NVME SSD or SATA 2,5 for PC build?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Sean Nelson
Sean Nelson Forum Pro • Posts: 14,150
Re: NVME, then SATA

Morris0 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

Ron Zamir wrote:

Yes, the NVME would go on the motherboard.

...I guess the only downside would be in not being able to remove the drives and put them into an external enclosure for some sort of utility purpose...

There are lots of external cases for NVME drives. This is the first one that came up in a search

https://www.amazon.com/Acasis-Enclosures-Enclosure-Type-C-Samsung/dp/B07G96D4XF

Thanks!   It doesn't surprise me that there's something like that available, for me personally the biggest drawback is that I'd have to actually go out and buy it rather than just sticking the SSD into my SATA drive dock.

Again, not really a big deal and it didn't stop me from buying two SSDs in the M.2 form factor.

Morris0
Morris0 Forum Pro • Posts: 18,168
Re: NVME, then SATA

Sean Nelson wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

Ron Zamir wrote:

Yes, the NVME would go on the motherboard.

...I guess the only downside would be in not being able to remove the drives and put them into an external enclosure for some sort of utility purpose...

There are lots of external cases for NVME drives. This is the first one that came up in a search

https://www.amazon.com/Acasis-Enclosures-Enclosure-Type-C-Samsung/dp/B07G96D4XF

Thanks! It doesn't surprise me that there's something like that available, for me personally the biggest drawback is that I'd have to actually go out and buy it rather than just sticking the SSD into my SATA drive dock.

Again, not really a big deal and it didn't stop me from buying two SSDs in the M.2 form factor.

I use recycled drives as thumb drives.  Fast and sizable :-}

 Morris0's gear list:Morris0's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C XF 90mm +11 more
jpzundel Regular Member • Posts: 169
Re: NVME SSD or SATA 2,5 for PC build?
1

NVME is much faster than SATA, assuming the specific drive can reach the speed possible on the channel.

By a large factor:
- SATA-based SSDs top out around 550 MB/s,
- while NVMe drives can reach up to 3,500 MB/s on PCIe 3.0

 jpzundel's gear list:jpzundel's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Olympus E-300 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-M1 +6 more
Simon Garrett Veteran Member • Posts: 6,900
Re: Careful with the b and the B

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Ron Zamir wrote:

Hi. Just a beginner question - My first ever build PC based on AMMD Ryzen 2400G on an Asrock B450 motherboard. I have collected most of the parts but case. I bought the Samaung Evo 860 2,5 Sata SSD. This PC is not for gaming just office and Photoshop and some basic video editing. Saw some review, very impressed with the Kingston A2000. Does it make sense to sell the Samsung SSD and get the Kingston or other NVME SSD? Will I notice any improvement, speed difference and reliability?

The big difference is when you go from hard drive to SSD. There is an additional improvement in load time and responsiveness with a fast NVNM drive yet it's not huge.

Morris

The throughput of M.2 NVMe SSDs can be much faster than SATA SSDs. SATA maxes out at 6GB/s,

Nope, 6Gb as in bits, not B as in bytes per second

SATA I (revision 1.x) interface, formally known as SATA 1.5Gb/s, is the first generation SATA interface running at 1.5 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 150MB/s.

SATA II (revision 2.x) interface, formally known as SATA 3Gb/s, is a second generation SATA interface running at 3.0 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 300MB/s.

SATA III (revision 3.x) interface, formally known as SATA 6Gb/s, is a third generation SATA interface running at 6.0Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 600MB/s. This interface is backwards compatible with SATA 3 Gb/s interface.

but M.2 NVMe can reach approaching 40GB/s (potentially double for PCIe 4.0). I can measure that sort of difference between SATA and NVMe SSDs I have.

A typical Samsung 970 Evo PCIe NVMe is rated at 3500 MB per second sequential read and 3300 MB per second sequential write.

Although 5 times the disk throughput would be pretty unlikely to make any program run 5 times as fast, on my machines, Lightroom is significantly faster with M.2 SSDs.

M.2 is just a design factor and can support PCIe or SATA or even USB. I supposed you mean with M.2 PCIe NVMe SSDs. But even then that statement is not consistent with Puget's testing, I have posted their benchmark results for Lightroom below.

You're quite right about my use of B vs b, but I was consistent in that in both cases I was quoting bits per sec not bytes, and I did say NVMe.  M.2 NVMe has a much higher potential throughput than SATA, and many modern M.2 NVMe SSDs achieve a throughput well beyond SATA capability.

