Zotac Gaming GTX 1650 Super review
Radeon Adrenalin 2020 Edition Driver Overview
Guru3D Winter 2019 PC Buyer Guide
Corsair QL120 and QL140 RGB fan review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
Corsair Void RGB Elite Wireless Headset review
Team Group PD400 Portable SSD review
AMD Athlon 3000G review
Team Group T-Force Delta Max 1 TB SSD review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - November 2019
Samsung lowers prices for 970 EVO and PRO SSD considerably
If you read our reviews on the new m2 970 EVO and 970 PRO SSD series, you will have noticed I mentioned in both reviews that I find pricing too high, really high even. Good news, Samsung has lowered its prices, at least in USD.
Both the 970 EVO and PRO SSDs (M2) are now listing lower in price as Anandtech spotted, Samsung's 970 EVO does (prices in USD):
Samsung 970 EVO (review here)
- $109.99 for the 250 GB model = 44 cents per GB
- $199 for 500 GB = 40 cents per GB
- $399 for its 1 TB = 40 cents per GB
- $799 for 2 TB = 40 cents per GB
Samsung 970 PRO (review here)
The 970 PRO I was complaining about the most, these now also are a notch cheaper, albeit I should not use the word cheap here.
- $249.99 for the 512 GB = 49 cents per GB
- $499.99 for 1024GB = 49 cents per GB
Depending on how you look at prices, that is up to roughly 25% less for the EVO series, and anything from 5 to 13% on the PRO models. We'll have to wait and see how this pans out in the EU and Asia pricing wise though. Both models start selling and will be available in good volume, starting today.
Samsung Electronics PRO Endurance Memory Card - 05/04/2018 07:16 AM
Samsung introduced the Samsung PRO Endurance microSDHC/microSDXCcard, which offers read speeds of up to 100 MB/s and provides FHD recording and 4K support via write speeds of up to 30 MB/s....
Samsung Debuts 128 GB and 256 GB Variants of Galaxy S9 and S9+ - 05/01/2018 06:59 AM
Samsung today said U.S. consumers will soon be able to buy the Galaxy S9 and S9+ with more internal storage. Beginning May 1, the 128 GB and 256 GB versions of both phones will be available for preord...
Review: Samsung 970 PRO M.2 NVMe SSD (512GB) - 04/27/2018 12:54 PM
We review the Samsung 970 PRO M2 SSD, the new SSD offers faster performance and increased TBW values compared to the 960 series. The new M.2 Pro units will be the most popular ones for the professiona...
Samsung Begins Mass Production of 10nm-class 16Gb LPDDR4X DRAM for Automobiles - 04/25/2018 06:57 AM
Samsung announced that it has begun mass producing 10-nanometer (nm)-class 16-gigabit (Gb) LPDDR4X DRAM for automobiles. The latest LPDDR4X features high performance and energy efficiency while signif...
Review: Samsung 970 EVO M.2 500GB m.2.SSD - 04/24/2018 05:38 PM
Samsung today releases the new 970 EVO and PRO models M.2. SSDs, these offer even faster perf than the 960 series and come with increased TBW values as well. The new M.2 EVO units will be the most pop...
EL1TE
Senior Member
Posts: 416
Joined: 2007-11-18
Senior Member
Posts: 416
Joined: 2007-11-18
#5544553 Posted on: 05/07/2018 04:20 PM
1TB SSD still expensive these days, and as a gamer i still see barely any improvement in load times versus a standard SATA SSD like the 850 series.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/samsung-970-pro-m-2-512gb-nvme-ssd-review,12.html
If i was to buy a new SSD for gaming i'd still go with a 1TB SATA like the 850 EVO or MX500.
