Hello, 00:00 Windows Boot (First startup after installation - this is very important) 00:36 Driver Installation 02:06 Game Loading Times 02:47 Benchmark Results
Can you do this test with a heavily modded game like skyrim? I'm getting 6 minute load times and want to know how much upgrading will help out before throwing money at the problem.
the worst part about hdd is even tho the start up time is slow af but even when it boots up u need to wait a couple extra seconds for it to become responsive and usable
That's why hdd will be history and they need to disapear for ever...i am now on ssd m2 and there is no turning back, i cried because of joy seeing everything instant..and my pc boots up in just 10 seconds.....i was on hdd...i stayed 5 minutes or 2 minutes until boots up..lost time....i waited for ages at any little thing..finally that shiet is over and now i am a normal man enjoying speed on a normal pc from this days
Imagine saving 1 minute at startup, few seconds at loading of your game and then... spending at least 10 minutes in the lobby, waiting for the match. Sounds useful 🤣. What is more relevant, SSD boot speed will not deteriorate over time (even old, dirty OS will still work as fast as new), as the HDD boot time will - therefore you don´t need to reinstall the OS on SSD as often, as with HDD. You also don´t need to defragment the drive. That saves LOTS of time per year.
Cuz HDDs are not that slow. They're only slow cuz it's hard to find a brand new one. Old used ones slows down with time. I managed to find a 1TB HDD and the difference between it and my old 500GB HDD is like day and night.
The data that has to be transferred is much bigger now. We live in a world of gigabytes and terabytes, no longer kilobytes and megabytes. HDD’s were plenty quick when every file was small.
One of the biggest upgrades you can do to any older PC is a SATA SSD. I've been running them 11 or 12 years now and never looked back except for large volume long term storage/backup (using HDDs).
this vid assured me that i could migrate windows to my larger ssd so it isnt always running low on space, which in the end actually helped responsiveness
@@mr.savage778 I5 3470 8gb ddr3 1666mhz Gtx 1050ti 500watt chinese cheap psu Asrock mb(i forget the full name😂) I know it isn't a beast but its doing a good job
That's because the 470 Mb/s is sequential r/w and it rarely happens during real life workloads like booting Windows. The real indicator of speed is Random r/w and it's almost the same on Sata and NVMe drives hence why you won't notice any speed difference.
Thats why I dont understand why anyone would ever buy them. Save a little bit of money and buy a regular hdd or spend a little more to get a lesser capacity but much faster sata ssd
@@Bluecolty Or buy both and use software caching and get the best of both worlds. SSDs are fast because of random IO but SSHDs aren't good at it and Seagate SSHDs are unreliable.
Im weirdly nostalgic about hdd speeds. Waking up, turning on my computer then making breakfast and watching an episode of some random anime was such a ritual. Now i get pissed when it takes more than 8 seconds to boot up a 150gb game.
When you see the Read/Write speeds of the NVMe SSD versus the SATA SSD it's really hard to believe that such a big difference actually results in a really small real-world difference. That, or there is a metric which has been omitted here relating to data transfer size/file size etc.
That's be because of the random read and write speeds which are the same on the NMVE and SSD, also no real world usage would reach 470mbps in usage anyways, let alone 5000, unless file transfers
Also nvme pcie gen 5 with pcie 5.0 Mobos with ddr5 and Gpus that are pcie5.0 will see the biggest jumps when the all start utilizing the bandwidth of pcie5.0, 4K 120 or more will be the std…
Especially as the destination would have to be just as fast. Not useful for the standard PC user, generally only useful in a professional setting dealing with big data
Nice comparison! When I upgraded from a Corsair Neuron XTI SSD to a Samsung 960 Pro I didn't notice any differences in performance. The benchmark numbers are certainly impressive, but we all know that synthetic benchmarks aren't indicative of real world performance.
Depends on where you're from with regards to price/performance. where i come from, NVME ones are only like three USD more expensive than SATA ones, & it's common to even find NVME ones being CHEAPER than their SATA counterparts. going for NVME becomes a no brainer if you've a motherboard that supports it.
Remember the SSHD is a HDD with often a 8 GB Solid State caching function, so the first time it will behave exactly like a HDD. Only if you use certain loads more frequently, you start to see an advantage for the SSHD compared to the HDD. If you boot smaller OSes (e.g. Linux) frequently, after a while its boot time will be almost the same as that from a SSD. The whole performance strongly depends on how you use the system and thus how you measure the SSHD performance. You can only test the HDD in real life situations, where you use it for a longer period with the programs you normally use. It takes time for the cache to determine its optimal content! Afterwards you can compare those times with those of HDD or SSD. I did buy an off-lease laptop in 2017 and I also bought a 1TB SSHD. For me it was a good solution. I use Ubuntu (Linux) on the super modern ZFS file system. Everything is lz4 compressed (ratio = ~1.8), so the 8 GB SSD cache would contain 1.8 x 8 = ~14 GB of stuff if decompressed. So the whole OS (1 GB uncompressed after boot) and almost all programs would be stored on the SSD cache, so soon after installation I had close to SSD speeds and 1 TB of storage. For Windows and especially for AAA gaming, that SSHD is not very good, the cache is too small for a much larger Windows without compression. Around 2019 the prices of SSDs became so low, that HDDs nor SSHDs could compete on price/performance in the 250GB to 1TB price range. I will buy another new off-lease laptop in 2021/22, I probably will look for one with a 1TB SSD, but I would be perfectly happy to reuse my 1TB SSHD, if the occasion contained a HDD.
Glad someone mention this. I’m using a 1tb SSHD as boot drive, too. For me it’s excellent consider it’s boot time is almost the same as SSD, but with only half the price or lower.
NVMe PCIe 4.0 or even 3.0 only make sense when you are transferring very large files. This test didn't show that but for example transferring a 100GB folder to another would be much faster than a standard SATA SSD. But for regular everyday computing/gaming, SATA SSD makes more sense for the money.
SATA and NVMe are almost the same in price (SATA's go on larger sales more often though), but the performance gain is not shown here because Windows is not built to utilize NVMe speeds. Watch a comparison on Linux and then tell me what you think.
My jump was from old HDD that took pc 2-3min to be fully responsive, to a nvme ssd that boots up in a few seconds and is responsive immediately. Actually lifechanging
my advice: - M.2 NVMe: for OS installation, frequently used applications, possibly for online gaming if you want the fastest go - SSD: most likely for games or video editing - SSHD: (no idea at all) - HDD: for long term storage and backups, regular stuffs like heavy documents etc etc, offline campaign games something
This is what I'm talking about , people kept testing SSD's with loading times/boot times when they have little to no difference , what we want to see is if you throw a lot of shit in startup programs once bootup see which one finishes loading everything first.
None of that will make NVME much faster than SATA SSD. Only big difference is in large file transfers and read/copy. Launching programs or loading games there's barely any difference. For consumers going to NVME is completely pointless. Only reason for it is that it saves space in case and no need for cables. And because NVME and SATA SSD are so close in price now.
