SSD or M.2 for Photoshop Scratch

[bostonartgallery]

I'm putting together a new PC (have been Mac guy for 10+ years) and the specs are X99 board, i5930K CPU & I ended up with a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 ~ 256, an 850 Pro ~ 512, and an 850 pro ~ 256 (long story). I will use spinners for files (RAW images, photos, etc.). My question is specifically regarding a boot drive, Photoshop scratch disk and perhaps the Lightroom catalog file. I have read a ton online but this question is still looming. Which configuration would be better, 1) putting Windows and apps on the M.2, and Photoshop scratch on the 850 - 512, or 2) - the other way around? Also, wondering if putting the Lightroom catalog file on the remaining 850 pro ~ 256, by itself, would matter at all. Thanks to anyone that has a clue about this.

 

[edispics]

PS uses scratch when it does not have enough memory.

 

[SushiEater]

There was a thread arguing about use of SSD few months ago. Someone tried booting from M2 and SSD and saw no difference.

It doesn't matter where you put the LR catalog as long as it is on SSD. It is like Nissan GT-R vs 370Z. Both are fast but both are hindered by 65mph speed limit. Speed limit being other processes going on at the same time.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

 

[bostonartgallery]

oh, yes I know. I wasn't really asking that but something a lot more difficult. Essentially trying to learn which SSD would be better for scratch (950 Pro M.2) or (2.5" 850 Pro SSD), and which one of those two would be better for booting and applications. Moreover, I have a third, smaller SSD, and was also wondering if giving Lightroom full control of that for the LRCAT file has any advantage. Thanks for your response.

 

[bostonartgallery]

Thanks for your response... I shoot the D800E as well.

 

[larry55279]

You absolutely want LR and ACR cache and catalogs on an SSD.

I have OS on 840 Pro, swap/cache/catalogs on an 850 Pro with RAPID mode enabled.

That's the fastest I've been able to find.

 

[Simon Garrett]

I'm putting together a new PC (have been Mac guy for 10+ years) and the specs are X99 board, i5930K CPU & I ended up with a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 ~ 256, an 850 Pro ~ 512, and an 850 pro ~ 256 (long story). I will use spinners for files (RAW images, photos, etc.). My question is specifically regarding a boot drive, Photoshop scratch disk and perhaps the Lightroom catalog file. I have read a ton online but this question is still looming. Which configuration would be better, 1) putting Windows and apps on the M.2, and Photoshop scratch on the 850 - 512, or 2) - the other way around? Also, wondering if putting the Lightroom catalog file on the remaining 850 pro ~ 256, by itself, would matter at all. Thanks to anyone that has a clue about this.

Have you definitely decided on an i7-5930K? Lightroom will probably run faster on a Skylake i7-6700K.

The 5930 has more cores, but slower single-core speed. Programs that use lots of cores (e.g. most games) will run better on the 5930. Programs that don't do much multi-threading such as Lightroom will run faster on the 6700. Lightroom mostly uses only 1 or 2 threads, and even running background tasks like exporting and building previews rarely uses more than 4 threads.

I don't know how much Photoshop uses multi-threading. The Hardware.info Photoshop bench shows the 5930 and 6700 scoring about the same.

 

[Pictus]

PS uses scratch when it does not have enough memory.

Sadly it always uses scratch no matter the amount of RAM you have, each
history state is saved into the scratch.

 

[TheTom]

The question makes zero sense.

How is an M.2 NOT an ssd, too? You compare technology (SSD) to interface (M.2 or SATA - or SAS, but no consumer board has SAS).

M.2 is a LOT more powerfull than SATA (around 600MB to multiple gigabyte) and the protocol allows lower latency, BUT - you need applications that use that.

Otherwise the hugh advantage of M.2 is not being SATA. If you build a machine with possibly a lot of hard discs - then you may run out of SATA ports on the motherboard. M.2 is separate from those, giving you one or in rare boards two additional slots to play with. And, at the moment, pay for - as M.2 drives cost more than SATA.

 

[edispics]

PS uses scratch when it does not have enough memory.

Sadly it always uses scratch no matter the amount of RAM you have, each
history state is saved into the scratch.

But in the context of the OP's concerns, provisioning enough memory will avoid the scratch disk I/O that might be noticeable.

From Adobe:

Photoshop uses random access memory (RAM) to process images. If Photoshop has insufficient memory, it uses hard-disk space, also known as a scratch disk, to process information. Accessing information in memory is faster than accessing information on a hard disk. Therefore, Photoshop is fastest when it can process all or most image information in RAM.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-photoshop-cc-performance.html

Using a scratch disk rather than memory is what will cause a more serious performance hit than the impact of any other data that might be saved to the scratch disk.