1TB SSD still expensive these days, and as a gamer i still see barely any improvement in load times versus a standard SATA SSD like the 850 series.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/samsung-970-pro-m-2-512gb-nvme-ssd-review,12.html
If i was to buy a new SSD for gaming i'd still go with a 1TB SATA like the 850 EVO or MX500.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9766
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9766
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5544558 Posted on: 05/07/2018 04:54 PM
1TB SSD still expensive these days, and as a gamer i still see barely any improvement in load times versus a standard SATA SSD like the 850 series.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/samsung-970-pro-m-2-512gb-nvme-ssd-review,12.html
If i was to buy a new SSD for gaming i'd still go with a 1TB SATA like the 850 EVO or MX500.
I am eyeing M.2. With that in mind, Cheapest 500GB SATA3 SSD cost tiny bit more than cheapest M.2 500GB SSD with And they perform about same. Apparently that would be waste of bandwidth M.2 slot offers.
So, cheapest good upgrade in speed is Kingston A1000 w/ 1500/900MBps r/w costing 27% more than that cheapest 500GB 2.5'' SATA3 SSD. That's very reasonable.
And for that I think that in my situation:
128GB SSD for OS
240GB SSD for Games
500GB HDD for Games where loading speed is not needed
500GB HDD for Projects / Data
...
Getting 500GB M.2 SSD with at least 3 times higher read speeds with only 27% price premium is very good investment for cases where speed may be important for quality of life.
Same goes for 1TB M.2 where 1500/1000MBps r/w comes with only 29% premium over cheapest SATA3 1TB SSD.
(Fun part here is that while mentioned MX500 costs reasonably less than faster M.2... EVO 850/860 cost about same without delivering speed.)
1TB SSD still expensive these days, and as a gamer i still see barely any improvement in load times versus a standard SATA SSD like the 850 series.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/samsung-970-pro-m-2-512gb-nvme-ssd-review,12.html
If i was to buy a new SSD for gaming i'd still go with a 1TB SATA like the 850 EVO or MX500.
I am eyeing M.2. With that in mind, Cheapest 500GB SATA3 SSD cost tiny bit more than cheapest M.2 500GB SSD with And they perform about same. Apparently that would be waste of bandwidth M.2 slot offers.
So, cheapest good upgrade in speed is Kingston A1000 w/ 1500/900MBps r/w costing 27% more than that cheapest 500GB 2.5'' SATA3 SSD. That's very reasonable.
And for that I think that in my situation:
128GB SSD for OS
240GB SSD for Games
500GB HDD for Games where loading speed is not needed
500GB HDD for Projects / Data
...
Getting 500GB M.2 SSD with at least 3 times higher read speeds with only 27% price premium is very good investment for cases where speed may be important for quality of life.
Same goes for 1TB M.2 where 1500/1000MBps r/w comes with only 29% premium over cheapest SATA3 1TB SSD.
(Fun part here is that while mentioned MX500 costs reasonably less than faster M.2... EVO 850/860 cost about same without delivering speed.)
heffeque
Senior Member
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2003-03-03
Senior Member
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2003-03-03
#5544580 Posted on: 05/07/2018 07:00 PM
Getting 500GB M.2 SSD with at least 3 times higher read speeds with only 27% price premium is very good investment for cases where speed may be important for quality of life.
Same goes for 1TB M.2 where 1500/1000MBps r/w comes with only 29% premium over cheapest SATA3 1TB SSD.
(Fun part here is that while mentioned MX500 costs reasonably less than faster M.2... EVO 850/860 cost about same without delivering speed.)
I'd compare random read/write speeds, definitely not sequential speeds. There's barely no workload that actually uses sustained sequential reads XOR sustained sequential writes.
Getting 500GB M.2 SSD with at least 3 times higher read speeds with only 27% price premium is very good investment for cases where speed may be important for quality of life.
Same goes for 1TB M.2 where 1500/1000MBps r/w comes with only 29% premium over cheapest SATA3 1TB SSD.
(Fun part here is that while mentioned MX500 costs reasonably less than faster M.2... EVO 850/860 cost about same without delivering speed.)
I'd compare random read/write speeds, definitely not sequential speeds. There's barely no workload that actually uses sustained sequential reads XOR sustained sequential writes.