@@teemuvesala9575 Not if someone's living in a place like mine, where a NVME ssd is just like THREE USD more expensive than a SATA ssd, & hell, sometimes you could even find a NVME ssd being CHEAPER than a SATA one! that three bucks are well worth it considering that systems in the future would be built around NVME & SATA is getting phased out.
@@FalconWindblader If you've already used all of your NVME slots you gotta get SATA SSD. The only difference is in max read and write speeds... In normal use you'll never noticed any difference.
@@teemuvesala9575 Again, my point here is on 'FUTURE'. everyone who pays attention at all knows that NVME ain't gonna be all that much faster than a SATA in most use case NOW, but like how it had been with IDE nearly 2 decades ago, it's only a matter of time for developers of whatever kind to truly build their systems around NVME & take advantage of that extra speed NVME offers, & it's already happening as we speak. With price difference being so negligible in some parts of the world, the choice is bloody damn obvious for those people. i for one ain't gonna go back to SATA given prices of NVME ones are so similar to that of SATA ones at my place. like it or not, SATA would only get increasingly irrelevant in the next 10 years, & no one in their right mind would buy SSDs only to dump them within 10 years if they can help it... & please, there's no such thing as 'if you've used up all of your NVME slots'. regular users wouldn't need to use more than 2TB of storage after all, & most motherboards come with 2 NVME slots anyway.
@@Victor-kh5rh That's true but hard drives are becoming old technology. Why don't use only analog equipment now that digital equipment has become efficient and cheap. The goal shouldn't be to make a hard drive with a built in ssd good, it should be to make ssds better and cheaper. Hard drives are good for cheap mass storage, but ssds are the future.
My advise would be to buy a Sata SSD and save your NVMe slot for the future. Wait a couple years and when games and apps finally fully utilize all that speed, then buy an NVMe SSD which will be faster and much cheaper than the ones today
Going from sata to an nvme ssd felt a lot more substantial that it looks here. It probably has more to do with the whole system change since I went from a 4 to 12 thread CPU.
That difference is definitively from the CPU upgrade. I upgraded from an SATA SSD to an NVME on my 2700X system and day to day tasks really don't feel much different. However, when it comes to editing in Photoshop and Premiere, it's a different story.
I remember back when I power up my PC after coming home from work during the single-core era. I hit the power button, take a quick shower and when I sat down, my rig just finished booting. Good times.
3 years ago I upgrade HDD to SSHD, and then this year upgraded to SSD and then to NVME, wanted even more speed. now system boots so fast, it has to wait for the USB ports to respond before booting.
my 980 pro NVME M.2 PCIe 4.0 SSD needs about 14 seconds until i'm at the windows login screen... where do I lose the 4 seconds? do you have ultra fast boot enabled (so you can't access BIOS/UEFI during start up?
Nah, its all fair. Giving one disk a cache and not doing the same to others - not objective testing. Nvme/ssds also have advantage when they have a cache, windows in my pc opens in a bit more than 3 secs.
SSHD need "training" to know what to cache. The first run or two of anything is no faster than a HDD. Then it know what to cache for fastest times. Ie: Boot 3 times and measure, now as fast as an SSD.
Actually i would say other wise, but what i am about to say is coming from my personal experience. There is actually a slight difference between between a sata and an Nvme though it could be different for everyone. When i used an nvme to boot up windows, it was slightly faster by 5 seconds(ish). I know it isn't much, but it could be a deal breaker for some people.
Depending on the NVMe drive, PCIe 3.0 is about 1/2 that of PCIe 4.0. I use NVMe for my system (C:) and often used programs/games. Before that SSD's were used. Videos/pics/other storage is fine for HDD Now, our stories will be "Back in the day, I ONLY had HDD's to boot from and store things...you kids with your new fangled SSD's and NVMe's...."
Nvme will be even more useful now when consoles started usiing it and game developers could work their games around Nvme drivers and make games more optimised for them.
So glad I spec'd a 2tb nvme ssd into my new PC build. Not only is it fast, it also is super clean. It plugs right into the motherboard so no sata cables or power cables for the drive.
Games will run smoothly only when they are launched on SSD drive. Why you have kept your games on HDD? I have 250 gb samsung sata ssd. I install one game at a time on SSD, complete it from start to finish then uninstall it. Then 2nd game and the same process continues.
@@alexj7406 I was trying to say that if you have a 250 gb SSD drive than play one game at a time, complete it then install another game because the more space SSD will have, smoother the applications will run which are installed over SSD. It's necessary to leave atleast 30% to 40% space on SSD drive. Otherwise If you have more than 250 gb space on SSD then it's your choice whether you want to install multiple games over it or not.
@@FarhanAli-gd2qv Loading time is the only drawback of games on a HDD, but if it loaded then everything is in RAM, which dwarfs even the best NVMe's speeds. Source: Running games on HDD, booting from SSD, with quite beefy rig
When Microsoft incorporates DX12 DirectStorage into the operating system, is when we'll see NVMe not be bottlenecked. Which will happen sometime next year in 2021.
I've especially noticed this in games when it comes to visiting a previously loaded map. It loads much faster the second time. That's the flash memory working!
@@woooweee Ya it's a trade off. For me it was the best option since I wanted 2TB storage, but couldn't afford SSD of that size or on top of an HDD. So I get some benefit at a decent price.
I dont consider windows "booted" until all the starting programs have finishes starting. With a HDD in the past the PC would be unresponsive until this so I wouldn't really call it "booted" until you can actually use it.
The thing with SSHDs is that they're designed to be faster on subsequent loads, but on the first load they'll be as slow as a normal HDD. A great example of this is when I put a 2TB SSHD in my PS4 and playing Bloodborne, loading the hunter's dream hub area the first time took about 40 seconds, but for the rest of my session, it loaded in 10-15 seconds. They really shine in games like that where you repeatedly load into hub areas or re-use frequently accessed data.
@@metalvideos1961 oh, I do know what Memory is, but it seems you are the one who does not know. Fun fact, I have a Bachelor's degree in Electronics. Please feel free to educate yourself www.tutorialsmate.com/2020/04/types-of-computer-memory.html?m=1
Do bear in mind that hard drives (when running an OS) take a long time to 'warm up' after getting to the desktop. Everything (I repeat, everything) is slow to load -- whether that be programs or icons. Task Manager shows that disk usage is capped at 100% for often over a minute. This is all from personal experience.
As someone who used to use HDDS a decade ago, this is quite correct. I remember when I first switched to SSDS. It's the single biggest change i've ever made.
My computer in the 90's did 5MB per second off the hard drive, but transfer speed was not the problem back then. My first hard drive in 1993 was 80MB storage. It was fine until I started loading it up with games. I ended up keeping my school files on floppies just so I can have more space for games.
