Overpriced , overhyped. Just get the hp ex950 2TB, same performance and features for a fraction of the price.

er557:

Overpriced , overhyped. Just get the hp ex950 2TB, same performance and features for a fraction of the price.

It's more expensive because it has almost double the write endurance/lifespan. If you're doing extememly IO heavy work the 970 Pro(and even the EVO if you want to spend less) has significantly better latency and throughput. Ofc the target market for such a drive is rather small and it makes no sense to buy one if you're just gonna put games on it.

The 2TB 960Pro has 48 Layer MLC-chips, which could be even more reliable than a 64 Layer TLCs. When I bought the drive as bootdrive 9 month ago (over Ebay@1/2 the price - still uninitialized) I wanted sth. that lives long and is big enough to not need a 2nd internal drive. @heise.de they tested the much smaller and slower brother (850Pro 256GB / MLC but SATA) for write endurance - an they were able to write up to 9.1 PB on that drive(!). -> https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/SSD-Langzeittest-beendet-Exitus-bei-9-1-Petabyte-3755009.html It is said that MLCs can be written 10k times per cell, where TLC can only do 1k rewrites. So I'd be interested in a realworld endurance comparison of the biggest 960Pro & 970Pro. And last but not least it'd be interesting in what structuresize the chips are made... especially the 970Pro (2TB)... 'the smaller the structures, the shorter the life' (please correct me if I'm wrong). -> I bought my Crucial C300 (256GB / 32nm MLC) in September 2009 and it still runs perfectly in my old gaming-rig.

Umm I'm hoping for the announcement of availability for the 2 TB Evo Plus seems like the sweet spot. Over this Pro pricing nonsense.

er557:

Overpriced , overhyped. Just get the hp ex950 2TB, same performance and features for a fraction of the price.

You realize that for something to have the same performance.....it has to have...the same...performance....right? In normal tasks i would say normal users wouldn't notice a difference, but that is not the same thing as "same performance"

Honestly what kills it for me isn't just the price difference between MLC and TLC, the former being twice the price is actually somewhat reasonable. It's the price delta between SATA and PCIe that's the real killer though. I'm probably in the minority, as I didn't even notice any huge difference switching from a 5400 RPM HDD to a SATA SSD, but when I upgrade I'm going to want a 2 TB+ drive and SATA is really the only thing that makes financial sense.

Exodite:

Honestly what kills it for me isn't just the price difference between MLC and TLC, the former being twice the price is actually somewhat reasonable. It's the price delta between SATA and PCIe that's the real killer though. I'm probably in the minority, as I didn't even notice any huge difference switching from a 5400 RPM HDD to a SATA SSD, but when I upgrade I'm going to want a 2 TB+ drive and SATA is really the only thing that makes financial sense.

If you upgraded from a 5400rpm drive to a sata ssd and didnt notice much of a difference.....which is astonishing....then m.2 nvme drives are not something you should care about, there are m.2 sata drives as well if you want to keep that form factor.

I so read that GB amount wrongo_O

Aura89:

If you upgraded from a 5400rpm drive to a sata ssd and didnt notice much of a difference.....which is astonishing....then m.2 nvme drives are not something you should care about, there are m.2 sata drives as well if you want to keep that form factor.

*nods* Indeed, my P67-based motherboard obviously don't have a M.2 slot but my next upgrade certainly will. It would be a shame not to utilize it so if M.2 SATA and 2.5" SATA drives are reasonably close in price when I end up building the system that's certainly going to be an option. As for not noticing much difference, yeah I recognize it's weird. I'm probably not that sensitive to loading times I guess, though even measurably they didn't increase as much as some numbers I heard elsewhere. I cold booted in ~40-45 seconds with the HDD and about half that now, though I only do that a couple of times a year so it's hardly an annoyance. I haven't measured application starts but I don't feel the difference, which is the only important metric in the end I guess. I did run a very well optimized system FWIW, I got PerfectDisc pretty early on in my PC-building days and it served me very well. And Windows did get better at caching disk access over time, even with the bad rep Superfetch have gotten. Even so, even assuming I had the best 5400 RPM setup ever, I did feel slightly cheated when the "wow" feeling didn't appear after buying a SSD. Thought not half as cheated as now, when my 500GB unit only manage to hold a handful of modern titles. 🙂 Hence the 2 TB minimum requirement for my next build!

m.2 uses up PCI-E lanes right? If so my Zen2 build will just feature a normal SSD.

TheDeeGee:

m.2 uses up PCI-E lanes right? If so my Zen2 build will just feature a normal SSD.

M.2 NVME uses up PCI-E lanes M.2 SATA does not. Which is used will depend on the specific SSD you get.

@Exodite really? Wow at this point when ever i am on a rig that does not have an ssd ....it frustrates me to oblivion it feels ... sluggish , oh well i guess each one is different but shame you did not feel the wow!

@Venix Thanks! 🙂 Yeah, like I said I guess it's a combination of me having a pretty well-maintained system to start with (and not upgrading to the absolutely fastest SSDs, I've got an 850 EVO) and just not being that sensitive to loading times. For further example of the matter I migrated my setup to use software-encrypted BitLocker and while it's clearly had an impact on drive performance, running synthetic benchmarks, I just don't notice the difference. *shrug* I guess in some ways it's an advantage. 🙂 I apologize for going a bit OT here, as the Pro would probably never be a good fit for me personally but my gripe about SATA vs. PCIe costs is always rather close to the surface I admit. I don't get why there's such a big difference, one would think most controllers handle PCIe natively at this point.

TheDeeGee:

m.2 uses up PCI-E lanes right? If so my Zen2 build will just feature a normal SSD.

Ryzen specifically has 4 PCIe lanes dedicated to one M.2 PCIe SSD, so you can run 16x or 8/8 GPUs, and still use one 4x M.2 SSD without downsides. Ryzen PCIe Setup is basically 16 (GPU) + 4 (SSD) + 4 (Chipset). Intel, on the other hand, only has 16 for GPU, and 4 for chipset (well, DMI connection, which is similar to PCIe). No SSD there. Motherboards with a second M.2 slot typically run it through the chipset, so it doesn't affect the lanes of the GPU etc. And if the rumors are true that X570 has a PCIe4 connection to the CPU, it should have plenty bandwidth for an additional SSD there as well. So in summary, on Ryzen specifically there is no reason to not get at least one M.2 SSD, since the PCIe lanes otherwise go unused. And even a second one will run fine without limiting graphics, although perhaps not quite as fast as the first one since its going through the chipset - but still faster then SATA. Note: Exceptions apply. The ASUS Crosshair VII for example has a dumb design where the second M.2 slot steals lanes from the GPU. Otherwise a nice board, but due to that design flaw entirely unusable for me.

boss as its chinese sites i think the price in chinese yuan the symbol can be 元 or ¥ for japan, if its on japan yen the symbol usually with 円 rather than ¥ based on currency-exchahnge today 8888yuan is around 1320USD which is i think its true enough