ASUS GeForce RTX 3080 Noctua OC review
AMD Ryzen 5 5600 review
PowerColor RX 6650 XT Hellhound White review
FSP Hydro PTM Pro (1200W PSU) review
ASUS ROG Radeon RX 6750 XT STRIX review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Sapphire Radeon RX 6650 XT Nitro+ review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6950 XT Sapphire Nitro+ Pure review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6750 XT Nitro+ review
MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO review
2TB version Samsung 980 Pro with 136 Layer (V-NAND v6) surfaces in webshops
Samsung released its Samsung 980 Pro series in September last year, however only up to 1TB. Now a 2TB version has been spotted in etail.
Samsungs PCIe 4.0 SSDs dubbed the 980 Pro, are on that PCIe Gen 4.0 link, it achieves read speeds of up to 7 GB/s; as mentioned, the connection interface supports PCIe 4.0 x4, and the sequential access speed reaches up to 7,000 MB/s for reading and 5,000 MB/s for writing. IOPS are listed at 4K read/Write 1000k/1000k. The controller used is the Samsung Elpis (S4LV003) that utilizes 8 channels, next to a pSLC cache the unit has 2 GB of LPDDR4 DRAM. NAND is written as TLC and is based on the latest 136 Layer (V-NAND v6).
The new 2Tb version holds SKU code MZ-V8P2T0BW but is not yet listing at Samsung itself. The SSD should have a TBW value of at least 1,200 TB. Prices are indicating the 2TB version to cost anywhere from 400 to 500 EUR.
Mufflore
Senior Member
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2010-05-22
Senior Member
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2010-05-22
#5880889 Posted on: 01/25/2021 04:45 AM
Nah, iv got the 4tb Sabrent (tlc memory) for games only, plan to get another 4tb sabrent for games only (but would like bigger), and iv a 1tb samsung 970 evo nvme for os only, i plan to get a normal sata samsung ssd 4tb just for backup/music pics etc
The price difference to me is so small between good quality 4tb sata and nvme that its better to just pay the small extra for faster nvme since my motherboard supports them fine.
Theres an 8TB for £1200.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sabrent-Rocket-Internal-Performance-SB-RKTQ-2TB/dp/B08957PT2K
I'd wait a little longer.
its not the best performing NVME either (R/W 3300/2900MB/s) but still trounces SATA.
Nah, iv got the 4tb Sabrent (tlc memory) for games only, plan to get another 4tb sabrent for games only (but would like bigger), and iv a 1tb samsung 970 evo nvme for os only, i plan to get a normal sata samsung ssd 4tb just for backup/music pics etc
The price difference to me is so small between good quality 4tb sata and nvme that its better to just pay the small extra for faster nvme since my motherboard supports them fine.
Theres an 8TB for £1200.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sabrent-Rocket-Internal-Performance-SB-RKTQ-2TB/dp/B08957PT2K
I'd wait a little longer.
its not the best performing NVME either (R/W 3300/2900MB/s) but still trounces SATA.
TalentX
Senior Member
Posts: 140
Joined: 2019-04-10
Senior Member
Posts: 140
Joined: 2019-04-10
#5880899 Posted on: 01/25/2021 06:06 AM
Then buy more ssd's and put them in raid-0
This is how I'm getting larger ssd arrays. I don't care about the higher sequential read and write, only the larger space.
Not recommended.
A gaming machine usually isn't build to make use of RAID function.
You will need a proper air flow for drives and either a dedicated RAID controller and/or a dedicated software raid solution. Speaking of which, since gaming pc's usually run Windows, Windows software raid solution isn't very comfortable and complicated to configure at the same time. I advice to use software raid solutions from linux and SAN distributed solutions instead.
I assume that you're making use of the Fake-Raid function provided by the SATA-Controller or the M.2-Controller of your mainboard. This is not the conventional RAID that is used in enterprise solutions and is very unreliable. I wouldn'tadvice to make use of it even for home use. Given the fact that the mainboard controller drains performance from your CPU in order to build the RAID logics, you are also pretty much scrwed if the controller of your mainboard fails, which is likely to happen depending on the load you cause to access your logical RAID drive. In that case you will lose access to your data regardless if you have redudancy or not. Given the fact that mainboard controllers usually are very cheap, they tend to be unreliable and they also don't provide full utilization of RAID level benefits and performance gains from e.g. the stripe method given by RAID 0 or faster read-speeds due to mirrored data given by RAID 1.
Too bad for you, because all ssd's is pretty much raid-0 arrays of nand memory. So if you don't trust Raid-0, you are doomed to use something else than ssd's
Excuse me? That's nonsense. SSDs and NAND memory is and works completely different from RAID, and there are not even similarities comparing both technologies...
The only thing that matches is the sector/bits density from HDDs/SSDs and how they're accessed through RAID controllers.
RAID is a redudant array of independent disks that exists to provide redudancy and enterprise grade gains from combining several physical drives into fewer logical drives while improving performance and mainly adding redudancy depending on RAID levels that are used.
Since RAID 0 has absolutely no redundancy, it functions merely for improving performance with RAID level combinations such as RAID 10 or RAID 50, and logically distributing parity informations in even RAID 5 that originates from RAID 0's stripe method.