Whether that difference makes a perceptable difference in LR performance is another matter.  I can say that my upgrade from i7-6700K to a 3900X and at the same time from a SATA SSD (for LR catalog and previews) to an NVMe SSD with 5 times the throughput made a very perceptable increase in LR speed.

-- hide signature --

Simon

 Simon Garrett's gear list:Simon Garrett's gear list
Nikon D800
edispics
edispics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,404
Re: Careful with the b and the B
1

Simon Garrett wrote:

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Ron Zamir wrote:

Hi. Just a beginner question - My first ever build PC based on AMMD Ryzen 2400G on an Asrock B450 motherboard. I have collected most of the parts but case. I bought the Samaung Evo 860 2,5 Sata SSD. This PC is not for gaming just office and Photoshop and some basic video editing. Saw some review, very impressed with the Kingston A2000. Does it make sense to sell the Samsung SSD and get the Kingston or other NVME SSD? Will I notice any improvement, speed difference and reliability?

The big difference is when you go from hard drive to SSD. There is an additional improvement in load time and responsiveness with a fast NVNM drive yet it's not huge.

Morris

The throughput of M.2 NVMe SSDs can be much faster than SATA SSDs. SATA maxes out at 6GB/s,

Nope, 6Gb as in bits, not B as in bytes per second

SATA I (revision 1.x) interface, formally known as SATA 1.5Gb/s, is the first generation SATA interface running at 1.5 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 150MB/s.

SATA II (revision 2.x) interface, formally known as SATA 3Gb/s, is a second generation SATA interface running at 3.0 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 300MB/s.

SATA III (revision 3.x) interface, formally known as SATA 6Gb/s, is a third generation SATA interface running at 6.0Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 600MB/s. This interface is backwards compatible with SATA 3 Gb/s interface.

but M.2 NVMe can reach approaching 40GB/s (potentially double for PCIe 4.0). I can measure that sort of difference between SATA and NVMe SSDs I have.

A typical Samsung 970 Evo PCIe NVMe is rated at 3500 MB per second sequential read and 3300 MB per second sequential write.

Although 5 times the disk throughput would be pretty unlikely to make any program run 5 times as fast, on my machines, Lightroom is significantly faster with M.2 SSDs.

M.2 is just a design factor and can support PCIe or SATA or even USB. I supposed you mean with M.2 PCIe NVMe SSDs. But even then that statement is not consistent with Puget's testing, I have posted their benchmark results for Lightroom below.

You're quite right about my use of B vs b, but I was consistent in that in both cases I was quoting bits per sec not bytes, and I did say NVMe. M.2 NVMe has a much higher potential throughput than SATA, and many modern M.2 NVMe SSDs achieve a throughput well beyond SATA capability.

Whether that difference makes a perceptable difference in LR performance is another matter. I can say that my upgrade from i7-6700K to a 3900X and at the same time from a SATA SSD (for LR catalog and previews) to an NVMe SSD with 5 times the throughput made a very perceptable increase in LR speed.

But to be relevant to the OP's  original question, you would have to separate out the 3900x effect from the NVMe SSD effect and then specify which LR functions actually were faster, all other things being equal.

As the Puget testing shows, and to the OP's point, in the case of Lightroom, NVMe SSDs were only meaningfully faster than SATA SSDs in converting to DNG and exporting to jpeg.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-2015-8-Storage-Performance-Analysis-875/

 edispics's gear list:edispics's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D7000 Nikon D7200 Nikon Z6 Nikon D70 +25 more
Morris0
Morris0 Forum Pro • Posts: 18,168
Re: Careful with the b and the B

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Ron Zamir wrote:

Hi. Just a beginner question - My first ever build PC based on AMMD Ryzen 2400G on an Asrock B450 motherboard. I have collected most of the parts but case. I bought the Samaung Evo 860 2,5 Sata SSD. This PC is not for gaming just office and Photoshop and some basic video editing. Saw some review, very impressed with the Kingston A2000. Does it make sense to sell the Samsung SSD and get the Kingston or other NVME SSD? Will I notice any improvement, speed difference and reliability?

The big difference is when you go from hard drive to SSD. There is an additional improvement in load time and responsiveness with a fast NVNM drive yet it's not huge.