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 14720
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 14720
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5544582 Posted on: 05/07/2018 07:17 PM
Jesus I'm still rocking an 850 EVO, not even M2! I need to change that quickly.
Jesus I'm still rocking an 850 EVO, not even M2! I need to change that quickly.
Humanoid_1
Senior Member
Posts: 947
Joined: 2009-10-14
Senior Member
Posts: 947
Joined: 2009-10-14
#5544585 Posted on: 05/07/2018 07:59 PM
A while back I saw some guy over at oc.net forums who did a big test of SSD performance with a focus also on game load times.
Ranging from a control mech HDD, SATA SSDs and M.2 also, sad thing was that games showed almost Zero load time improvement going from SATA SSD to a fast M.2. Apparently something to do with the way they are all made is holding them back massively.
I'm still interested in one for non-gaming purposes, but I really wanted it for games and sad to say it is totally not worth it for them
A while back I saw some guy over at oc.net forums who did a big test of SSD performance with a focus also on game load times.
Ranging from a control mech HDD, SATA SSDs and M.2 also, sad thing was that games showed almost Zero load time improvement going from SATA SSD to a fast M.2. Apparently something to do with the way they are all made is holding them back massively.
I'm still interested in one for non-gaming purposes, but I really wanted it for games and sad to say it is totally not worth it for them
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5544586 Posted on: 05/07/2018 08:07 PM
What are you saying? Samsung lowered the prices becaus
Do you think this was caused by lowering memory prices, poor demand for the old pricing model, or both?
What are you saying? Samsung lowered the prices becaus
e Hilbert told them the prices are too high. Samsung just did what they were told to do. How would they dare to disobey?
jdc2389
Senior Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 2012-04-26
Senior Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 2012-04-26
#5544589 Posted on: 05/07/2018 08:42 PM
I honestly think they lowered prices because they were seeing too much competition this time around from Western Digital's new Black g2 m.2 which offered really good perf and was a bit cheaper too. I think there were a few alternatives that were competing as well.
What are you saying? Samsung lowered the prices becaus
e Hilbert told them the prices are too high. Samsung just did what they were told to do. How would they dare to disobey?
I honestly think they lowered prices because they were seeing too much competition this time around from Western Digital's new Black g2 m.2 which offered really good perf and was a bit cheaper too. I think there were a few alternatives that were competing as well.
Hapatingjaky
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 2010-09-14
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 2010-09-14
#5544601 Posted on: 05/07/2018 09:17 PM
These still are not available in Canada as they do not appear on Newegg.ca, Amazon.ca and MemoryExpress' site....
These still are not available in Canada as they do not appear on Newegg.ca, Amazon.ca and MemoryExpress' site....
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9766
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9766
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5544602 Posted on: 05/07/2018 09:17 PM
A while back I saw some guy over at oc.net forums who did a big test of SSD performance with a focus also on game load times.
Ranging from a control mech HDD, SATA SSDs and M.2 also, sad thing was that games showed almost Zero load time improvement going from SATA SSD to a fast M.2. Apparently something to do with the way they are all made is holding them back massively.
I'm still interested in one for non-gaming purposes, but I really wanted it for games and sad to say it is totally not worth it for them
That's likely effect of compressed data files. Heavier compression, higher CPU bottleneck vs storage bottleneck.
I think that today, in time where games are 40GB+ and people still buy them, developers should move from heavy compression favoring HDD and take lighter compression approach favoring SSDs. Then M.2 will see some bigger benefit.
Then there is single to multiple data files access. Many games use single bigger data file and single file handler thread. Very good for HDD as read is then more sequential. On other hand SSD can't care less and queuing multiple files for simultaneous access brings benefits if CPU can handle loaded data.
Coding something to have maximum benefit from M.2 reading 3GB/s would kill HDD performance. So middle of the road is best, or having 3 code paths which would handle loading based on 'mini' IOPs+read speed benchmark.
A while back I saw some guy over at oc.net forums who did a big test of SSD performance with a focus also on game load times.