 

[edispics]

If you browse through the threads here, it does not appear that the choice of a SATA or PCIe (with M.2 package format) connected SSD will yield any "noticeable" variations in performance re boot times or common functions in LR and PS.

Also, it seems (based on user experience here) that whether you put heavy I/O files on one SSD or multiple SSDs again does not show any "noticeable" differences.

I went with the 6700K mildly OC's at 4.6 GHz and 32 GB of memory. I had a bunch of Evo 850s so I used a 256GB for the OS and pgms, a 500GB for my photo working set and another 250GB for catalogs, caches, scratch disks, etc. I use a couple of WD Blacks for intermediate storage and 4 3TB WE externals for long term storage.

However, I don't believe I would see any difference if I replaced all 3 of my SSDs with one larger one, based on personal experience so far and the feedback from others here.

 

[Simon Garrett]

If you browse through the threads here, it does not appear that the choice of a SATA or PCIe (with M.2 package format) connected SSD will yield any "noticeable" variations in performance re boot times or common functions in LR and PS.

Clearly the raw speed of an M.2 SSD is much faster than that of a SATA SSD (typically 2,400MBps compared to a maximum of 600MBps) but how much difference that makes to real Windows performance is arguable. When I changed from a SATA SSD of 400MBps to an M.2 SSD of 2250MBps the increase in speed was noticeable but nothing like the 4.5 to 1 increase of raw speed.

Also, it seems (based on user experience here) that whether you put heavy I/O files on one SSD or multiple SSDs again does not show any "noticeable" differences.

I went with the 6700K mildly OC's at 4.6 GHz and 32 GB of memory. I had a bunch of Evo 850s so I used a 256GB for the OS and pgms, a 500GB for my photo working set and another 250GB for catalogs, caches, scratch disks, etc. I use a couple of WD Blacks for intermediate storage and 4 3TB WE externals for long term storage.

However, I don't believe I would see any difference if I replaced all 3 of my SSDs with one larger one, based on personal experience so far and the feedback from others here.

That's my understanding too. There is no seek time with SSDs, and avoiding seek time is the normal reason for spreading files you want simultaneously over multiple hard drives. However, SATA ports often operate in parallel, so accessing two SSDs on two different SATA ports could allow files to be accessed in parallel (if the software is written to utilise that). I'm not sure it would make any noticeable difference in practice.

--
Simon

 

[Pictus]

oh, yes I know. I wasn't really asking that but something a lot more difficult. Essentially trying to learn which SSD would be better for scratch (950 Pro M.2) or (2.5" 850 Pro SSD), and which one of those two would be better for booting and applications. Moreover, I have a third, smaller SSD, and was also wondering if giving Lightroom full control of that for the LRCAT file has any advantage. Thanks for your response.

.

Have you definitely decided on an i7-5930K? Lightroom will probably run faster on a Skylake i7-6700K.

I also prefer the 6700K.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...K-vs-i7-6700K-641/#CPUPerformance-LightroomCC

I would get the i7-6700k and with the price difference buy a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB and because the M.2 950 is way faster than the 850 Pro I would leave everything(boot/APP/scratch/catalog) into the M.2 else the RAW/photos, to avoid the Samsung 950 Pro throttling down because of high temperature, add mini heat sinks.
With the i7-6700k I would also do a moderate overclock to 4.5Ghz(guide here), to cool the CPU the new Cooler Master MasterLiquid Pro line(long life pump).

How to boot Windows 10 from NVMe

After installing everything, better create a system image with a software like Macrium Reflect.

 

[SushiEater]

oh, yes I know. I wasn't really asking that but something a lot more difficult. Essentially trying to learn which SSD would be better for scratch (950 Pro M.2) or (2.5" 850 Pro SSD), and which one of those two would be better for booting and applications. Moreover, I have a third, smaller SSD, and was also wondering if giving Lightroom full control of that for the LRCAT file has any advantage. Thanks for your response.

.

Have you definitely decided on an i7-5930K? Lightroom will probably run faster on a Skylake i7-6700K.

I also prefer the 6700K.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...K-vs-i7-6700K-641/#CPUPerformance-LightroomCC

I would get the i7-6700k and with the price difference buy a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB and because the M.2 950 is way faster than the 850 Pro I would leave everything(boot/APP/scratch/catalog) into the M.2 else the RAW/photos, to avoid the Samsung 950 Pro throttling down because of high temperature, add mini heat sinks.
With the i7-6700k I would also do a moderate overclock to 4.5Ghz(guide here), to cool the CPU the new Cooler Master MasterLiquid Pro line(long life pump).