Morris

The throughput of M.2 NVMe SSDs can be much faster than SATA SSDs. SATA maxes out at 6GB/s,

Nope, 6Gb as in bits, not B as in bytes per second

SATA I (revision 1.x) interface, formally known as SATA 1.5Gb/s, is the first generation SATA interface running at 1.5 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 150MB/s.

SATA II (revision 2.x) interface, formally known as SATA 3Gb/s, is a second generation SATA interface running at 3.0 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 300MB/s.

SATA III (revision 3.x) interface, formally known as SATA 6Gb/s, is a third generation SATA interface running at 6.0Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 600MB/s. This interface is backwards compatible with SATA 3 Gb/s interface.

but M.2 NVMe can reach approaching 40GB/s (potentially double for PCIe 4.0). I can measure that sort of difference between SATA and NVMe SSDs I have.

A typical Samsung 970 Evo PCIe NVMe is rated at 3500 MB per second sequential read and 3300 MB per second sequential write.

Although 5 times the disk throughput would be pretty unlikely to make any program run 5 times as fast, on my machines, Lightroom is significantly faster with M.2 SSDs.

M.2 is just a design factor and can support PCIe or SATA or even USB. I supposed you mean with M.2 PCIe NVMe SSDs. But even then that statement is not consistent with Puget's testing, I have posted their benchmark results for Lightroom below.

You're quite right about my use of B vs b, but I was consistent in that in both cases I was quoting bits per sec not bytes, and I did say NVMe. M.2 NVMe has a much higher potential throughput than SATA, and many modern M.2 NVMe SSDs achieve a throughput well beyond SATA capability.

Whether that difference makes a perceptable difference in LR performance is another matter. I can say that my upgrade from i7-6700K to a 3900X and at the same time from a SATA SSD (for LR catalog and previews) to an NVMe SSD with 5 times the throughput made a very perceptable increase in LR speed.

But to be relevant to the OP's original question, you would have to separate out the 3900x effect from the NVMe SSD effect and then specify which LR functions actually were faster, all other things being equal.

As the Puget testing shows, and to the OP's point, in the case of Lightroom, NVMe SSDs were only meaningfully faster than SATA SSDs in converting to DNG and exporting to jpeg.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-2015-8-Storage-Performance-Analysis-875/

Quoting 4 year old tests is not very usefull

Morris

 Morris0's gear list:Morris0's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C XF 90mm +11 more
edispics
edispics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,404
Re: Careful with the b and the B

Morris0 wrote:

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Ron Zamir wrote:

Hi. Just a beginner question - My first ever build PC based on AMMD Ryzen 2400G on an Asrock B450 motherboard. I have collected most of the parts but case. I bought the Samaung Evo 860 2,5 Sata SSD. This PC is not for gaming just office and Photoshop and some basic video editing. Saw some review, very impressed with the Kingston A2000. Does it make sense to sell the Samsung SSD and get the Kingston or other NVME SSD? Will I notice any improvement, speed difference and reliability?

The big difference is when you go from hard drive to SSD. There is an additional improvement in load time and responsiveness with a fast NVNM drive yet it's not huge.

Morris

The throughput of M.2 NVMe SSDs can be much faster than SATA SSDs. SATA maxes out at 6GB/s,

Nope, 6Gb as in bits, not B as in bytes per second

SATA I (revision 1.x) interface, formally known as SATA 1.5Gb/s, is the first generation SATA interface running at 1.5 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 150MB/s.

SATA II (revision 2.x) interface, formally known as SATA 3Gb/s, is a second generation SATA interface running at 3.0 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 300MB/s.

SATA III (revision 3.x) interface, formally known as SATA 6Gb/s, is a third generation SATA interface running at 6.0Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 600MB/s. This interface is backwards compatible with SATA 3 Gb/s interface.

but M.2 NVMe can reach approaching 40GB/s (potentially double for PCIe 4.0). I can measure that sort of difference between SATA and NVMe SSDs I have.

A typical Samsung 970 Evo PCIe NVMe is rated at 3500 MB per second sequential read and 3300 MB per second sequential write.

Although 5 times the disk throughput would be pretty unlikely to make any program run 5 times as fast, on my machines, Lightroom is significantly faster with M.2 SSDs.

M.2 is just a design factor and can support PCIe or SATA or even USB. I supposed you mean with M.2 PCIe NVMe SSDs. But even then that statement is not consistent with Puget's testing, I have posted their benchmark results for Lightroom below.