Ranging from a control mech HDD, SATA SSDs and M.2 also, sad thing was that games showed almost Zero load time improvement going from SATA SSD to a fast M.2. Apparently something to do with the way they are all made is holding them back massively.
I'm still interested in one for non-gaming purposes, but I really wanted it for games and sad to say it is totally not worth it for them
That's likely effect of compressed data files. Heavier compression, higher CPU bottleneck vs storage bottleneck.
I think that today, in time where games are 40GB+ and people still buy them, developers should move from heavy compression favoring HDD and take lighter compression approach favoring SSDs. Then M.2 will see some bigger benefit.
Then there is single to multiple data files access. Many games use single bigger data file and single file handler thread. Very good for HDD as read is then more sequential. On other hand SSD can't care less and queuing multiple files for simultaneous access brings benefits if CPU can handle loaded data.
Coding something to have maximum benefit from M.2 reading 3GB/s would kill HDD performance. So middle of the road is best, or having 3 code paths which would handle loading based on 'mini' IOPs+read speed benchmark.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5544614 Posted on: 05/07/2018 11:00 PM
That's likely effect of compressed data files. Heavier compression, higher CPU bottleneck vs storage bottleneck.
I think that today, in time where games are 40GB+ and people still buy them, developers should move from heavy compression favoring HDD and take lighter compression approach favoring SSDs. Then M.2 will see some bigger benefit.
Then there is single to multiple data files access. Many games use single bigger data file and single file handler thread. Very good for HDD as read is then more sequential. On other hand SSD can't care less and queuing multiple files for simultaneous access brings benefits if CPU can handle loaded data.
Coding something to have maximum benefit from M.2 reading 3GB/s would kill HDD performance. So middle of the road is best, or having 3 code paths which would handle loading based on 'mini' IOPs+read speed benchmark.
If a game takes 50GB of space, it's not strongly compressed. Lighter compression doesn't really favour SSDs because SSDs are small. Traditional HDDs are many times larger for the same price. Studios began to favour light compression and obscene disk space requirements when HDDs became large and affordable. Then came the small SSDs, but the studios apparently never noticed.
That's likely effect of compressed data files. Heavier compression, higher CPU bottleneck vs storage bottleneck.
I think that today, in time where games are 40GB+ and people still buy them, developers should move from heavy compression favoring HDD and take lighter compression approach favoring SSDs. Then M.2 will see some bigger benefit.
Then there is single to multiple data files access. Many games use single bigger data file and single file handler thread. Very good for HDD as read is then more sequential. On other hand SSD can't care less and queuing multiple files for simultaneous access brings benefits if CPU can handle loaded data.
Coding something to have maximum benefit from M.2 reading 3GB/s would kill HDD performance. So middle of the road is best, or having 3 code paths which would handle loading based on 'mini' IOPs+read speed benchmark.
If a game takes 50GB of space, it's not strongly compressed. Lighter compression doesn't really favour SSDs because SSDs are small. Traditional HDDs are many times larger for the same price. Studios began to favour light compression and obscene disk space requirements when HDDs became large and affordable. Then came the small SSDs, but the studios apparently never noticed.
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11360
Joined: 2010-12-27
Senior Member
Posts: 11360
Joined: 2010-12-27
#5544617 Posted on: 05/07/2018 11:36 PM
The issue is not that.
It's due to several reasons.
Most game files are packaged into certain formats that are composed of many small files.
Since most assets aren't large contiguous files, there is not much benefit from M.2.
M.2 is much faster on sequential/write IOs but not much faster if at all on small file IOs, i.e. 4k and less.
A lot of those budget NVMe M.2s are actually slower in small IOs and have poorer read/write latency which is why they can be slower than a fast regular SATA drive such as an 850/60 PRO/evo.
Only the top M.2s are really good in smaller IOs, i.e new 970 Pro/evo can do >70mb/s 4k random and top SSDs are around 40-50 max.
Those will do better than most SSDs, not the budget M.2s.
