FlyingVadapav
Disciple
Is it a good pick for OS boot and game loads? I currently use this one -> Kingston Digital SSD UV400 240GB SATA. My initial boot time on Win10 was 10sec. Now it's close to 25 seconds.
Last edited:
enthusiast29
Skilled
Better than a HDD certainly.
Last edited:
DEVRAJ BARIA
Disciple
Not sure whether it can improve over your current SSD or not. Sorry.
guest_999
Disciple
How much free space is there on your ssd? Dramless ssd(only dram sata ssd worth buying & easily available in India are samsung 860/870 evo & crucial MX500) speeds are greatly affected by free space available if using dynamic cache(which depends on free space available as it is a % of free space). Also, windows later versions are quite heavy anyway in terms of resource usage that's why windows enable "fast boot" option by default which is a kind of "fake startup" & works similar to hibernation. In fact compare your system boot time with & without fast boot & also restart(fast boot does not work when restarting pc).
There are dram less ssd which can drop to even usb 2.0 write speeds of 40MB/s after their cache is filled(crucial p2 nvme ssd does exactly this after its 135gb cache is filled in its 1tb model). Many dramless ssd often drop to around 100MB/s hdd write speeds once their cache is filled.
enthusiast29
Skilled
I'm fully aware of the differences and limitations of DRAM-less SSDs. I've used many of such drives even as a boot drive till date and I also have premium drives such as Samsung's which have DRAM.
Even then I can confidently say a DRAM-less SSD is any day far far superior than a mechanical HDD.
You buy SSD not for sequential speeds but for random read/write performance which is almost always at least 20 times better than a HDD. This is what makes your things load faster and the whole OS experience smoother. It's not due to sequential (advertised) speeds.
Sequential speeds only matter when reading/writing a single large file.
retrophiliac
Disciple
What would you say about brands that are cheaper and readily available in the local market, such as Consistent, EVM, Daichi, or Zebronics? Are they reliable for day-to-day usage? Most of them come with a 5-year warranty as well.
guest_999
Disciple
Yes I know but my usage often involves downloading 20-30gb archive files in split/extraction mode & dramless ssd crawls during this process. Another major headache is while taking backup of disks before taking laptop to say service centre or in general & there also dramless ssd crawls sometimes even slower than hdd. Check out the below table to see the avg speed of filling some dramless ssd.
Ask yourself this, would you rather have a 5 years warranty ssd failing within 3 years taking all the data with it & in return give you a replacement or a 3 years warranty ssd having lesser chances of failure in 3 years(remember no hdd/ssd is 100% failure proof anyway but same way not all data is worth the hassle of creating backups).
napstersquest
Disciple
I assume you know how DRAM cache works.
It will fill up quickly and then everything goes directly to NAND. DRAM is unlikely to be larger than 8GB even for 1TB drives.
Sustained speeds (for loads lot larger than DRAM size) are not dependant on presence or absence of DRAM. It would be highly impacted by whether drives are QLC(most budget drives)/TLC(more common)/MLC(rare).
DRAM-less TLC will perform better than QLC+DRAM for sustained read/write loads.
Many DRAM-less drives have some SLC NAND as their cache. This SLC Cache might be larger than DRAM capacity on drives with DRAM. So for some workloads, the DRAM-less drives with SLC cache will perform better for sustained loads than drives with DRAM (even if both are TLC).
The Samsung 980 is DRAM-less TLC (593MB/s), while Crucial P1 is QLC with DRAM (242MB/s).
This will help you understand better: https://linustechtips.com/topic/1092033-ssd-tier-list/
Last edited:
guest_999
Disciple
That is not exactly how DRAM works. Its main function is to store "a record of where data can be found on the flash memory" followed by a secondary function of "temp cache" in helping wear leveling. The cache function nowadays is delegated to a small SLC cache different from dram but it is just that a good SLC cache usually comes with good dram ssd(there are exceptions like wd SN570 & samsung 980 with static & dynamic SLC cache respectively which are good enough). The crucial p1 has dynamic SLC cache meaning the cache size depends on free space available on drive & is a percentage of that free space so if drive is say 90% filled then dynamic cache will be quite small. That ssd tier list is very basic in nature & alright for typical user but if one wants any deeper info then that list is of no use & one need to read detailed review of ssd on sites like tomshardware, anadtech & techpowerup to find out the nature of cache & its limits. For my usage of downloading/extracting 20-30gb files crucial p2 is not good if it is say 80%+ filled & if I need to treat a 1TB crucial P2 as 500gb ssd for maintaining decent cache size/performance then it is better to buy a good dram 500gb ssd/dramless ssd like sn570 anyway.