The 7200 rpm of my laptop, once it's ready for use, can get 170 MB/s read if the program is optimised enough. For paging, it goes up to 60 write while still reading. Haven't seen real full write speed, but heh, it's fast for a HDD
@@-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-ucq well, depends on what you transfering on. USB keys aren't sueperfast. Also, maybe you have fragmentation on the drive ? HDDs are terrible at random reads and writes and prefer sequential work. I get my fastest speeds when loading Cities:Skylines savegame, and when doing other stuff it's mostly 10 to 60 - 70 MB/s. Lack of software optimisation hurts
@@Spido68_the_spectator no, I'm trying to copy a file on my hdd, not the USB drive. And no, I'm not talking about external HDD, I'm talking about the main Operating system drive where I need to make a duplicate of a file or extract a zip file
@@Spido68_the_spectator and what's even worse is when my 10 year old laptop tries to copy/move/extract multiple individual files, the data transfer speed is absolute shit (1 Mbps)
I got a Kingston NV2 PCIe 4.0 NVME M.2 1TB SSD from amazon, and the speeds done well on my Windows 11. Besides, i try with Police Simulator Patrol Officers, and starting the game has work well without issue.
The test is a little skewed. The SSHD times will go down after a few dozen reboots. The most loaded files get put into the SSD cache. So you will end up seeing times closer to the SSD SATA drive. This also does show the pointlessness of a PCIe gen 4 SSD if you're average joe.
Depends. If you're doing one reboot after another, the reboot might even become faster. If you do boot the pc once and then launch a game 100 times without rebooting, the game loading times might become faster, but the next system reboot will take longer. BECAUSE the "most used" files will be put into SSD cache. But these caches are usually relative small and the system will change what's in the cache.
@@IIGrayfoxII Hmm, yeah, most people are incapable of using a (windows) computer. Don't know what those guys are doing all day to mess their system up like this. My Windows rebootes only like every 2-4 weeks, after it installed a bigger update.
Yeah but, thats kinda unfair. SSDs like nvme and satassd also can cache files, you know. So booting times can also be like halved, so not letting it have a cache is a fair and objective comparison imo.
2 to 10 times higher speeds at any section, but still in real life is more like 0.1 oly the advantage of NVMe PCIe vs SSD. What could be the explanation? Motherboards bottleneck between storage and RAM?
We need to take into consideration that the way these work is based on OS specifications, which are way older than ssd and nvme tech. The way the OS handles data is just way too old to handle these high speed drives. If we want to fully utilize them, devs need to make a whole new data managing software like ps5 and new Xbox did to reduce loading times like these consoles do. If I remember correctly, MS is currently working on a similar solution.
@@kuksio92 Yes, it is going to be part of Windows/DirectX/Vulkan?(maybe), they are working on it with Nvidia and AMD. The hardware for it already exists in RTX cards, maybe the new 6000 AMD cards too, I am not really sure about that one. But it is still tied only to games, because it speeds up only the textures and models loading, that wont help with general applications.
It is funny to think how much money people are splashing out on an nvme ssd thinking they will get *MONUMENTALLY* faster speeds. When in reality the difference is rather small. But i really do love the convenience of an nvme ssd, doesnt take up any space in the pc and it gives those heatsinks on the mobo a purpose.
You have options. Go to start button and type in msconfig. Put all cores to max. Then put ram to max. Last step I forget what it's called. You disable the windows loading screen. It skips that part every time you turn it on. Now for internet only, change the "DNS" 1 and 2 to 1.1.1.1 and the second 1.0.0.1 Your browser will feel like you got a new pc. Now for programs, you can use ram disk to get maximum speed. Better then ssd. I recommend going on steam and paying for the program called "Dimmdrive" This is cheaper than paying for a SSD. The way ram disk works.....It stores the data directly on the ram. "Dimmdrive" ram disk works differently. If you can put the whole file on the ram. You can store small portions of the file. Whatevers left over it will all be synced making the computer think the whole file is on the ram. Say you have a 70GB game like Cyberpunk. But you only got 8GB ram. All you have to do check on the exe. Portion ...... everything else will get linked up. "Dimmdrive" is a really under graded program. I use it for everything.
@@rpgmafia8363 Don't over look ram disk. Very useful tool. If you don't wanna pay for Dimmdrive right away you can test out AMDs ram disk. They let you get the 4GB version for free. Dimmdrive is better investment though because it has that sync feature if you can't put the complete file on the ram.
@@rpgmafia8363 Here's the link for amd ram disk until you have the money for Dimmdrive. Test this with your browser. Just create a ram disk. Then place all the browser files inside the disk. Click the EXE. Inside the disk. Top speed web browsing. www.radeonramdisk.com/software_downloads.php
No it's just because he did a full start (not just shutdown Windows and saving the core's state, here the shutdown just completely shutdown the computer). With NVMe PCIe 3.0, there isn't the 5 balls of loading at startup with a simple shutdown, so PCIe 4.0 should be same
this test was probably only done with one load of the game etc, if you did it 2 times in a row you would find the SSHD was a lot quicker on the consecutive loads as it has to load the cache into the small SSD portion of the drive first. I have 3 SSHD and I find that the games that I play most often load a fair bit quicker when I constantly play them, but still a bit slower than if they are on SSD.
@@ozmobozo you don't understand mate, once it is loaded into the cache it will always be quicker. so if you play a game 5 days in a row , day 2,3,4,5 loads will be almost as fast as a proper SSD. hopefully you can understand how it works. you don't need to load it twice every day.. it just takes one time for it to cache the data before it gets to its full speed potential.
I understand it is because of the random data speed. NVME SSDs take advantage of their high read/write speeds in sequential data like working with a huge video file. That's why these expensive SSD are more valuable for Editors and content creators than the average gamer or casual user.
I work for consumer IT and let me tell you man I constantly recommend customers get an SSD. SO many people don't even realize the serious difference of an SSD upgrade and it costs literally 80$ for the geek squad to install it. 30$ for the SSD and 40$ for the installation. The speed increase is up to 16x. The most seriously worth it upgrade and an SSD doesn't just speed up storage speeds, it also speeds up the CPU by reducing the workload needed to read from a physically moving disk and distribute information. The speedup for the CPU is around 20-30%. Absolutely MASSIVE.
@I love you but Possibly means that direct access Sony and NVIDIA (and possiblly AMD) are doing in which the GPU directly accesses assets from storage, while bypassing DRAM.... or something along those lines. That, coupled with SAM and an NVME drive will definitely ensure good performance for a few generations to come.
@@MrRexszazados the micro stutter. You might have high avg. Fps. But sometimes it drops so you feel a lag/stutter. The higher the 0.1 and 1% is, the more smooth
This is the sequential read speed, that is, when the file is one and very large, for example a movie. In the operation of the operating system and when loading games, small-block reading is usually used. There the speeds are much lower and the difference is also much smaller. High sequential read and write speed may be needed only for work tasks, when you have to work with very large files, for a home system this is nothing more than a marketing trick.
Hello,
00:00 Windows Boot (First startup after installation - this is very important)
00:36 Driver Installation
02:06 Game Loading Times
02:47 Benchmark Results
Can you do this test with a heavily modded game like skyrim? I'm getting 6 minute load times and want to know how much upgrading will help out before throwing money at the problem.