That's likely effect of compressed data files. Heavier compression, higher CPU bottleneck vs storage bottleneck.
The issue is not that.
It's due to several reasons.
Most game files are packaged into certain formats that are composed of many small files.
Since most assets aren't large contiguous files, there is not much benefit from M.2.
M.2 is much faster on sequential/write IOs but not much faster if at all on small file IOs, i.e. 4k and less.
A lot of those budget NVMe M.2s are actually slower in small IOs and have poorer read/write latency which is why they can be slower than a fast regular SATA drive such as an 850/60 PRO/evo.
Only the top M.2s are really good in smaller IOs, i.e new 970 Pro/evo can do >70mb/s 4k random and top SSDs are around 40-50 max.
Those will do better than most SSDs, not the budget M.2s.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 16441
Joined: 2012-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 16441
Joined: 2012-05-18
#5544622 Posted on: 05/08/2018 01:02 AM
I am eyeing M.2. With that in mind, Cheapest 500GB SATA3 SSD cost tiny bit more than cheapest M.2 500GB SSD with And they perform about same. Apparently that would be waste of bandwidth M.2 slot offers.
So, cheapest good upgrade in speed is Kingston A1000 w/ 1500/900MBps r/w costing 27% more than that cheapest 500GB 2.5'' SATA3 SSD. That's very reasonable.
And for that I think that in my situation:
128GB SSD for OS
240GB SSD for Games
500GB HDD for Games where loading speed is not needed
500GB HDD for Projects / Data
...
Getting 500GB M.2 SSD with at least 3 times higher read speeds with only 27% price premium is very good investment for cases where speed may be important for quality of life.
Same goes for 1TB M.2 where 1500/1000MBps r/w comes with only 29% premium over cheapest SATA3 1TB SSD.
(Fun part here is that while mentioned MX500 costs reasonably less than faster M.2... EVO 850/860 cost about same without delivering speed.)
This one is interesting too, very high capabilities for just 60€ more vs that Kingston a1000
https://www.integralmemory.com/product/ultimapro-x-m2-2280-pcie-nvme-ssd
or this, even better
https://geizhals.eu/sandisk-extreme-pro-m-2-nvme-3d-ssd-500gb-sdssdxpm2-500g-g25-a1798512.html?hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=eu&hloc=pl&hloc=uk
or 1TB, somewhat cheap for 340€ with very high spec
https://geizhals.eu/samsung-ssd-pm981-1tb-mzvlb1t0halr-00000-a1776842.html?hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=eu&hloc=pl&hloc=uk
I modded my Z87 to support nvme drives (injected driver into uefi), will test something too soon,.
I am eyeing M.2. With that in mind, Cheapest 500GB SATA3 SSD cost tiny bit more than cheapest M.2 500GB SSD with And they perform about same. Apparently that would be waste of bandwidth M.2 slot offers.
So, cheapest good upgrade in speed is Kingston A1000 w/ 1500/900MBps r/w costing 27% more than that cheapest 500GB 2.5'' SATA3 SSD. That's very reasonable.
And for that I think that in my situation:
128GB SSD for OS
240GB SSD for Games
500GB HDD for Games where loading speed is not needed
500GB HDD for Projects / Data
...
Getting 500GB M.2 SSD with at least 3 times higher read speeds with only 27% price premium is very good investment for cases where speed may be important for quality of life.
Same goes for 1TB M.2 where 1500/1000MBps r/w comes with only 29% premium over cheapest SATA3 1TB SSD.
(Fun part here is that while mentioned MX500 costs reasonably less than faster M.2... EVO 850/860 cost about same without delivering speed.)
This one is interesting too, very high capabilities for just 60€ more vs that Kingston a1000
https://www.integralmemory.com/product/ultimapro-x-m2-2280-pcie-nvme-ssd
or this, even better
https://geizhals.eu/sandisk-extreme-pro-m-2-nvme-3d-ssd-500gb-sdssdxpm2-500g-g25-a1798512.html?hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=eu&hloc=pl&hloc=uk
or 1TB, somewhat cheap for 340€ with very high spec
https://geizhals.eu/samsung-ssd-pm981-1tb-mzvlb1t0halr-00000-a1776842.html?hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=eu&hloc=pl&hloc=uk
I modded my Z87 to support nvme drives (injected driver into uefi), will test something too soon,.
