, and with all that I have written 6.4 TB total, while the warranty covers 400 TBW. At this rate of writes, it will take 62 years (400TBW divided by rate of 6.4 TBW/year) before I reach the rated max durability.

[SoldierScar]

Well, it has 400tbw endurance rating, so you don't have to worry, it's still plenty and will easiely last 5+ years, the intel one will be slower, it's not nvme, and has endurance rating of 500tbw..get 660p it's a better deal. I wouldn't get non nvme ssd these days even tho not much difference in gaming.

[Autumn_]

You've never worried about SATA drives write endurance right? Why should this be different?

And 400TBW is a baseline, it'll likely surpass that.

If you check your current SSD I bet you haven't even written 1/20th of the drives writes.
I've owned my Sandisk Ultra II for like 6-7 years now, lasted me through 2 builds, several windows installs, constant game download/installs (even being used while COMPLETLEY full for months), and has my pagefile on it.
I have about 40TBW to it, litterally nothing.

Don't worry about drive life unless you're using it as an editing drive or the sorts, even then it'll last a while.

You would have to write hundreds of GBs a day for years for you to see the death of it from writes.
(220GB a day for 5 years, or 100GB a day for 10 years, for the 660p. Are you really going to install GTA5 every day for 10 years? Lmao)

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Messaggio originale di SoldierScar:

Well, it has 400tbw endurance rating, so you don't have to worry, it's still plenty and will easiely last 5+ years, the intel one will be slower, it's not nvme, and has endurance rating of 500tbw..get 660p it's a better deal. I wouldn't get non nvme ssd these days even tho not much difference in gaming.

Intel it is, then. Thank you very much!

Messaggio originale di Autumn_:

You've never worried about SATA drives write endurance right? Why should this be different?

And 400TBW is a baseline, it'll likely surpass that.

If you check your current SSD I bet you haven't even written 1/20th of the drives writes.
I've owned my Sandisk Ultra II for like 6-7 years now, lasted me through 2 builds, several windows installs, constant game download/installs (even being used while COMPLETLEY full for months), and has my pagefile on it.
I have about 40TBW to it, litterally nothing.

Don't worry about drive life unless you're using it as an editing drive or the sorts, even then it'll last a while.

You would have to write hundreds of GBs a day for years for you to see the death of it from writes.
(220GB a day for 5 years, or 100GB a day for 10 years, for the 660p. Are you really going to install GTA5 every day for 10 years? Lmao)

I don't even remember when the lifespan of an SSD was brought up, so I'm not sure myself why I have to worry about it

Overall, you've got a point. I don't plan to play a game, especially something that weighs above 100 GB, just so I'd reinstall it again, when I'm a pretty satisfied gamer if I just play the damn thing once.

Appreciate your input! I'm gonna go get the Intel now.

[nullable]

Messaggio originale di Jinn-Gon Qui:

I don't even remember when the lifespan of an SSD was brought up, so I'm not sure myself why I have to worry about it :DMCJester1:

It's a value that's advertised with SSDs. And consumer logic ends up going something lie, "They wouldn't mention it if it didn't matter, so it must matter a lot even though I never care before this minute. And I don't want to buy a bad drive with not enough TBWs now that I know it's something I should care a lot about."

Messaggio originale di Jinn-Gon Qui:

Overall, you've got a point. I don't plan to play a game, especially something that weighs above 100 GB, just so I'd reinstall it again, when I'm a pretty satisfied gamer if I just play the damn thing once.

Appreciate your input! I'm gonna go get the Intel now.

A bit of math would make you feel better and maybe stop whatever mental gymnastics you're still engaging in.

10 (years) * 365.25 = 3,652 days, 400TB ~= 409,600 GB.

409,600 / 3,652 = 112.16GB

So assuming your drive would wear out right at 400TBW (which it won't) you could write about 112GB a day every day, without fail for ten years and just manage it. Chances are that's nothing close to your uses case. And I can tell you having run several SSDs for years now that the best I'm doing is 30-40TBW on my oldest drives. Keeping in mind I've been aware of this math for like ten years and have taken zero care to worry over disk usage/disk writes on SSDs.

You don't need to tell yourself you're not gonna play games above 100GB, or that you're only going to install them/play them once. You don't have to worry about it at all. It's just storage, you're free to use it however you need to or see fit.

[End0fDayz]

I've used Samsung EVO and PRO SSDs and now M.2s. Honestly I cannot tell a bit of difference between them. You can pull out some math, but in the real world there is no noticeable difference.

[Autumn_]

Messaggio originale di End0fDayz:

I've used Samsung EVO and PRO SSDs and now M.2s. Honestly I cannot tell a bit of difference between them. You can pull out some math, but in the real world there is no noticeable difference.

M.2 is a form factor.
If you get an M.2 SATA drive, and a 2.5" SATA SSD, you're going to see the same performance, because they are the same thing.

You should specify drive type, and not a form factor.

That's like me saying 'yeah my motherboard is ATX, I can't see a performance difference.'
It's just nonsense, and is pointless to say.

[SeriousCCIE]

For some reason I think at this point of the conversation, your facts, while correct, are not going to sway the discussion any.