You're quite right about my use of B vs b, but I was consistent in that in both cases I was quoting bits per sec not bytes, and I did say NVMe. M.2 NVMe has a much higher potential throughput than SATA, and many modern M.2 NVMe SSDs achieve a throughput well beyond SATA capability.

Whether that difference makes a perceptable difference in LR performance is another matter. I can say that my upgrade from i7-6700K to a 3900X and at the same time from a SATA SSD (for LR catalog and previews) to an NVMe SSD with 5 times the throughput made a very perceptable increase in LR speed.

But to be relevant to the OP's original question, you would have to separate out the 3900x effect from the NVMe SSD effect and then specify which LR functions actually were faster, all other things being equal.

As the Puget testing shows, and to the OP's point, in the case of Lightroom, NVMe SSDs were only meaningfully faster than SATA SSDs in converting to DNG and exporting to jpeg.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-2015-8-Storage-Performance-Analysis-875/

Quoting 4 year old tests is not very usefull

Morris

The speed differential between the tested SATA SSD and the NVMe SSD is about the same as that cited  by Simon above. How would you expect that test, if repeated today, to substantively differ.

 edispics's gear list:edispics's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D7000 Nikon D7200 Nikon Z6 Nikon D70 +25 more
edispics
edispics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,404
Re: NVME SSD or SATA 2,5 for PC build?

Morris0 wrote:

johnnyandedgar wrote:

"My question is about the actual performance, under regular PC work, no gaming. Will there be BIG difference, in terms of speed and reliability in the "real world", between installed SATA 2'5 SSD and installed NVME SSD?"

I have used NVME SSD's now for two years without issue. They do provide a performance

increase.

johnnyandedgar

Judge with your own eyes. There are many more video's and reviews that show the small difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3AMz-xZ2VM

Morris

As per your response to my response to Simon I can ask the same question, what relevance do game load times have to to OP's question about real life differences between SATA and NVMe drives for photographic use.

 edispics's gear list:edispics's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D7000 Nikon D7200 Nikon Z6 Nikon D70 +25 more
Simon Garrett Veteran Member • Posts: 6,900
Re: Careful with the b and the B
3

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Ron Zamir wrote:

Hi. Just a beginner question - My first ever build PC based on AMMD Ryzen 2400G on an Asrock B450 motherboard. I have collected most of the parts but case. I bought the Samaung Evo 860 2,5 Sata SSD. This PC is not for gaming just office and Photoshop and some basic video editing. Saw some review, very impressed with the Kingston A2000. Does it make sense to sell the Samsung SSD and get the Kingston or other NVME SSD? Will I notice any improvement, speed difference and reliability?

The big difference is when you go from hard drive to SSD. There is an additional improvement in load time and responsiveness with a fast NVNM drive yet it's not huge.

Morris

The throughput of M.2 NVMe SSDs can be much faster than SATA SSDs. SATA maxes out at 6GB/s,

Nope, 6Gb as in bits, not B as in bytes per second

SATA I (revision 1.x) interface, formally known as SATA 1.5Gb/s, is the first generation SATA interface running at 1.5 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 150MB/s.

SATA II (revision 2.x) interface, formally known as SATA 3Gb/s, is a second generation SATA interface running at 3.0 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 300MB/s.

SATA III (revision 3.x) interface, formally known as SATA 6Gb/s, is a third generation SATA interface running at 6.0Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 600MB/s. This interface is backwards compatible with SATA 3 Gb/s interface.

but M.2 NVMe can reach approaching 40GB/s (potentially double for PCIe 4.0). I can measure that sort of difference between SATA and NVMe SSDs I have.

A typical Samsung 970 Evo PCIe NVMe is rated at 3500 MB per second sequential read and 3300 MB per second sequential write.

Although 5 times the disk throughput would be pretty unlikely to make any program run 5 times as fast, on my machines, Lightroom is significantly faster with M.2 SSDs.

M.2 is just a design factor and can support PCIe or SATA or even USB. I supposed you mean with M.2 PCIe NVMe SSDs. But even then that statement is not consistent with Puget's testing, I have posted their benchmark results for Lightroom below.

You're quite right about my use of B vs b, but I was consistent in that in both cases I was quoting bits per sec not bytes, and I did say NVMe. M.2 NVMe has a much higher potential throughput than SATA, and many modern M.2 NVMe SSDs achieve a throughput well beyond SATA capability.