@@Golbarx SSD will cut your loading time down to 1min for sure, or even lower
Thank you @hYPERs
@@antoninjacob2232 much more than just 1 minute, a lot more👍
@@walkerw For sure, but I was answering a heavy modded scenario
the worst part about hdd is even tho the start up time is slow af but even when it boots up u need to wait a couple extra seconds for it to become responsive and usable
@@Ric.Secret exactly
@@Ric.Secret xddd true
Can tell from your profile pic
It's like a car, you need to wait for it to warm up to work properly...
That's why hdd will be history and they need to disapear for ever...i am now on ssd m2 and there is no turning back, i cried because of joy seeing everything instant..and my pc boots up in just 10 seconds.....i was on hdd...i stayed 5 minutes or 2 minutes until boots up..lost time....i waited for ages at any little thing..finally that shiet is over and now i am a normal man enjoying speed on a normal pc from this days
everyone: money can't buy you time
*money:*
actually.. it can, that applies to nearly everything
dude yes I literally thought that as I was testing the NVMe that just got delivered to me yesterday, like "this is what money does"
Money is time actually, but some times you spend more time that you got in the first place and vice versa.
Yes but actually no
Can't buy you more time but it can save you the time you have.
imagine saving 1minute every day is like 6hours in a year
Can complete several more games in your backlog with faster loading times!
old joke "With a SATA SSD I don't have time to make a coffee or go to the toilet"
Not worth it.
It is not just saving time, some games require a SSD to work properly, the jump from HDD its totally worth, the jump from SSD to M.2 is uneeded
Imagine saving 1 minute at startup, few seconds at loading of your game and then... spending at least 10 minutes in the lobby, waiting for the match. Sounds useful 🤣.
What is more relevant, SSD boot speed will not deteriorate over time (even old, dirty OS will still work as fast as new), as the HDD boot time will - therefore you don´t need to reinstall the OS on SSD as often, as with HDD. You also don´t need to defragment the drive. That saves LOTS of time per year.
After running a SSD I have wondered how we survived without it. Lol
10K RPM Raptors in RAID 0... not as good as an SSD but it was the best you could do.
Cuz HDDs are not that slow. They're only slow cuz it's hard to find a brand new one. Old used ones slows down with time. I managed to find a 1TB HDD and the difference between it and my old 500GB HDD is like day and night.
same lol
The data that has to be transferred is much bigger now. We live in a world of gigabytes and terabytes, no longer kilobytes and megabytes. HDD’s were plenty quick when every file was small.
@@pixelshaderx That's why they're not worth getting. Plus, they ARE slower.
One of the biggest upgrades you can do to any older PC is a SATA SSD.
I've been running them 11 or 12 years now and never looked back except for large volume long term storage/backup (using HDDs).
The human eye can't see past 500 MB/s
?
But your time YES
You lie, I can see up to 666 mb/s
Liar, i can see at 42069 MB/S.
@@hatsonchickens nice
Conclusion: SSD SATA is actually pretty sweet.
Yep!
this vid assured me that i could migrate windows to my larger ssd so it isnt always running low on space, which in the end actually helped responsiveness
Yes considering you only lose 30 seconds installing drivers.
Yup. The only 2 reasons why you should be going for NVMe are frequent transfer of huge files and space concerns
SSD gives you best bang for buck!
One of the best things you can do to make an old computer faster is replace the hdd with an ssd, it's so good
Nice video, straight to the point, no talking, easy to understand. You get an A+
Me: watching this and looking at my 12% health hdd
i feel you man :/
What are your full pc specs bro?
@@mr.savage778
I5 3470
8gb ddr3 1666mhz
Gtx 1050ti
500watt chinese cheap psu
Asrock mb(i forget the full name😂)
I know it isn't a beast but its doing a good job
Me: watching this on a different laptop because my HDD already died
@@Splati gtx 1050 ti gang
Crazy how the SSD SATA has only ~470Mb/s read & write speed at best yet it closely matches the NVMe in these tests.
That's because the 470 Mb/s is sequential r/w and it rarely happens during real life workloads like booting Windows. The real indicator of speed is Random r/w and it's almost the same on Sata and NVMe drives hence why you won't notice any speed difference.
@@DanielHK9 what is the example of random r/w
@@youravghuman5231 Windows boot and game load, is random read. Installing drivers and copying large amount of small files is random write.
@@oleg45678 ooo thnks
Because most of game is not very well optimized for nvme. But if you use nvme for data transfer/operating system is surely faster as hell
1:29 SSD Sata is finished at 3m15s. Timer stops at 3m19s .... DUDE :D
He's waiting for the video to finish on his slow HDD XD
you didnt saw the little hick up?
I got my os on my NV drive. My pc is fully on in 10 seconds
Man i just gotta say after using hard drive for 20 years and using ssd made my life feel like literal heaven.
Literal
Did you use the slowest HDD you can find and what type of cable connection and memory did you use?
Get a faster CPU
That still took sometime considering its a nvme pcie 4.... Better optimize the windows
try that on linux
@@xeome5596 sog fan?
Ray mak u are everywhere I see.
Your right. That's a pcie 4.
Wow. I didn't know you're into this stuff.
I love the four-lane side-by-side comparison approach. Well played!
Yes it made it very to compare all of them.
As a hdd user, every progress feel life ending.
SSHD only performs like that with very light duty, else the tiny cache is purged and overwritten too often and it becomes slow as a regular drive.
Thats why I dont understand why anyone would ever buy them. Save a little bit of money and buy a regular hdd or spend a little more to get a lesser capacity but much faster sata ssd
@@Bluecolty Or buy both and use software caching and get the best of both worlds. SSDs are fast because of random IO but SSHDs aren't good at it and Seagate SSHDs are unreliable.
Bluecolty I literally find out about this now, less than 2 years after getting a regular SSD and now planning to keep it in my upgraded rig.
If I need a lot of storage, then I’ll still go SSHD because of NO NOISE!
@@TSMelon thats fair. I'm one of those folks though that likes the mechanical humm of a hard drive, so I guess I don't quite understand
Im weirdly nostalgic about hdd speeds. Waking up, turning on my computer then making breakfast and watching an episode of some random anime was such a ritual. Now i get pissed when it takes more than 8 seconds to boot up a 150gb game.
When you see the Read/Write speeds of the NVMe SSD versus the SATA SSD it's really hard to believe that such a big difference actually results in a really small real-world difference. That, or there is a metric which has been omitted here relating to data transfer size/file size etc.
Well it's the difference is the protocol speed versus the hard drives actual speed. But the new nvme 2.0 protocol should speed things up.
@@a.thales7641 The fastest drives only work properly with software like games when they are optimized for it.
That's be because of the random read and write speeds which are the same on the NMVE and SSD, also no real world usage would reach 470mbps in usage anyways, let alone 5000, unless file transfers
Also nvme pcie gen 5 with pcie 5.0 Mobos with ddr5 and Gpus that are pcie5.0 will see the biggest jumps when the all start utilizing the bandwidth of pcie5.0, 4K 120 or more will be the std…
@@shortround9134 4k 120 is my favorite std! I hope I can catch it soon
2:30 that guy is not well🙄
😂😂😂
That Guy He Is Suffering From Cough
@@yashasm.r2138 corona
@@sixt768 May be
Cos of boring waiting for sata hdd... :D
Thanks for doing this, I recently went from SATA SSD > NVMe SSD and it feels the same, faster but not a lot faster.