RAID 0 alone is garbage, because it increases the chance of losing data when you have more drives that could potentially fail in one logical drive. Just one drive failure is enough to break all your files in there.
RAID 0 exists because its logic is still relevant for the redundancy providing RAID levels.
Then buy more ssd's and put them in raid-0
This is how I'm getting larger ssd arrays. I don't care about the higher sequential read and write, only the larger space.
Not recommended.
A gaming machine usually isn't build to make use of RAID function.
You will need a proper air flow for drives and either a dedicated RAID controller and/or a dedicated software raid solution. Speaking of which, since gaming pc's usually run Windows, Windows software raid solution isn't very comfortable and complicated to configure at the same time. I advice to use software raid solutions from linux and SAN distributed solutions instead.
I assume that you're making use of the Fake-Raid function provided by the SATA-Controller or the M.2-Controller of your mainboard. This is not the conventional RAID that is used in enterprise solutions and is very unreliable. I wouldn'tadvice to make use of it even for home use. Given the fact that the mainboard controller drains performance from your CPU in order to build the RAID logics, you are also pretty much scrwed if the controller of your mainboard fails, which is likely to happen depending on the load you cause to access your logical RAID drive. In that case you will lose access to your data regardless if you have redudancy or not. Given the fact that mainboard controllers usually are very cheap, they tend to be unreliable and they also don't provide full utilization of RAID level benefits and performance gains from e.g. the stripe method given by RAID 0 or faster read-speeds due to mirrored data given by RAID 1.
Too bad for you, because all ssd's is pretty much raid-0 arrays of nand memory. So if you don't trust Raid-0, you are doomed to use something else than ssd's
Excuse me? That's nonsense. SSDs and NAND memory is and works completely different from RAID, and there are not even similarities comparing both technologies...
The only thing that matches is the sector/bits density from HDDs/SSDs and how they're accessed through RAID controllers.
RAID is a redudant array of independent disks that exists to provide redudancy and enterprise grade gains from combining several physical drives into fewer logical drives while improving performance and mainly adding redudancy depending on RAID levels that are used.
Since RAID 0 has absolutely no redundancy, it functions merely for improving performance with RAID level combinations such as RAID 10 or RAID 50, and logically distributing parity informations in even RAID 5 that originates from RAID 0's stripe method.
RAID 0 alone is garbage, because it increases the chance of losing data when you have more drives that could potentially fail in one logical drive. Just one drive failure is enough to break all your files in there.
RAID 0 exists because its logic is still relevant for the redundancy providing RAID levels.
JamesSneed
Senior Member
Posts: 1430
Joined: 2017-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 1430
Joined: 2017-02-14
#5881053 Posted on: 01/25/2021 06:47 PM
It is exactly as I wrote. That fancy game does not exist, yet. And it will take quite a few CPU cores to actually saturate decompression.
Or Direct I/O. Paying just in case is pointless.
I tend to agree considering most of what we enthusiasts do is rate limited by random IO and that has not improved much if at all with these PCIe 4.0 devices. We are still looking at under 100MB/s for que depth 1 4K random IO and in this drives case its around 60 MB/s. This is where Intels Optane really shines hitting 450 MB/s at QD1 4K random io but it never became cheap. I'm sure some people have actual use cases for higher sequential IO but 90+% of use cases would never see a difference between a PCIe 3 or PCIe 4 NVMe drive.
It is exactly as I wrote. That fancy game does not exist, yet. And it will take quite a few CPU cores to actually saturate decompression.
Or Direct I/O. Paying just in case is pointless.
I tend to agree considering most of what we enthusiasts do is rate limited by random IO and that has not improved much if at all with these PCIe 4.0 devices. We are still looking at under 100MB/s for que depth 1 4K random IO and in this drives case its around 60 MB/s. This is where Intels Optane really shines hitting 450 MB/s at QD1 4K random io but it never became cheap. I'm sure some people have actual use cases for higher sequential IO but 90+% of use cases would never see a difference between a PCIe 3 or PCIe 4 NVMe drive.
JOHN30011887
Senior Member
Posts: 188
Joined: 2014-10-26
Senior Member
Posts: 188
Joined: 2014-10-26
#5881054 Posted on: 01/25/2021 06:49 PM
Theres an 8TB for £1200.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sabrent-Rocket-Internal-Performance-SB-RKTQ-2TB/dp/B08957PT2K
I'd wait a little longer.
its not the best performing NVME either (R/W 3300/2900MB/s) but still trounces SATA.
Yeah i saw that one but its qlc memory, im not into that at all, for me its tlc or better
and yeah am in no rush atm, will wait till end of this year most likly to see what happens
Theres an 8TB for £1200.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sabrent-Rocket-Internal-Performance-SB-RKTQ-2TB/dp/B08957PT2K
I'd wait a little longer.
its not the best performing NVME either (R/W 3300/2900MB/s) but still trounces SATA.
Yeah i saw that one but its qlc memory, im not into that at all, for me its tlc or better
and yeah am in no rush atm, will wait till end of this year most likly to see what happens
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 11809
Joined: 2012-07-20
Not with something you do not need for PC to function properly. Especially when you can buy that something moment you need it.
It is not One Slot kind of thing like CPU and now even GPU.