How to boot Windows 10 from NVMe

After installing everything, better create a system image with a software like Macrium Reflect.

First off all your article is talking about 4790K and OP is thinking 5930K. What if 5930K oveclocked to the same speed as 6700K? I bet performance would be the same. On the other hand 5930K will run circles in video editing running at the same speed as 6700K.

Second of all money spent on M.2 is wasted as has been discussed by those who tried.

I would rather suggest two SSD in raid 0 just to make one larger faster SSD. For example 2 sandisk Ultra Plus 1tb found on sale for $199. In raid 0 they would give 2 TB and faster than Samsung 2tb and cheaper too.



--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

 

[Simon Garrett]

oh, yes I know. I wasn't really asking that but something a lot more difficult. Essentially trying to learn which SSD would be better for scratch (950 Pro M.2) or (2.5" 850 Pro SSD), and which one of those two would be better for booting and applications. Moreover, I have a third, smaller SSD, and was also wondering if giving Lightroom full control of that for the LRCAT file has any advantage. Thanks for your response.

.

Have you definitely decided on an i7-5930K? Lightroom will probably run faster on a Skylake i7-6700K.

I also prefer the 6700K.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...K-vs-i7-6700K-641/#CPUPerformance-LightroomCC

I would get the i7-6700k and with the price difference buy a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB and because the M.2 950 is way faster than the 850 Pro I would leave everything(boot/APP/scratch/catalog) into the M.2 else the RAW/photos, to avoid the Samsung 950 Pro throttling down because of high temperature, add mini heat sinks.
With the i7-6700k I would also do a moderate overclock to 4.5Ghz(guide here), to cool the CPU the new Cooler Master MasterLiquid Pro line(long life pump).

How to boot Windows 10 from NVMe

After installing everything, better create a system image with a software like Macrium Reflect.

First off all your article is talking about 4790K and OP is thinking 5930K. What if 5930K oveclocked to the same speed as 6700K? I bet performance would be the same.

Possibly, but the 5930K has a basic speed of 3.5GHz, the 6700K 4.0GHz, so in practice one would over-clock the 6700K to a higher speed, not the same speed.

On the other hand 5930K will run circles in video editing running at the same speed as 6700K.

Very true!

Second of all money spent on M.2 is wasted as has been discussed by those who tried.

When I changed a 400MBps SATA SSD for a 2250MBps M.2 there was a noticeable increase in speed. I didn't measure it, but certainly nothing like the 5 times increase in raw speed. A Samsung 950 Pro (M.2) is about 40% more expensive than an 850 PRO (SATA). One might say that's a waste of money for the slight but noticeable increase in effective speed.

I would rather suggest two SSD in raid 0 just to make one larger faster SSD. For example 2 sandisk Ultra Plus 1tb found on sale for $199. In raid 0 they would give 2 TB and faster than Samsung 2tb and cheaper too.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

--
Simon

 

[SushiEater]

oh, yes I know. I wasn't really asking that but something a lot more difficult. Essentially trying to learn which SSD would be better for scratch (950 Pro M.2) or (2.5" 850 Pro SSD), and which one of those two would be better for booting and applications. Moreover, I have a third, smaller SSD, and was also wondering if giving Lightroom full control of that for the LRCAT file has any advantage. Thanks for your response.

.

Have you definitely decided on an i7-5930K? Lightroom will probably run faster on a Skylake i7-6700K.

I also prefer the 6700K.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...K-vs-i7-6700K-641/#CPUPerformance-LightroomCC

I would get the i7-6700k and with the price difference buy a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB and because the M.2 950 is way faster than the 850 Pro I would leave everything(boot/APP/scratch/catalog) into the M.2 else the RAW/photos, to avoid the Samsung 950 Pro throttling down because of high temperature, add mini heat sinks.
With the i7-6700k I would also do a moderate overclock to 4.5Ghz(guide here), to cool the CPU the new Cooler Master MasterLiquid Pro line(long life pump).

How to boot Windows 10 from NVMe

After installing everything, better create a system image with a software like Macrium Reflect.

First off all your article is talking about 4790K and OP is thinking 5930K. What if 5930K oveclocked to the same speed as 6700K? I bet performance would be the same.

Possibly, but the 5930K has a basic speed of 3.5GHz, the 6700K 4.0GHz, so in practice one would over-clock the 6700K to a higher speed, not the same speed.

I wish that would be true. But it is not. Most CPUs these days have limit around average 4.6Ghz on liquid or air. You have to go to phase change or higher to get higher speeds.