The main diff. Is in tranfer speeds which doesnt help everybody
Especially as the destination would have to be just as fast. Not useful for the standard PC user, generally only useful in a professional setting dealing with big data
I am running TWO Samsung 970 Evo 1TB NVMe in RAID 0 and my 3 year old Z390 mobo can't give me ANY extra performance, LoL. Oh well, 2TB C drive!
Never, the difference is not in speed, but in data reading and writing.
Is it worth upgrading if you are a gamer?
Nice comparison! When I upgraded from a Corsair Neuron XTI SSD to a Samsung 960 Pro I didn't notice any differences in performance. The benchmark numbers are certainly impressive, but we all know that synthetic benchmarks aren't indicative of real world performance.
You've just got a new Subscriber from Indonesia Man... Straight To The Point... Nice Video 👍👍👍👍
Performance - NVMe
Price/performance - SSD
Capacity - HDD
@@Frank_Pods How it has to be!
Depends on where you're from with regards to price/performance. where i come from, NVME ones are only like three USD more expensive than SATA ones, & it's common to even find NVME ones being CHEAPER than their SATA counterparts. going for NVME becomes a no brainer if you've a motherboard that supports it.
One to rule them all - SSHD
Not really.. NVMe and SSD are practically the same price now
Remember the SSHD is a HDD with often a 8 GB Solid State caching function, so the first time it will behave exactly like a HDD. Only if you use certain loads more frequently, you start to see an advantage for the SSHD compared to the HDD. If you boot smaller OSes (e.g. Linux) frequently, after a while its boot time will be almost the same as that from a SSD. The whole performance strongly depends on how you use the system and thus how you measure the SSHD performance.
You can only test the HDD in real life situations, where you use it for a longer period with the programs you normally use. It takes time for the cache to determine its optimal content! Afterwards you can compare those times with those of HDD or SSD.
I did buy an off-lease laptop in 2017 and I also bought a 1TB SSHD. For me it was a good solution. I use Ubuntu (Linux) on the super modern ZFS file system. Everything is lz4 compressed (ratio = ~1.8), so the 8 GB SSD cache would contain 1.8 x 8 = ~14 GB of stuff if decompressed. So the whole OS (1 GB uncompressed after boot) and almost all programs would be stored on the SSD cache, so soon after installation I had close to SSD speeds and 1 TB of storage.
For Windows and especially for AAA gaming, that SSHD is not very good, the cache is too small for a much larger Windows without compression. Around 2019 the prices of SSDs became so low, that HDDs nor SSHDs could compete on price/performance in the 250GB to 1TB price range.
I will buy another new off-lease laptop in 2021/22, I probably will look for one with a 1TB SSD, but I would be perfectly happy to reuse my 1TB SSHD, if the occasion contained a HDD.
Glad someone mention this. I’m using a 1tb SSHD as boot drive, too. For me it’s excellent consider it’s boot time is almost the same as SSD, but with only half the price or lower.
These are cool due to how they learn your use case and adapt. Their life span was short lived though with ssd becoming so cheap.
My hard drives have about 8mb to 16mb of cache
NVMe PCIe 4.0 or even 3.0 only make sense when you are transferring very large files. This test didn't show that but for example transferring a 100GB folder to another would be much faster than a standard SATA SSD. But for regular everyday computing/gaming, SATA SSD makes more sense for the money.
SATA and NVMe are almost the same in price (SATA's go on larger sales more often though), but the performance gain is not shown here because Windows is not built to utilize NVMe speeds. Watch a comparison on Linux and then tell me what you think.
I know so much efforts in such videos... Everyone should appreciate it👍👍👍
h
there are videos with more effort tbh... this is nice but it probably took like an hour to make. Still nice that he did it
My jump was from old HDD that took pc 2-3min to be fully responsive, to a nvme ssd that boots up in a few seconds and is responsive immediately. Actually lifechanging
my advice:
- M.2 NVMe: for OS installation, frequently used applications, possibly for online gaming if you want the fastest go
- SSD: most likely for games or video editing
- SSHD: (no idea at all)
- HDD: for long term storage and backups, regular stuffs like heavy documents etc etc, offline campaign games something
NVME SSDs are getting really interesting when more games with DX12 are coming and Direct Storage in Windows will be a thing.
M2.NVMe is for video editing better. ssd is fine for everyday use and gaming.
True
This is what I'm talking about , people kept testing SSD's with loading times/boot times when they have little to no difference , what we want to see is if you throw a lot of shit in startup programs once bootup see which one finishes loading everything first.
None of that will make NVME much faster than SATA SSD. Only big difference is in large file transfers and read/copy. Launching programs or loading games there's barely any difference. For consumers going to NVME is completely pointless. Only reason for it is that it saves space in case and no need for cables. And because NVME and SATA SSD are so close in price now.
@@teemuvesala9575 Not if someone's living in a place like mine, where a NVME ssd is just like THREE USD more expensive than a SATA ssd, & hell, sometimes you could even find a NVME ssd being CHEAPER than a SATA one! that three bucks are well worth it considering that systems in the future would be built around NVME & SATA is getting phased out.
@@FalconWindblader If you've already used all of your NVME slots you gotta get SATA SSD. The only difference is in max read and write speeds... In normal use you'll never noticed any difference.
@@teemuvesala9575 Again, my point here is on 'FUTURE'. everyone who pays attention at all knows that NVME ain't gonna be all that much faster than a SATA in most use case NOW, but like how it had been with IDE nearly 2 decades ago, it's only a matter of time for developers of whatever kind to truly build their systems around NVME & take advantage of that extra speed NVME offers, & it's already happening as we speak.
With price difference being so negligible in some parts of the world, the choice is bloody damn obvious for those people. i for one ain't gonna go back to SATA given prices of NVME ones are so similar to that of SATA ones at my place. like it or not, SATA would only get increasingly irrelevant in the next 10 years, & no one in their right mind would buy SSDs only to dump them within 10 years if they can help it... & please, there's no such thing as 'if you've used up all of your NVME slots'. regular users wouldn't need to use more than 2TB of storage after all, & most motherboards come with 2 NVME slots anyway.
the reason sshd's did not stay around long lol
I didn't even know they exist. Lmao
Actually SSHD has ssd and HDD mem at the same time, with Kingston itll be alotbetter cuz it'll put the games and stuff u use alot to the SSD mem
@@SUPABROS nope, usually the ssd inside of them is very small and used just to cache frequently access system file, you can't store a whole game on it
@@riccardoguerriero7889 not with that attitude.