The Goose
Senior Member
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2008-02-25
Senior Member
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2008-02-25
#5544625 Posted on: 05/08/2018 01:17 AM
A while back I saw some guy over at oc.net forums who did a big test of SSD performance with a focus also on game load times.
Ranging from a control mech HDD, SATA SSDs and M.2 also, sad thing was that games showed almost Zero load time improvement going from SATA SSD to a fast M.2. Apparently something to do with the way they are all made is holding them back massively.
I'm still interested in one for non-gaming purposes, but I really wanted it for games and sad to say it is totally not worth it for them
I have a Samsung 960pro 512gb with my most used games on including Ets2+Promods and rusmap mods, Farcry5, GR Wildlands and SGW3, the loading time difference between my 960pro and my Sandisk UltraII ssd is like comparing night and day, Ets2+Promods and rusmap mods can take 2-3 mins on my Sandisk but on my 960pro....less than a minute.
A while back I saw some guy over at oc.net forums who did a big test of SSD performance with a focus also on game load times.
Ranging from a control mech HDD, SATA SSDs and M.2 also, sad thing was that games showed almost Zero load time improvement going from SATA SSD to a fast M.2. Apparently something to do with the way they are all made is holding them back massively.
I'm still interested in one for non-gaming purposes, but I really wanted it for games and sad to say it is totally not worth it for them
I have a Samsung 960pro 512gb with my most used games on including Ets2+Promods and rusmap mods, Farcry5, GR Wildlands and SGW3, the loading time difference between my 960pro and my Sandisk UltraII ssd is like comparing night and day, Ets2+Promods and rusmap mods can take 2-3 mins on my Sandisk but on my 960pro....less than a minute.
Astyanax
Senior Member
Posts: 3919
Joined: 2018-03-21
Senior Member
Posts: 3919
Joined: 2018-03-21
#5544648 Posted on: 05/08/2018 04:10 AM
The issue is not that.
It's due to several reasons.
Most game files are packaged into certain formats that are composed of many small files.
Since most assets aren't large contiguous files, there is not much benefit from M.2.
M.2 is much faster on sequential/write IOs but not much faster if at all on small file IOs, i.e. 4k and less.
A lot of those budget NVMe M.2s are actually slower in small IOs and have poorer read/write latency which is why they can be slower than a fast regular SATA drive such as an 850/60 PRO/evo.
Only the top M.2s are really good in smaller IOs, i.e new 970 Pro/evo can do >70mb/s 4k random and top SSDs are around 40-50 max.
Those will do better than most SSDs, not the budget M.2s.
Bingo
It's quite difficult to implement a multithreaded resource loader safely.
The issue is not that.
It's due to several reasons.
Most game files are packaged into certain formats that are composed of many small files.
Since most assets aren't large contiguous files, there is not much benefit from M.2.
M.2 is much faster on sequential/write IOs but not much faster if at all on small file IOs, i.e. 4k and less.
A lot of those budget NVMe M.2s are actually slower in small IOs and have poorer read/write latency which is why they can be slower than a fast regular SATA drive such as an 850/60 PRO/evo.
Only the top M.2s are really good in smaller IOs, i.e new 970 Pro/evo can do >70mb/s 4k random and top SSDs are around 40-50 max.
Those will do better than most SSDs, not the budget M.2s.
Bingo
It's quite difficult to implement a multithreaded resource loader safely.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 2012-12-25
Lowering prices is always a good thing (for us consumers, anyway)! Especially on the pricier NVMe SSDs, which trend at roughly 2x the price of the SATA variety.
Do you think this was caused by lowering memory prices, poor demand for the old pricing model, or both?