Samsung lowers prices for 970 EVO and PRO SSD considerably

#5544546 Posted on: 05/07/2018 04:53 PM

---

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?

#5544553 Posted on: 05/07/2018 05:20 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.

#5544558 Posted on: 05/07/2018 05:54 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.)

#5544580 Posted on: 05/07/2018 08:00 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.

#5544582 Posted on: 05/07/2018 08:17 PM

---

Jesus I'm still rocking an 850 EVO, not even M2! I need to change that quickly.

#5544585 Posted on: 05/07/2018 08:59 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

#5544586 Posted on: 05/07/2018 09:07 PM

---

What are you saying? Samsung lowered the prices becaus

#5544589 Posted on: 05/07/2018 09:42 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.

#5544600 Posted on: 05/07/2018 10:15 PM

---

Don't do it. I've tried loading time on games like Fallout 4 with a 5TB HDD vs SSD vs raid SSD vs 950 pro. The best loading times were the 950 pro but compared to SSD and the raid 0 SSD it was only a few seconds. The 5TB drive was only about 5 to 10 seconds max slower vs 950 pro. Other games it was usually 2 to 5 seconds slower for the HDD vs SSD. If your on a tight budget then go with a $60 Segate 2TB drive or just get a 500gb SSD if your game library is not that big.

#5544601 Posted on: 05/07/2018 10:17 PM

---

These still are not available in Canada as they do not appear on Newegg.ca, Amazon.ca and MemoryExpress' site....

#5544602 Posted on: 05/07/2018 10:17 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.

#5544614 Posted on: 05/08/2018 12:00 AM

---

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.

#5544617 Posted on: 05/08/2018 12:36 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.

#5544622 Posted on: 05/08/2018 02:02 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,.

#5544625 Posted on: 05/08/2018 02:17 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.