@@Victor-kh5rh That's true but hard drives are becoming old technology. Why don't use only analog equipment now that digital equipment has become efficient and cheap. The goal shouldn't be to make a hard drive with a built in ssd good, it should be to make ssds better and cheaper. Hard drives are good for cheap mass storage, but ssds are the future.
My advise would be to buy a Sata SSD and save your NVMe slot for the future. Wait a couple years and when games and apps finally fully utilize all that speed, then buy an NVMe SSD which will be faster and much cheaper than the ones today
Going from sata to an nvme ssd felt a lot more substantial that it looks here. It probably has more to do with the whole system change since I went from a 4 to 12 thread CPU.
meaning? sorry i dont really know about the cpu threads thing
The difference you're feeling comes from the CPU upgrade
That difference is definitively from the CPU upgrade. I upgraded from an SATA SSD to an NVME on my 2700X system and day to day tasks really don't feel much different. However, when it comes to editing in Photoshop and Premiere, it's a different story.
I went from hdd to nvme 3.0
Oh boiii it sure feels great to boot up your pc everyday
@@chubbykun I don't even have time to boil water for tea
I remember back when I power up my PC after coming home from work during the single-core era. I hit the power button, take a quick shower and when I sat down, my rig just finished booting.
Good times.
The more you know: Your CPU actually effects download and installation speeds
Yes but i think a Ryzen 3700x can handle it
The more you know: effect is not the same as affect.
@@lebronjames5287 true
i dont think so
NO
HDD be like:
Happy New Year 2019!
Only thing HDD is good for is storing a shit ton of media like movies, pictures and porn.
@@Xachremos bruh who saves porn in computers
@@clashemy2140 There're those of us with shitty internet & watching porn online is just too much of a hassle.
@@FalconWindblader ooh i didnt think about that
3 years ago I upgrade HDD to SSHD, and then this year upgraded to SSD and then to NVME, wanted even more speed. now system boots so fast, it has to wait for the USB ports to respond before booting.
XD
Couldve just bought the sata SSD in the first place and called it a day
Music is soothing af. Please don't change. Subscribed!
my 980 pro NVME M.2 PCIe 4.0 SSD needs about 14 seconds until i'm at the windows login screen...
where do I lose the 4 seconds? do you have ultra fast boot enabled (so you can't access BIOS/UEFI during start up?
It looked like to me your SSHD's cache wasn't trained to give any advantage, same goes for the other hd tests you've done
True makes it fair
Yeah but the cache usually breaks down after actually using the system a bit so in the end in real time use you won't see a huge benefit.
Nah, its all fair. Giving one disk a cache and not doing the same to others - not objective testing. Nvme/ssds also have advantage when they have a cache, windows in my pc opens in a bit more than 3 secs.
I mean that still means that you have to actually do EXTRA WORK just to make them even sorta competitive.
I will never stop using my 5200 RPM HDD it not only humbles me, but also makes me extremely patient.
your loss
Nah ur just slow
@@bricktea3645 Nah It took you 6 months to respond to my comment. LOL. Ur slow.
@@kamw8860 nah I had better things to do,ur lucky I took the time to comment some advice to u 👍
I agree! HDD's simply have too much capacity and they'll always be cheaper than an SSD of the same capacity.
SSHD need "training" to know what to cache.
The first run or two of anything is no faster than a HDD. Then it know what to cache for fastest times.
Ie: Boot 3 times and measure, now as fast as an SSD.
Only if the program is smaller than 8GB. Anything bigger will be too much for the cache.
Yes, old hard disk drives takes 30 seconds to one minute while new solid state drives requires less than 15 seconds to boot up.
Going from an HDD to NVME can confirm mind was blown .
So basically:
SSHD vs HDD - no big difference
NVME vs SATA SSD - no big difference
Just buy an SSD.
Actually i would say other wise, but what i am about to say is coming from my personal experience.
There is actually a slight difference between between a sata and an Nvme though it could be different for everyone. When i used an nvme to boot up windows, it was slightly faster by 5 seconds(ish). I know it isn't much, but it could be a deal breaker for some people.
They are cheap enough now to just go for it. One benefit, I'm after, is no cabling. makes the build that much cleaner
what is m.2 ...?is it different than nvme? what are these names?
Windows DirectStorage will come to PC in 2021, so you will probably benefit from pcie 4.0 nvme ssd’s
@@someunknownuser sure hope so, software needs to catch up to hardware something fierce
Its like the breaking bad intro vs an anime op
it's*
What’s this supposed to mean🤣
Depending on the NVMe drive, PCIe 3.0 is about 1/2 that of PCIe 4.0.
I use NVMe for my system (C:) and often used programs/games. Before that SSD's were used. Videos/pics/other storage is fine for HDD
Now, our stories will be "Back in the day, I ONLY had HDD's to boot from and store things...you kids with your new fangled SSD's and NVMe's...."
I love how this came up as I’m waiting for my pc parts to come in. I’m so glad I got two NVME PCIe4 SSDs
Anyone else just vibing to the music
Yah same here but still looking at the speeds as well
me sitting here waiting for the hdd to complete: 👁👄👁
Nvme will be even more useful now when consoles started usiing it and game developers could work their games around Nvme drivers and make games more optimised for them.
They do now bruh 😎
It will still take time probably the mid - end part of the console lifetime.
Thank you for testing Breakpoint. I was looking for it.
So glad I spec'd a 2tb nvme ssd into my new PC build. Not only is it fast, it also is super clean. It plugs right into the motherboard so no sata cables or power cables for the drive.
and my computer still opens in 4 minutes
open or boot? rip english
@@coontent-tv grammar nerd
@@let4255 you got any problem?
@@coontent-tv open :D
Got an hdd that 1 foot in grave
@@muli_ aww shit here we go again, your computer "opens" in 4 minutes and you reply on youtube after 1 year😂😂 slow a$$
this song is a vibe
right now I'm rocking my os on an SSD, and all my games on an HDD, seems like the most price to performance combo
Right. I can't afford a 6tb ssd🤣🤣I snatched a 6tb hdd for $200. That's where all my games are
Games will run smoothly only when they are launched on SSD drive. Why you have kept your games on HDD? I have 250 gb samsung sata ssd. I install one game at a time on SSD, complete it from start to finish then uninstall it. Then 2nd game and the same process continues.
@@FarhanAli-gd2qv not all of us only plays one game tho
@@alexj7406 I was trying to say that if you have a 250 gb SSD drive than play one game at a time, complete it then install another game because the more space SSD will have, smoother the applications will run which are installed over SSD. It's necessary to leave atleast 30% to 40% space on SSD drive. Otherwise If you have more than 250 gb space on SSD then it's your choice whether you want to install multiple games over it or not.
@@FarhanAli-gd2qv Loading time is the only drawback of games on a HDD, but if it loaded then everything is in RAM, which dwarfs even the best NVMe's speeds.
Source: Running games on HDD, booting from SSD, with quite beefy rig
Still, in a power outage the hhd will win at preserving the stored data and that is their true usage.
Wry good side by side comparison.
Thank you for sharing this with us.
Hopefully in the future these tests will take 1 second. Wonder what is needed nowadays for PCIE 4.0 to reach it's full potential.
That would be loong future 😂
@@محمدالدخيل-ر5ل maybe 10 years? No more than that
@@zortezhd9145 maybe 🤷🏻♂️
when you got 4K or even 8K videos to edit?
When Microsoft incorporates DX12 DirectStorage into the operating system, is when we'll see NVMe not be bottlenecked. Which will happen sometime next year in 2021.
SSHD makes huge different between 1st time running application / game or 4th time. Thats the whole point of SSHD.
I've especially noticed this in games when it comes to visiting a previously loaded map. It loads much faster the second time. That's the flash memory working!
that's kind of the problem, the tiny 8GB of nand cache is filled and flushed out by something as simple as a single game level
Yeah, that's true, but it's still crap.
@@woooweee Ya it's a trade off. For me it was the best option since I wanted 2TB storage, but couldn't afford SSD of that size or on top of an HDD. So I get some benefit at a decent price.
I dont consider windows "booted" until all the starting programs have finishes starting. With a HDD in the past the PC would be unresponsive until this so I wouldn't really call it "booted" until you can actually use it.
And the difference gets so magnified over time. I'm so happy with my new build!!
The thing with SSHDs is that they're designed to be faster on subsequent loads, but on the first load they'll be as slow as a normal HDD.
A great example of this is when I put a 2TB SSHD in my PS4 and playing Bloodborne, loading the hunter's dream hub area the first time took about 40 seconds, but for the rest of my session, it loaded in 10-15 seconds. They really shine in games like that where you repeatedly load into hub areas or re-use frequently accessed data.
It's not about the time you save... You avoid frustration using faster memory
Memory is RAM. An SSD is storage.
You do know the difference between storage and ram right? Well obviously you don't
@@metalvideos1961 oh, I do know what Memory is, but it seems you are the one who does not know. Fun fact, I have a Bachelor's degree in Electronics. Please feel free to educate yourself
www.tutorialsmate.com/2020/04/types-of-computer-memory.html?m=1
Do bear in mind that hard drives (when running an OS) take a long time to 'warm up' after getting to the desktop. Everything (I repeat, everything) is slow to load -- whether that be programs or icons. Task Manager shows that disk usage is capped at 100% for often over a minute.
This is all from personal experience.
As someone who used to use HDDS a decade ago, this is quite correct. I remember when I first switched to SSDS. It's the single biggest change i've ever made.
It takes a pretty long time for the hard drive to dump everything needed into RAM. That's why it seems like things speed up after a minute.
when you accidentally restart your computer but you have an M.2 card:
oh no! anyways..
Nice video! Watched a lot videos, only your video have including read and write speed
EVERYONE: Money can't buy you time.
Money :
Can you put in an IDE HDD. Would be fun to see what pre-2005's people had to deal with ^^
My computer in the 90's did 5MB per second off the hard drive, but transfer speed was not the problem back then. My first hard drive in 1993 was 80MB storage. It was fine until I started loading it up with games. I ended up keeping my school files on floppies just so I can have more space for games.
The SATA HDD you used seem to be quite decent with lot of cache. The last one I used back in 2018 had about 150MB/s read and 90MB/s read.
The 7200 rpm of my laptop, once it's ready for use, can get 170 MB/s read if the program is optimised enough. For paging, it goes up to 60 write while still reading. Haven't seen real full write speed, but heh, it's fast for a HDD
@@Spido68_the_spectator bro, if 170 Mbps is the maximum for an hdd, then why the hell do I only get 30-50 mpbs file transfer??
@@-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-ucq well, depends on what you transfering on. USB keys aren't sueperfast. Also, maybe you have fragmentation on the drive ? HDDs are terrible at random reads and writes and prefer sequential work. I get my fastest speeds when loading Cities:Skylines savegame, and when doing other stuff it's mostly 10 to 60 - 70 MB/s. Lack of software optimisation hurts
@@Spido68_the_spectator no, I'm trying to copy a file on my hdd, not the USB drive. And no, I'm not talking about external HDD, I'm talking about the main Operating system drive where I need to make a duplicate of a file or extract a zip file
@@Spido68_the_spectator and what's even worse is when my 10 year old laptop tries to copy/move/extract multiple individual files, the data transfer speed is absolute shit (1 Mbps)
thanks to my new NVMe ssd i can spend my time seeing this video instead of a loading screen! the future is now buddies!
Thanks to NVMe Skyrim loads up too damn fast I can’t finish reading the tips on the loading screens
@@youbastrds231 LOL! the same happens in fallout 4
Nothing to do with your drives. It's your internet
I got a Kingston NV2 PCIe 4.0 NVME M.2 1TB SSD from amazon, and the speeds done well on my Windows 11. Besides, i try with Police Simulator Patrol Officers, and starting the game has work well without issue.
Good to know that those of us who don't have NVMEs aren't missing out on anything huge, minus a spare drive bay.
The test is a little skewed.
The SSHD times will go down after a few dozen reboots.
The most loaded files get put into the SSD cache.
So you will end up seeing times closer to the SSD SATA drive.
This also does show the pointlessness of a PCIe gen 4 SSD if you're average joe.
Depends. If you're doing one reboot after another, the reboot might even become faster.
If you do boot the pc once and then launch a game 100 times without rebooting, the game loading times might become faster, but the next system reboot will take longer.
BECAUSE the "most used" files will be put into SSD cache. But these caches are usually relative small and the system will change what's in the cache.
@@notmyname9062 were talking about Windows, an os that needs daily reboots
@@IIGrayfoxII Hmm, yeah, most people are incapable of using a (windows) computer. Don't know what those guys are doing all day to mess their system up like this. My Windows rebootes only like every 2-4 weeks, after it installed a bigger update.
Yeah but, thats kinda unfair. SSDs like nvme and satassd also can cache files, you know. So booting times can also be like halved, so not letting it have a cache is a fair and objective comparison imo.
a moment of silence for hdd users.
including myself.
A very looong moment of silence xd
@@berk.ulusoy And very slow.
2 to 10 times higher speeds at any section, but still in real life is more like 0.1 oly the advantage of NVMe PCIe vs SSD. What could be the explanation? Motherboards bottleneck between storage and RAM?
We need to take into consideration that the way these work is based on OS specifications, which are way older than ssd and nvme tech.
The way the OS handles data is just way too old to handle these high speed drives.
If we want to fully utilize them, devs need to make a whole new data managing software like ps5 and new Xbox did to reduce loading times like these consoles do.
If I remember correctly, MS is currently working on a similar solution.
@@kuksio92 Yes, it is going to be part of Windows/DirectX/Vulkan?(maybe), they are working on it with Nvidia and AMD. The hardware for it already exists in RTX cards, maybe the new 6000 AMD cards too, I am not really sure about that one. But it is still tied only to games, because it speeds up only the textures and models loading, that wont help with general applications.
OS isn't build around those technologies and there are other bottlenecks.
It is funny to think how much money people are splashing out on an nvme ssd thinking they will get *MONUMENTALLY* faster speeds.