I am running 3930K 3.2Ghz at 4.5Ghz very stable. Can go higher but need to increase voltage in the red zone and in reality it would not give me much higher performance.

On the other hand 5930K will run circles in video editing running at the same speed as 6700K.

Very true!

Second of all money spent on M.2 is wasted as has been discussed by those who tried.

When I changed a 400MBps SATA SSD for a 2250MBps M.2 there was a noticeable increase in speed. I didn't measure it, but certainly nothing like the 5 times increase in raw speed. A Samsung 950 Pro (M.2) is about 40% more expensive than an 850 PRO (SATA). One might say that's a waste of money for the slight but noticeable increase in effective speed.

You are the only one reporting this speed increase. What application/s?

I would rather suggest two SSD in raid 0 just to make one larger faster SSD. For example 2 sandisk Ultra Plus 1tb found on sale for $199. In raid 0 they would give 2 TB and faster than Samsung 2tb and cheaper too.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

--
Simon

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

 

[bostonartgallery]

Thanks for the responses, much of this has been helpful. I am stuck, for lack of a better way of putting it, with the hardware I have now. I am also finding what several of the comments have stated here, that being the speed difference in real world terms (950 or 850) won't be overwhelming. I think a couple of the main points - putting the Lrcat file on an SSD and Ps scratch on one as well, I will absolutely do, as well as Windows and apps. I also read prior to windows 10 you could not boot from m.2 without other issues being resolved, but don't think that is a problem any longer. I'm not 100% but I'm thinking at this point I will have Windows and apps on the 512 850 pro, and let the m.2 be the Photoshop scratch disk. I also understand the amount of RAM factors greatly in Ps performance. Since I have yet another SSD, a 256 850 Pro, I will probably put the Lightroom catalog files there. The bulk of my data is on the spinners, 4TB WD blacks. There were slightly odd circumstance with regard to how I ended up with the extraneous SSD's (including the M.2) so I was simply attempting to make sure I put the right files on the appropriate SSD, if it mattered.

 

[Sean Nelson]

PS uses scratch when it does not have enough memory.

Sadly it always uses scratch no matter the amount of RAM you have, each
history state is saved into the scratch.

While this is true, lots of RAM still helps because (a) disk write caching to RAM means that Photoshop doesn't have to wait for the slow disk to do the writes, and (b) if you perform "Undos", that same RAM cache means you don't have to wait for the previous state to be read back from the slow disk.

IMHO if Photoshop scratch disk activity is truly a bottleneck then more RAM could well be a better solution than a faster disk. Especially when even the slowest RAM is thousands of times faster than even the fastest SSD.

 

[Simon Garrett]

oh, yes I know. I wasn't really asking that but something a lot more difficult. Essentially trying to learn which SSD would be better for scratch (950 Pro M.2) or (2.5" 850 Pro SSD), and which one of those two would be better for booting and applications. Moreover, I have a third, smaller SSD, and was also wondering if giving Lightroom full control of that for the LRCAT file has any advantage. Thanks for your response.

.

Have you definitely decided on an i7-5930K? Lightroom will probably run faster on a Skylake i7-6700K.

I also prefer the 6700K.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...K-vs-i7-6700K-641/#CPUPerformance-LightroomCC

I would get the i7-6700k and with the price difference buy a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB and because the M.2 950 is way faster than the 850 Pro I would leave everything(boot/APP/scratch/catalog) into the M.2 else the RAW/photos, to avoid the Samsung 950 Pro throttling down because of high temperature, add mini heat sinks.
With the i7-6700k I would also do a moderate overclock to 4.5Ghz(guide here), to cool the CPU the new Cooler Master MasterLiquid Pro line(long life pump).

How to boot Windows 10 from NVMe

After installing everything, better create a system image with a software like Macrium Reflect.

First off all your article is talking about 4790K and OP is thinking 5930K. What if 5930K oveclocked to the same speed as 6700K? I bet performance would be the same.

Possibly, but the 5930K has a basic speed of 3.5GHz, the 6700K 4.0GHz, so in practice one would over-clock the 6700K to a higher speed, not the same speed.

I wish that would be true. But it is not. Most CPUs these days have limit around average 4.6Ghz on liquid or air. You have to go to phase change or higher to get higher speeds.

I had not heard that. Why would Intel quote very different nominal clock speeds if they can all run at the same maximum speed?

I am running 3930K 3.2Ghz at 4.5Ghz very stable. Can go higher but need to increase voltage in the red zone and in reality it would not give me much higher performance.

On the other hand 5930K will run circles in video editing running at the same speed as 6700K.

Very true!