Whether that difference makes a perceptable difference in LR performance is another matter. I can say that my upgrade from i7-6700K to a 3900X and at the same time from a SATA SSD (for LR catalog and previews) to an NVMe SSD with 5 times the throughput made a very perceptable increase in LR speed.

But to be relevant to the OP's original question, you would have to separate out the 3900x effect from the NVMe SSD effect and then specify which LR functions actually were faster, all other things being equal.

Quite right, and sorry if I didn't make that clear: I had no idea whether the change of processor or SSD influenced the difference.

As the Puget testing shows, and to the OP's point, in the case of Lightroom, NVMe SSDs were only meaningfully faster than SATA SSDs in converting to DNG and exporting to jpeg.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-2015-8-Storage-Performance-Analysis-875/

That Puget benchmark didn't look right; it implies the same performance for HD, SATA SSD or M.2 NVMe SSD and I checked.  I took a catalog and copied catalog and image files (all jpegs in this case) to different drives and measured the time to create 827 1:1 previews.  In each case, I deleted all existing previews first.

HD with measured sequential read speed 107 MB/s: 85 secs

SATA SSD with measured sequential read speed 550 MB/s: 83 secs

M.2 NVMe Samsung 950 Pro, sequential read 1862 MB/s: 80 secs

M.2 NVMe Samsung 970 Pro, sequential read 3561 MB/s: 80 secs

In other words: on my 3900x system, disk speed appears to have virtually no impact on LR time to create previews, as Puget reported. Well, sorry for doubting Puget's figures!

-- hide signature --

Simon

 Simon Garrett's gear list:Simon Garrett's gear list
Nikon D800
Morris0
Morris0 Forum Pro • Posts: 18,168
Re: Careful with the b and the B

edispics wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Ron Zamir wrote:

Hi. Just a beginner question - My first ever build PC based on AMMD Ryzen 2400G on an Asrock B450 motherboard. I have collected most of the parts but case. I bought the Samaung Evo 860 2,5 Sata SSD. This PC is not for gaming just office and Photoshop and some basic video editing. Saw some review, very impressed with the Kingston A2000. Does it make sense to sell the Samsung SSD and get the Kingston or other NVME SSD? Will I notice any improvement, speed difference and reliability?

The big difference is when you go from hard drive to SSD. There is an additional improvement in load time and responsiveness with a fast NVNM drive yet it's not huge.

Morris

The throughput of M.2 NVMe SSDs can be much faster than SATA SSDs. SATA maxes out at 6GB/s,

Nope, 6Gb as in bits, not B as in bytes per second

SATA I (revision 1.x) interface, formally known as SATA 1.5Gb/s, is the first generation SATA interface running at 1.5 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 150MB/s.

SATA II (revision 2.x) interface, formally known as SATA 3Gb/s, is a second generation SATA interface running at 3.0 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 300MB/s.

SATA III (revision 3.x) interface, formally known as SATA 6Gb/s, is a third generation SATA interface running at 6.0Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 600MB/s. This interface is backwards compatible with SATA 3 Gb/s interface.

but M.2 NVMe can reach approaching 40GB/s (potentially double for PCIe 4.0). I can measure that sort of difference between SATA and NVMe SSDs I have.

A typical Samsung 970 Evo PCIe NVMe is rated at 3500 MB per second sequential read and 3300 MB per second sequential write.

Although 5 times the disk throughput would be pretty unlikely to make any program run 5 times as fast, on my machines, Lightroom is significantly faster with M.2 SSDs.

M.2 is just a design factor and can support PCIe or SATA or even USB. I supposed you mean with M.2 PCIe NVMe SSDs. But even then that statement is not consistent with Puget's testing, I have posted their benchmark results for Lightroom below.

You're quite right about my use of B vs b, but I was consistent in that in both cases I was quoting bits per sec not bytes, and I did say NVMe. M.2 NVMe has a much higher potential throughput than SATA, and many modern M.2 NVMe SSDs achieve a throughput well beyond SATA capability.

Whether that difference makes a perceptable difference in LR performance is another matter. I can say that my upgrade from i7-6700K to a 3900X and at the same time from a SATA SSD (for LR catalog and previews) to an NVMe SSD with 5 times the throughput made a very perceptable increase in LR speed.