When in reality the difference is rather small.
But i really do love the convenience of an nvme ssd, doesnt take up any space in the pc and it gives those heatsinks on the mobo a purpose.
I just switched from am HDD to an M.2. My pc used to take more than 30 minutes to boot. Now its boots in less than 5 sec. Incredible difference
You mean 30 seconds right?
@@su-25frogfoot74 I wish I meant seconds 😢
my HDD be like 20 minutes to boot up. with my broken windows updates 1 hour
Why I just gave up on turning mine off every day
You have options. Go to start button and type in msconfig. Put all cores to max. Then put ram to max. Last step I forget what it's called. You disable the windows loading screen. It skips that part every time you turn it on. Now for internet only, change the "DNS" 1 and 2 to 1.1.1.1 and the second 1.0.0.1 Your browser will feel like you got a new pc. Now for programs, you can use ram disk to get maximum speed. Better then ssd. I recommend going on steam and paying for the program called "Dimmdrive" This is cheaper than paying for a SSD. The way ram disk works.....It stores the data directly on the ram. "Dimmdrive" ram disk works differently. If you can put the whole file on the ram. You can store small portions of the file. Whatevers left over it will all be synced making the computer think the whole file is on the ram. Say you have a 70GB game like Cyberpunk. But you only got 8GB ram. All you have to do check on the exe. Portion ...... everything else will get linked up. "Dimmdrive" is a really under graded program. I use it for everything.
@@100Bucks thank you for your help
@@rpgmafia8363 Don't over look ram disk. Very useful tool. If you don't wanna pay for Dimmdrive right away you can test out AMDs ram disk. They let you get the 4GB version for free. Dimmdrive is better investment though because it has that sync feature if you can't put the complete file on the ram.
@@rpgmafia8363 Here's the link for amd ram disk until you have the money for Dimmdrive. Test this with your browser. Just create a ram disk. Then place all the browser files inside the disk. Click the EXE. Inside the disk. Top speed web browsing. www.radeonramdisk.com/software_downloads.php
Window is not optimized to PCIE 4.0
That's why sata ssd and Nvme gives Almost the same velocity
But a m.2 avoid using the power and sata conectors
No it's just because he did a full start (not just shutdown Windows and saving the core's state, here the shutdown just completely shutdown the computer). With NVMe PCIe 3.0, there isn't the 5 balls of loading at startup with a simple shutdown, so PCIe 4.0 should be same
TLDR: SSHD is a complete waste of money.
this test was probably only done with one load of the game etc, if you did it 2 times in a row you would find the SSHD was a lot quicker on the consecutive loads as it has to load the cache into the small SSD portion of the drive first. I have 3 SSHD and I find that the games that I play most often load a fair bit quicker when I constantly play them, but still a bit slower than if they are on SSD.
Well there are still people using hard drives in New builds in 2020 lol wtf
@@ohyeahminecraft
Cost per Gb is where HDDs still dominate.
@@choatus Loading it two times makes you lose time two times have you ever considered that?
@@ozmobozo you don't understand mate, once it is loaded into the cache it will always be quicker. so if you play a game 5 days in a row , day 2,3,4,5 loads will be almost as fast as a proper SSD. hopefully you can understand how it works. you don't need to load it twice every day.. it just takes one time for it to cache the data before it gets to its full speed potential.
Fantastic comparison video. Well done
"Money can't buy you time"
Nvme m.2 and sata ssd: Hold my beer!
For the difference b/w SATA and NVME SSD in time and price, I think SATA is more of a better value
I understand it is because of the random data speed. NVME SSDs take advantage of their high read/write speeds in sequential data like working with a huge video file. That's why these expensive SSD are more valuable for Editors and content creators than the average gamer or casual user.
Sorry, SATA is outdated and slow when it comes to using with PCIe.
@@jamesm568 yeah but not everyone has the money to afford a pcie SSD with the same amount of storage as a sata SSD
@@draco147 thanks for telling me
@@jamesm568 ATA would be outdated, SATA is nowhere near outdated.
When you realise your pc takes decades to boot
in 1992, when you launch Windows 3.x from DOS and it takes 8 minutes to boot into.
SSD sata is good enough :)
I work for consumer IT and let me tell you man I constantly recommend customers get an SSD. SO many people don't even realize the serious difference of an SSD upgrade and it costs literally 80$ for the geek squad to install it. 30$ for the SSD and 40$ for the installation. The speed increase is up to 16x. The most seriously worth it upgrade and an SSD doesn't just speed up storage speeds, it also speeds up the CPU by reducing the workload needed to read from a physically moving disk and distribute information. The speedup for the CPU is around 20-30%. Absolutely MASSIVE.
My HDD takes 15 minutes to boot
Me with HHD Sata: 👁👄👁
@Windows XP :o
@Windows XP you can also buy 4TB Satan ssd
ah yes a hard hard drive
I actually wanna see how the new Ryzen generation performs with 4th generation PCie, especially with SAM
@I love you but Possibly means that direct access Sony and NVIDIA (and possiblly AMD) are doing in which the GPU directly accesses assets from storage, while bypassing DRAM.... or something along those lines. That, coupled with SAM and an NVME drive will definitely ensure good performance for a few generations to come.
My brother has upgraded from HDD sata to nvme ssd.
He ascended.
Going from HDD to NVMe is freaking insane.
@@victuz ikr. I still need to install windows on his nvme though😂
His nvme is also like one of the fastest ones out there. Samsung 970 pro or sumn
Just buy regular SSD, SATA SSD or cheap NVMe SDD..more expensive NVMe SSD not always give benefit in most of case or daily usage
Our HDD works much faster than in this video
Does M.2 vs SATA SSD affect 1% & 0.1% games performances?
Future video idea for you.
👌👍
Whats 1% and 0.1%? I never know when i see these tests and benchmarks
@@MrRexszazados the micro stutter. You might have high avg. Fps. But sometimes it drops so you feel a lag/stutter. The higher the 0.1 and 1% is, the more smooth
@@NFC i am waiting for this as well
@@timhelmbo7816 thank you for explaining it😊
its also depends on what version of windows you using for example windows 10 1511 start up is faster than windows 10 2004
Which doesn't matter in this case since this is just about which one is the fastest.
If nvme writes, reads around 5k mb/s and ssd only with 500, doesnt that mean that nvme should be better than ssd 10x more?
This is the sequential read speed, that is, when the file is one and very large, for example a movie. In the operation of the operating system and when loading games, small-block reading is usually used.
There the speeds are much lower and the difference is also much smaller.
High sequential read and write speed may be needed only for work tasks, when you have to work with very large files, for a home system this is nothing more than a marketing trick.
@@ivol8629 thank you for the explanation!
@@alfa-psi thank you for the info. Im learning a lot here 😅
NVME: Me Going bios
*10sec later
Windows: Hello there
I prefer ssd sata because nvme takes from processor's lanes which will make my graphic card work on 8x speed not on 16x
In my case, my pc finishes of starting up in 15 - 17 minutes :(
Alienware? Or hybrid drive?