I'm trying to upgrade an old Crucial M500 SSD with a Samsung 870 EVO. It seems like there's a bytes/sector issue that is preventing me from successfully cloning the old drive. I tried using the Samsung data migration tool and it always shows the new drive having 0 bytes of remaining space (even though windows shows it completely free). I then tried Macrium Reflect which failed stating that the target disk has an incompatible sector size and it guides me to http://kb.macrium.com/KnowledgebaseArticle50193.aspx. It appears like the old Crucial drive is setup as 512 bytes/sector but the Samsung drive is 4096. Is there a way I can get around this? I'm feeling really stupid right now.
Try HDD Raw Copy Tool ver.1.10 Portable, it never failed on me, I've used that one countless times. https://hddguru.com/software/HDD-Raw-Copy-Tool/ Download and create bootable Hiren’s BootCD PE USB flash-disk https://www.hirensbootcd.org/ Boot system from Hiren’s BootCD PE, run HDD Raw Copy Tool ver.1.10 Portable, set source SSD, set target SSD, wait until clone process is complete. The only limitation HDD Raw Copy Tool ver.1.10 Portable has is clone speed: up to 50MB/s, but it's not a big deal, you don't do things like that every day. Once clone process is complete, if source HDD/SSD is smaller then target HDD/SSD, manage partitions size with some partition management tool.
I thought about doing that but the traditional windows "format" option didn't offer 512. Is there another tool I could do it with?
Why? Backup + restore = clone. https://forum.acronis.com/forum/acronis-true-image-2016-forum/evade-5124096-problem Also I found command prompt method (last post here) - https://superuser.com/questions/155...per-sector-hdd-to-a-4096-bytes-per-sector-ssd (I am not sure I understood whole post, though...) Do not do that.
the 870 runs in 4kn only, you cannot clone from a 512e(4k)/512n disk. pointless to have an OS on a nvme anyway. 4ke disks can be optionally formatted (using diskpart) to run in full 4k sectors but other tools will default to 512n. 4kn disks will always format to 4kn. With uefi boot, you should be able to just do a logical clone instead of FS clone.
That quote goes only for bit-by-bit cloning. Smart cloning/restoring software can create any file system structures with proper sizes.
If you do not have an UEFI partition you can clone with norton ghost, it is very old program but clones everything reliably, it just must be legacy boot partition.
Ive been using an nvme boot ever since the Samsung 960 evo 512mb was released, i don't get why you think its pointless.... do you think more than 4 core cpu`s are pointless.
Invalid comparison. the OS itself doesn't benefit from nvme speeds period. ever. not for latency, not for application or OS start times majority of games don't either, they should be used for improving build times and dataset compilation which can multithread IO.
Been using a NVME since the 960 EVO 250gb was released. Anyone that states an OS is not faster with NVME is sniffing some good glue.
an os is not faster on an nvme, there are boot time and application responsiveness benchmarks to back that up and you're just here to cause trouble. Nothing new. Hell, blind testing by these idiots were finding gen4 nvme SLOWER than SATA for OS responsiveness. If you have worksets that are only system disk installable which may benefit, you can easily symbolic link/symbolic copy the folder with various tools
Windows itself when it is up and running not so much, installation, boot time and even backup and restore is faster with the quicker end of gen 4 drives, some games load faster too but also seen some games load quicker from SATA as well, to be fair though, game load times don't differ that much so personally I ended up just having my games on big SATA drives, future might change that but probably requires games to be optimized for it too. Some programs also work faster on some of the quicker gen 4 drives than others and some have bottlenecks where faster than SATA won't help. That Linus video doesn't tell a lot btw., the difference they do or do not notice can be anything really.
Yup, that and managing the location of installations, scratch and work spaces depending on how a given program performs. Still nothing wrong with having the OS on a small nvme gen 4, although the cold boot gain doesn't differ a lot from gen 3. The apps that do have bottlenecks due to poor coding / missing optimization can't really be done anything about, that is purely up to the developers. To take an example, weird enough Adobe Premiere Pro seems to suffer from such according to quite a few benchmarks between the type of drives used.
benchmarks can be very misleading. According to benchmarks, my system should run circles around my son's in every activity....reality is quite the opposite though. His boots faster and launches applications faster....mine simply shuts down faster. Even the difference in time to install applications is completely unnoticeable. He has a R3 3300X with a Crucial MX500 SATA M.2 drive on a B550 board while I have an R5 3600 with Intel 660P NVMe drive on an X570 board. Benchmarks sure make NVMe drives look great, but the reality is that the average user won't notice the miniscule performance difference between SATA and NVMe in the instances where NVMe actually has an advantage.