But to be relevant to the OP's original question, you would have to separate out the 3900x effect from the NVMe SSD effect and then specify which LR functions actually were faster, all other things being equal.

As the Puget testing shows, and to the OP's point, in the case of Lightroom, NVMe SSDs were only meaningfully faster than SATA SSDs in converting to DNG and exporting to jpeg.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-2015-8-Storage-Performance-Analysis-875/

Quoting 4 year old tests is not very usefull

Morris

The speed differential between the tested SATA SSD and the NVMe SSD is about the same as that cited by Simon above. How would you expect that test, if repeated today, to substantively differ.

Both the software and the hardware has been improved.  Good SATA drives are now limited by the interface on both reads and writes while they were not 4 years ago.  There IOPS have substantially improved as well.  NVME drives have also improved as has Lightroom.

Yet if you look at the charts in the conclusions the data is clear:

Convert 100 images to DNG:  NVME drive 78.3 seconds and with the SATA drive 78.8 seconds.

Export 100 RAW to JPEG: NVME 109.7 seconds and SATA 110 seconds.

The test demonstrates a tiny difference.  I don't use Lightroom yet I would not expect much of a difference.  NVME provides an tiny measurable difference.  I use NVME drives on my system as it feels a bit snappier.  I get a small improvement by placing programs, scratch and paging on separate drives.

I feel it's about what makes you feel good,

Morris

 Morris0's gear list:Morris0's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C XF 90mm +11 more
Morris0
Morris0 Forum Pro • Posts: 18,168
Re: NVME SSD or SATA 2,5 for PC build?

edispics wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

johnnyandedgar wrote:

"My question is about the actual performance, under regular PC work, no gaming. Will there be BIG difference, in terms of speed and reliability in the "real world", between installed SATA 2'5 SSD and installed NVME SSD?"

I have used NVME SSD's now for two years without issue. They do provide a performance

increase.

johnnyandedgar

Judge with your own eyes. There are many more video's and reviews that show the small difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3AMz-xZ2VM

Morris

As per your response to my response to Simon I can ask the same question, what relevance do game load times have to to OP's question about real life differences between SATA and NVMe drives for photographic use.

They are both random tests that show about the same results.  See Simon's recent test:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64495360

Morris

 Morris0's gear list:Morris0's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C XF 90mm +11 more
edispics
edispics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,404
That's really useful!
1

Simon Garrett wrote:

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

edispics wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Ron Zamir wrote:

Hi. Just a beginner question - My first ever build PC based on AMMD Ryzen 2400G on an Asrock B450 motherboard. I have collected most of the parts but case. I bought the Samaung Evo 860 2,5 Sata SSD. This PC is not for gaming just office and Photoshop and some basic video editing. Saw some review, very impressed with the Kingston A2000. Does it make sense to sell the Samsung SSD and get the Kingston or other NVME SSD? Will I notice any improvement, speed difference and reliability?

The big difference is when you go from hard drive to SSD. There is an additional improvement in load time and responsiveness with a fast NVNM drive yet it's not huge.

Morris

The throughput of M.2 NVMe SSDs can be much faster than SATA SSDs. SATA maxes out at 6GB/s,

Nope, 6Gb as in bits, not B as in bytes per second

SATA I (revision 1.x) interface, formally known as SATA 1.5Gb/s, is the first generation SATA interface running at 1.5 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 150MB/s.

SATA II (revision 2.x) interface, formally known as SATA 3Gb/s, is a second generation SATA interface running at 3.0 Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 300MB/s.

SATA III (revision 3.x) interface, formally known as SATA 6Gb/s, is a third generation SATA interface running at 6.0Gb/s. The bandwidth throughput, which is supported by the interface, is up to 600MB/s. This interface is backwards compatible with SATA 3 Gb/s interface.

but M.2 NVMe can reach approaching 40GB/s (potentially double for PCIe 4.0). I can measure that sort of difference between SATA and NVMe SSDs I have.

A typical Samsung 970 Evo PCIe NVMe is rated at 3500 MB per second sequential read and 3300 MB per second sequential write.

Although 5 times the disk throughput would be pretty unlikely to make any program run 5 times as fast, on my machines, Lightroom is significantly faster with M.2 SSDs.

M.2 is just a design factor and can support PCIe or SATA or even USB. I supposed you mean with M.2 PCIe NVMe SSDs. But even then that statement is not consistent with Puget's testing, I have posted their benchmark results for Lightroom below.