DRAM on an SSD: Is It Something You want? - Technipages
DRAM on An SSD: Is It Something You want? Discover the information that's going to help you decide if it's something you want.
www.technipages.com enthusiast29
Skilled
If you're very budget constrained only then look at them else Crucial BX500 is very cheap and close to their prices.
napstersquest
Disciple
Still,
This isn't 100% true in every case, and generalising DRAM-less drives was my main point. Obviously there are many factors contributing to what makes an SSD better or worse. Having DRAM is just one such factor. Since some DRAM-less drives can be better than other drives with DRAM, hence my post.
It still gives the general idea, and the list itself is based on actual data like DWPD, sustained writes, controllers and NAND types. Most of the data, I assume, would be obtained from product datasheets or reviews.
guest_999
Disciple
Yes it is not every case but why risk it if the price difference is around 1-1.5k for something coming with 3/5 years warranty(that extra amt spread over 3/5 years isn't much if seen in this way). Btw I only know two dramless ssd which are better than some dram ssd & those are samsung 980 & WD SN570 both being NVMe, there is no current dramless sata ssd which is better than any current dram ssd. basically me recommendation is crucial MX500 over BX500 unless absolutely can't afford paying extra 800 for a much better & extra 2 years warranty.
napstersquest
Disciple
Oh yeah MX500 is way better than BX500!
guest_999
Disciple
Unfortunately the recent price cuts seems to be focused only on BX series again proving that mkt/manufacturers try to sell inferior products more if it gives better profits.
sm3llslikecurry
Recruit
First, check the health of the boot drive with CrystalDiskInfo,
highly recommend DRAM SSD to use as a boot drive. MX500 would work great
highly recommend DRAM SSD to use as a boot drive. MX500 would work great
Tracer_Bullet
Recruit
@guest_999
Which nvme would you generally recommend considering price/perf for normal gaming use case ? Games can run into 100gb these days.
I have MX500 and SN550 already, 500gb each, both working well enough for me. Not in any hurry, but might pick up 2tb nvme perhaps in next amazon sale. SSDs keep some space reserved, would that not be enough? I will probably buy either SN570 or SN770 i think. Current price per pcpricetracker is 12,290/14500. Motherboard has pcie4 (B550m ds3h) so might go for SN770 esp looking at below.
Not sure if even more expensive ones make much sense for me. SN850X(19.8k)/Kingston KC3000(17,750). Not heavy user generally.
Continuing from deals thread here -
Which nvme would you generally recommend considering price/perf for normal gaming use case ? Games can run into 100gb these days.
I have MX500 and SN550 already, 500gb each, both working well enough for me. Not in any hurry, but might pick up 2tb nvme perhaps in next amazon sale. SSDs keep some space reserved, would that not be enough? I will probably buy either SN570 or SN770 i think. Current price per pcpricetracker is 12,290/14500. Motherboard has pcie4 (B550m ds3h) so might go for SN770 esp looking at below.
Not sure if even more expensive ones make much sense for me. SN850X(19.8k)/Kingston KC3000(17,750). Not heavy user generally.
guest_999
Disciple
WD SN770 is the most recommended budget NVMe drive by the guy newmaxx on reddit(think of him as buildzoid of ssd on reddit or in other words the guy to quote/ask while giving/asking suggestions on ssd in reddit). The problem with "reserved ssd space" aks SLC cache is that many ssd have this in dynamic form meaning its size change depending on free space & once the ssd is more than 2/3rd filled then it is reduced significantly. That is why having a "static SLC cache" which remain fixed even if ssd is 100% filled is preferable. SN570 has a static SLC cache btw. Also, choose a ssd whose write speeds won't drop below sata ssd speeds of 500MB/s once the cache is filled/free space is almost nil because even this speed is more than enough to update/modify/install any typical program/game fast enough compared to dramless sata ssd like BX500 or dramless slow NVMe like crucial p2 where write speeds can drop to usb 2.0 level of 50MB/s.