安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
The only caching issues I have read about are from a year ago and I would think by now its resolved but WD drives are outperforming samsung in the pcie 4 arena.
Loading off a SATA SSD is just as fast
if using it for transcoding videos or heavy disk loads the pci-e 4.0+ drives will show improvement over slower ones
Even a sata 550mb/s ssd is enough for my taste.
But i run a ryzen 3600 can't take advantage of such fast storage anyways
I have not seen any firmware updates for the 980 Pros either--nor even drivers specific to them -- one can force using, say, the 970 or 960 drivers and it'll work, but not provide any performance differences. Not that I can tell. I did a quick search for the firmware update you spoke of, and my year old drives came with that out of the box. (I never upgraded the 980s and have never used the Samsung Magician software; I have to create a bootable ISO to update my Samsung hardware firmware)
That said: They work well. None are in use as my boot drive... but I do have a steam library on them and it works pretty well.
All the benchmarks I did have not degraded in any way and they use less power overall than my previous 960 Pros did over regular usage--not sure if that is a concern to you, but it helps in a few ways, not to mention keeping the NVMe drives themselves cooler over time.
One caveat is that I have put aluminum heatsinks onto them. Out of habit maybe from years of overheating PCs, but it also could be that by having a means to shed heat via the nvme heatsinks, that may have also prevented any performance throttling.
Typical performance might not make any daily regular dull and boring differences with a heatsink, but people tend to report peformance issues when trying to generate performance and use a performace stressor to measure things--and that would in turn impact the performance if there's no method to reduce the heat if heat build-up is affecting performance via throttling or whatever.
Also people tend to do stress testing after experiencing some issue... after the machine has been on for long enough to make them wonder about the performance (and thus--generate heat)e--as opposed to "I just installed this and the electrical ozone smell is still fresh! Lets run performance benchmarks despite the PC not having been on for 5 minutes yet! wooo lookatme benchmarks!" etc.
You will find the Samsung comes with a Data Migration tool, making cloning the Operating System and boot across easier. It will just shutdown after the clone, you remove the old drive and place the new drive in it's spot before the next boot to keep the C:\ and new booting process upon that instead.
ps: Samsung's firmware 3B2QGXA7 appears to fix the SLC caching/write speed issue. I didn't even need to update to it, it was already on mine when purchased and I have not had that issue. They have already applied it to the newer production.
And if you only install an OS on the drive you can go smaller. You will still benefit from the IOPS for anything the OS does.
You could still install your latest fav game(s) upon it and use Win 11 Direct Storage with it. Coupled with a high-end graphics card.
It's the reason I would consider PCI-e 4.0 M.2 NVMe for Operating System and Boot. Not that it has to be your boot, but doesn't hurt if you have some space available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-P0ZISKCGo
Also, depending on the apps you use upon it too.
Isn't it best to install your OS on the fastest drive you have? You say that NVMe is a waste for a boot drive, but if you have an NVMe and SATA SSD, wouldn't you want to install the OS on the faster NVMe drive?
would involve huge game files or compressed so the gpu could read and decompress them directly to its vram
and the nvme drive is still not connected directly to the gpu, all the lanes for both go to the cpu
the best that could be done is just letting the cpu transfer data and not decompress or change it
and if you have drive compression enabled, it would completely negate direct storage ability since the gpu would not be able to read the files without the cpu decompressing
or until gpus have large storage (1t+) directly on them, that a games or game files can be installed directly on (to install/copy whats needed on the gpu at the games install or first run)
Direct Storage is based upon xBox console technology, which already works well.
The data can stay compressed till it reaches the GPU, rather than being decoded by the CPU then having the decompressed version sent over to the GPU. So it saves on bandwidth.
As for performance, you might not notice much, unless using ultra resolution textures like with 4K. However, it's more to do with a loading time trick. Future games can be coded in a way to work with it, that won't need loading screens anymore between levels, etc. It can load on the fly. The fastest the SSD can transfer that, the smoother the rate.
I honestly wouldn't say it's much now, but rather more for future proofing later generation gaming that actually make the most of it.
The short answer is yes.
The long answer is because of diminishing returns a user won't notice much benefit from the additional speed/bandwidth an NVMe offers when it comes purely to booting/running the OS. The OS itself simply isn't using near enough IO or bandwidth to make using the NVMe a benefit over a SATA SSD.
I mean I have my OS installed on my fastest NVMe drive on my gaming machine. It seems like the "right" thing to do. But I know I could install the OS on one of my slower SATA SSD's and it would be the same experience.
I think for most users it comes down to, "what else am I going to do with the NVMe"? And there's some little voice that says you don't want to put the OS on the slowest drive, do you? Never mind if all the drives are more than fast enough to provide a great user experience... (IE a NVMe and a SATA SSD)
So for my money it's 90% human hangups rather than purely rational or demonstrable optimizations.
(or even if the game/os were installed in a vm)
if the gpu had its own direct storage drive, or m.2 nvme slot, then it could be useful as it would be able to store data as it needs, completely remove the mobo/cpu/drive etc out of its data loop next time it needs that data
Failure to include one at this opportunity will simply result in making an additional purchase further down which will in effect make it cost twice as much.