You're quite right about my use of B vs b, but I was consistent in that in both cases I was quoting bits per sec not bytes, and I did say NVMe. M.2 NVMe has a much higher potential throughput than SATA, and many modern M.2 NVMe SSDs achieve a throughput well beyond SATA capability.

Whether that difference makes a perceptable difference in LR performance is another matter. I can say that my upgrade from i7-6700K to a 3900X and at the same time from a SATA SSD (for LR catalog and previews) to an NVMe SSD with 5 times the throughput made a very perceptable increase in LR speed.

But to be relevant to the OP's original question, you would have to separate out the 3900x effect from the NVMe SSD effect and then specify which LR functions actually were faster, all other things being equal.

Quite right, and sorry if I didn't make that clear: I had no idea whether the change of processor or SSD influenced the difference.

As the Puget testing shows, and to the OP's point, in the case of Lightroom, NVMe SSDs were only meaningfully faster than SATA SSDs in converting to DNG and exporting to jpeg.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-2015-8-Storage-Performance-Analysis-875/

That Puget benchmark didn't look right; it implies the same performance for HD, SATA SSD or M.2 NVMe SSD and I checked. I took a catalog and copied catalog and image files (all jpegs in this case) to different drives and measured the time to create 827 1:1 previews. In each case, I deleted all existing previews first.

HD with measured sequential read speed 107 MB/s: 85 secs

SATA SSD with measured sequential read speed 550 MB/s: 83 secs

M.2 NVMe Samsung 950 Pro, sequential read 1862 MB/s: 80 secs

M.2 NVMe Samsung 970 Pro, sequential read 3561 MB/s: 80 secs

In other words: on my 3900x system, disk speed appears to have virtually no impact on LR time to create previews, as Puget reported. Well, sorry for doubting Puget's figures!

Thanks for taking the time to do that testing. Really useful and relevant.

 edispics's gear list:edispics's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D7000 Nikon D7200 Nikon Z6 Nikon D70 +25 more
edispics
edispics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,404
Re: Photoshop
1

Since you mentioned Photoshop in your post, here is Puget's take

What type of storage drive should I use for Photoshop?

There are three main types of drives you might use for a Photoshop workstation: SSD, NVMe, and the traditional platter drive. Of these three, traditional platter drives are the slowest but are extremely affordable and available in much larger capacities than SSD or NVMe drives. Due to this, they make excellent long-term storage drives, but are not ideal for OS or scratch drives.

SSDs are several times faster than a platter drive but are also more expensive. These drives are excellent for a wide range of tasks such as holding your OS and applications, storing projects, and as scratch drives.

NVMe drives come in two flavors (M.2 and U.2), but either one will be significantly faster than even an SSD drive. They are about 30% more expensive than an SSD, but in return are up to five times faster! However, in most cases you will not see much of a performance increase with an NVMe drive since a modern standard SSD is already fast enough that it is rarely a performance bottleneck. These drives can be used as an OS and application drive to make your system boot and launch programs a bit faster, but in most cases they are a luxury item for Photoshop.

What storage configuration works best in Photoshop?

While you could get by with just a single drive, we recommend at least a two drive configuration depending on your budget and desired performance level:

  1. Primary Drive - OS/Software (SSD) - Includes your operating system and the base Photoshop installation. An SSD is highly recommended as it will greatly improve how fast the OS and programs startup, but there is usually not much of a performance benefit to upgrade to a faster NVMe drive.
  2. Secondary Drive - Project Files (Platter/SSD/M.2 NVMe) - If possible, it is a good idea to keep your photos and catalogs on a secondary drive. For most users even a platter drive should be more than fast enough, although a SSD tends to be snappier and will often smooth out your workflow.
  3. Optional Tertiary Drive - Scratch Drive (SSD/M.2 NVMe) - Most of the time, having your scratch files on your primary SSD should be just fine, but if your work involves heavy use of the scratch space, it may be beneficial to have a dedicated drive just for those files.

Can you work with Photoshop files directly from an external drive?

Technically, you could keep your projects on an external drive and work directly from that drive. However, this is one of the most common causes of performance and stability issues we hear about from our customers. We highly recommend copying all your files to a local drive before working on them. External drives are terrific for backup and archiving, but not ideal to work off of.

 edispics's gear list:edispics's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D7000 Nikon D7200 Nikon Z6 Nikon D70 +25 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads