VIPER Gaming announced their shielded Viper VPN100 PCIe m.2 SSD (Solid State Drive) and has available capacities up to 2TB . The VPN100 is built using the latest Phison E12 PCIe Gen 3 x 4 NVMe control... Patriot launches the Viper VPN100 PCIe M.2 SSD
4k random read @ QD=1 is all I want to know Is it faster than HP ex950 and Adata sx8200 in that, I'll buy it
If it is like the Corsair Force Series MP510, it is *excellent* and long endurance. https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/corsair-force-series-mp510-m-2-ssd-review,21.html
The sequential speeds looks very good, now what about 4k Random? is it MLC or TLC? i would love an ssd with an aluminium fins heatsink
Unless nvme starts to pull better numbers than sata ssd once the caches are full, no thank you. All my "fast" ssds will have similar performance to the 960 evo (x4), once a couple of gigs filled the caches.
no its not. NONE of any nvme will keep writing at more than 600 to 800 MB once the caches are full. and most sub 1tb will even drop to/below my old ocz vector 180. i dont care about size, as most videos i work on arent more than 50gb. but having to wait long as s&! # for the shadow files being copied, is why i care about continues speeds. not those "it can do 3000MB/s. " that work for a couple of gigs. and not even talking about (non sequential) 4K speeds, which are not even better than on my 6y old 60gb sata3 with mlc.
How big files do you write "all the time" ? Looks like you "need" something like my old Intel p3700 nvme Don't blame the product, when you are buying the wrong for you're needs So samsung 960pro/970pro is not good enough for you i seq write? Read here: Sustained Sequential Write Performance https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-970-pro-ssd-review,5572-2.html So if this isn't good enough, buy 1.5TB Intel Optane 905p , and call it the day
Never said its not good enough. Just have a problem with reviews/manufacturers (not guru tho) stating certain read/write speeds, that never hold up once the caches are full, and you are actually writing to the drive "directly" and not buffered. As long as sustained read/write go up, those drives are only faster for smaller transfers, that get irrelevant, as its not impacting time as it does with larger ones. E.g. copying a 4gb files takes less than 2s on nvme, maybe 5s on my ssd. But start transfering 30gb and you will see the drives dropping to ~650mb/s, when my sata3 ssd does ~400mb/s. And even for loading large progs or games (siege is now about 120gb, most likely more after recent 80gb update) loading time didnt improve noticeable, even that the 960 can read at almost 3gb/s vs the sata3 ssd its now on (500mb/s). Thats like stating my car radio can do 1000w per channel, without telling you it will do that for only 1ms, before blowing up... Reminds me of ppl stating that a tesla can out accelerate super sports cars, when in reality you can do it less than a handful of times before batteries need to cool down and have to be topped of.
Loadingtime is often more CPU dependent, that's why you don't see av big difference BF V using 36 threads 100% when loading new maps . I'm using Optane 900p for OS and most played games, and are happy with that. Using 960pro's for the rest.
might be, just not siege, lol. damn game even slows down loading map (after lobby), if its on a slow hdd/ssd. was holding up the game every round, for an extra of 20-30s. game copied back to an older (and faster) ssd, fixed it. lets say the days that i was willing to pay extra for nvme ("speed") are over. will start replacing (drives getting older now) stuff with mlc (so far almost same perf once saturated) and call it a day.. unless Hilbert reviews some enterprise grade stuff, that might change my mind
You are buying the wrong drives. check A-data SX8200 PRO, cheaper than 970 PRO by a lot and in the same performance area, or even better. "The write speeds start out at a staggering 2.7 GB/s and remain there until well over 100 GB have been written in a very short period. At this point the pseudo-SLC cache seems to be exhausted, so the drive has to write to TLC flash directly, which is slower, "only" 1 GB/s, but still very fast when compared to other TLC drives that often drop to HDD speeds at this point in our test. The drive will now flush the SLC cache to TLC in background, once that is finished write speeds jump up again, above 2.5 GB/s."
@valentyn0 As you stated "in tests". outside that, to me caches are fake performance improvements, and are not really making the product better with higher risk of data corruption in case of things like power outage (ppl without UPS) or just a simple crash. Transferring real-world files and you will see a drop (depending on file type). No matter what company, they all use the chips from a handful of companies, and have similar setups when it comes to controller/caches etc, and there is no "magical" stuff they can do to perform faster than others using "identical" setups. I havent tested the adata myself, but at same drive size (e.g. 250 ish GB) testing Q1T1 with 1GB file size, all NVMEs virtually get the same speed i get from my 3-4y old ssds, roughly around 30/130MB/s, no matter what brand. Meaning, unless the drive has larger capacity, no difference in "min" speeds vs older or other tech. Even if, right now i would have to take out an existing drive to make a new one work, and im not willing to spend +100$ on another drive right now to have another one sitting around/gain "only" when doing editing. And as im not upgrading every 6-10 month anymore, i plan on going back to use mlc based drives so i can keep them longer and not having to worry about write cycles.