Second of all money spent on M.2 is wasted as has been discussed by those who tried.

When I changed a 400MBps SATA SSD for a 2250MBps M.2 there was a noticeable increase in speed. I didn't measure it, but certainly nothing like the 5 times increase in raw speed. A Samsung 950 Pro (M.2) is about 40% more expensive than an 850 PRO (SATA). One might say that's a waste of money for the slight but noticeable increase in effective speed.

You are the only one reporting this speed increase. What application/s?

Lightroom in particular. I measured a few before/after timings. I can't find the notes I made at the time, but one or two that I can remember: Lightroom does not load the Develop Module code until you first use it. With the M.2 SSD it was taking less than 2 seconds to load Develop Module code, on the SATA SSD it was taking 3-4. When scrolling through Library module in Loupe view, to display previously-rendered previews was taking a second or two with previews on the SATA drive, it was taking under a second on the M.2. Of course, lots of things can affect responsiveness of programs, but this difference was consistent and significant enough for me to conclude it was probably related to the SSD speeds.

You say I am the only one reporting a speed increase; perhaps you can cite some specific before/after timings that don't show a speed increase.

I would rather suggest two SSD in raid 0 just to make one larger faster SSD. For example 2 sandisk Ultra Plus 1tb found on sale for $199. In raid 0 they would give 2 TB and faster than Samsung 2tb and cheaper too.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

--
Simon

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

--
Simon

 

[SushiEater]

oh, yes I know. I wasn't really asking that but something a lot more difficult. Essentially trying to learn which SSD would be better for scratch (950 Pro M.2) or (2.5" 850 Pro SSD), and which one of those two would be better for booting and applications. Moreover, I have a third, smaller SSD, and was also wondering if giving Lightroom full control of that for the LRCAT file has any advantage. Thanks for your response.

.

Have you definitely decided on an i7-5930K? Lightroom will probably run faster on a Skylake i7-6700K.

I also prefer the 6700K.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...K-vs-i7-6700K-641/#CPUPerformance-LightroomCC

I would get the i7-6700k and with the price difference buy a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB and because the M.2 950 is way faster than the 850 Pro I would leave everything(boot/APP/scratch/catalog) into the M.2 else the RAW/photos, to avoid the Samsung 950 Pro throttling down because of high temperature, add mini heat sinks.
With the i7-6700k I would also do a moderate overclock to 4.5Ghz(guide here), to cool the CPU the new Cooler Master MasterLiquid Pro line(long life pump).

How to boot Windows 10 from NVMe

After installing everything, better create a system image with a software like Macrium Reflect.

First off all your article is talking about 4790K and OP is thinking 5930K. What if 5930K oveclocked to the same speed as 6700K? I bet performance would be the same.

Possibly, but the 5930K has a basic speed of 3.5GHz, the 6700K 4.0GHz, so in practice one would over-clock the 6700K to a higher speed, not the same speed.

I wish that would be true. But it is not. Most CPUs these days have limit around average 4.6Ghz on liquid or air. You have to go to phase change or higher to get higher speeds.

I had not heard that. Why would Intel quote very different nominal clock speeds if they can all run at the same maximum speed?

I am running 3930K 3.2Ghz at 4.5Ghz very stable. Can go higher but need to increase voltage in the red zone and in reality it would not give me much higher performance.

On the other hand 5930K will run circles in video editing running at the same speed as 6700K.

Very true!

Second of all money spent on M.2 is wasted as has been discussed by those who tried.

When I changed a 400MBps SATA SSD for a 2250MBps M.2 there was a noticeable increase in speed. I didn't measure it, but certainly nothing like the 5 times increase in raw speed. A Samsung 950 Pro (M.2) is about 40% more expensive than an 850 PRO (SATA). One might say that's a waste of money for the slight but noticeable increase in effective speed.

You are the only one reporting this speed increase. What application/s?

Lightroom in particular. I measured a few before/after timings. I can't find the notes I made at the time, but one or two that I can remember: Lightroom does not load the Develop Module code until you first use it. With the M.2 SSD it was taking less than 2 seconds to load Develop Module code, on the SATA SSD it was taking 3-4. When scrolling through Library module in Loupe view, to display previously-rendered previews was taking a second or two with previews on the SATA drive, it was taking under a second on the M.2. Of course, lots of things can affect responsiveness of programs, but this difference was consistent and significant enough for me to conclude it was probably related to the SSD speeds.

And now you are the only one to report that.

You say I am the only one reporting a speed increase; perhaps you can cite some specific before/after timings that don't show a speed increase.

Those who tried M.2 in a few threads reported no difference between M.2 and the "regular" SSD.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com