Overclock.net banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Just wondering if it's worth it, or just a case of diminishing returns. I have a near 6 year old Crucial M4 256gb SSD shown here and I just purchased the Samsung 860 EVO shown here. So the write speed on the new one is near double than the old, with the read speeds being similar. Just wondering if I'll see any improvement in making this new SSD my primary OS instead of just supplementary storage.
 

·
Jedi Knight
Joined
·
680 Posts
I saw no real improvement in day to day tasks going from a Samsung 840 to a mydigitalssd bpx NVMe drive. YMMV. Going from a standard hdd to an ssd was the only noticeable upgrade for me. Sequential read/write speeds don't tell you much anyways. You want to look at the 4k speeds to get an idea of how windows will behave.
 

·
Iconoclast
Joined
·
32,312 Posts
Just wondering if I'll see any improvement in making this new SSD my primary OS instead of just supplementary storage.
Probably not enough to be worth the effort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Ahh I see, thanks for the answers. Yea, I can't really complain about the performance of my OS on this current SSD, was just curious if it could somehow get better. The hassle of moving everything over and reinstalling Windows isn't something I'm feeling too keen on at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
I'd suggest running a CrystalDisk scan or equivalent and check your hours on time with the M4, see how close/far away it is from its optimal lifespan and judge it that way.

I had the Crucial BX300 256gb for a few years, it was used when I bought it, I put it in my Alienware R2 for a few months, then upgraded the R2 to have a 1tb SSHD + 256gb M.2 and noticed windows became a lot more snappy on the M.2, transfers from USB 3 were slightly quicker too and just the general overall feel. Could be a placebo, I'm not sure. But the SSHD + an M.2 in a laptop is fantastic for gaming.

Between those two SSD's, I'd imagine you'd not notice much, if any real world difference unless your M4 was coming towards the end of its lifespan. Then and only then would I swap them over.

But just because I am a perfectionist, I'd probably use the new drive as the OS to even out the usage.

EDIT: Furthermore, you can clone your current drive onto the new drive with relative ease, just takes some time. Especially if it is nigh on full. Save you having to manually reinstall and copy stuff over. In terms of software to use for cloning a disk, I use EaseUS as it is free.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Any observable improvement on reinstalling Windows onto a faster SSD? Reply to Threa

There will be improvements in the game performance, if the game is installed on the SSD. (Read all the files that are needed by the game). If some files are on the HDD and some on the SSD, then the performance will degrade. The OS too must be on the SSD. Tutuapp 9apps Aptoide
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
There will be improvements in the game performance, if the game is installed on the SSD. (Read all the files that are needed by the game). If some files are on the HDD and some on the SSD, then the performance will degrade. The OS too must be on the SSD.
This is SSD to SSD. No mention of HDD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I'd suggest running a CrystalDisk scan or equivalent and check your hours on time with the M4, see how close/far away it is from its optimal lifespan and judge it that way.

I had the Crucial BX300 256gb for a few years, it was used when I bought it, I put it in my Alienware R2 for a few months, then upgraded the R2 to have a 1tb SSHD + 256gb M.2 and noticed windows became a lot more snappy on the M.2, transfers from USB 3 were slightly quicker too and just the general overall feel. Could be a placebo, I'm not sure. But the SSHD + an M.2 in a laptop is fantastic for gaming.

Between those two SSD's, I'd imagine you'd not notice much, if any real world difference unless your M4 was coming towards the end of its lifespan. Then and only then would I swap them over.

But just because I am a perfectionist, I'd probably use the new drive as the OS to even out the usage.

EDIT: Furthermore, you can clone your current drive onto the new drive with relative ease, just takes some time. Especially if it is nigh on full. Save you having to manually reinstall and copy stuff over. In terms of software to use for cloning a disk, I use EaseUS as it is free.
Thanks for the tip for Crystal Disk. I'll do that shortly. This SSD is about 6 years old, so it must be getting up there in hours. I'm honestly not too knowledgeable on the expected life on SSDs. So it's based on hours, rather than specific number of read/write cycles? I remember reading years back that things like Denuvo detract from your SSDs life cycle as it's constantly writing to it. Denuvo aside, is the finite amount of read/writes a fact? Also, I've used EaseUS in the past with great success. Didn't even think about cloning as an option. I may just go that route.
 

·
Waiting for 7nm EUV
Joined
·
11,540 Posts
Thanks for the tip for Crystal Disk. I'll do that shortly. This SSD is about 6 years old, so it must be getting up there in hours. I'm honestly not too knowledgeable on the expected life on SSDs. So it's based on hours, rather than specific number of read/write cycles? I remember reading years back that things like Denuvo detract from your SSDs life cycle as it's constantly writing to it. Denuvo aside, is the finite amount of read/writes a fact? Also, I've used EaseUS in the past with great success. Didn't even think about cloning as an option. I may just go that route.

Hours of use of course plays a factor, but that is just like with everything in life; the main unit of measure for SSDs is the number of writes to each cell and total Terabytes written. The specific endurance of an SSD will have to do with the type of cells it uses. SLC is the best, but is usually very expensive and reserved for enterprise. Then comes MLC, which is used in the "Pro" consumer SSD models. And now more recently there's TLC, which was not very good in the beginning, but now it's pretty decent and has respectable warranties and lifecycle and performance and of course a lower price. There is also QLC coming in the horizon, but the minimum size to make it workable in terms of spreading the writes across cells will start at 500 GB upwards.

That thing about Denuvo seems to be mostly a rumour, it wasn't confirmed in practice.

As to noticing older SSD to newer SSD performance, I'd say that in daily usage, not so much, but in certain occasions yes. Level loading in games may take a bit less time and if you hibernate the system with lots of stuff open, it may make resuming noticeably faster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Hours of use of course plays a factor, but that is just like with everything in life; the main unit of measure for SSDs is the number of writes to each cell and total Terabytes written. The specific endurance of an SSD will have to do with the type of cells it uses. SLC is the best, but is usually very expensive and reserved for enterprise. Then comes MLC, which is used in the "Pro" consumer SSD models. And now more recently there's TLC, which was not very good in the beginning, but now it's pretty decent and has respectable warranties and lifecycle and performance and of course a lower price. There is also QLC coming in the horizon, but the minimum size to make it workable in terms of spreading the writes across cells will start at 500 GB upwards.

That thing about Denuvo seems to be mostly a rumour, it wasn't confirmed in practice.

As to noticing older SSD to newer SSD performance, I'd say that in daily usage, not so much, but in certain occasions yes. Level loading in games may take a bit less time and if you hibernate the system with lots of stuff open, it may make resuming noticeably faster.
Understood. Thanks for the breakdown. So yeah, depending on how far I'm into the life cycle of my current SSD will be the deciding factor. If it's got some life to it, I'll most likely just use this new SSD as a dedicated game drive to take some of the load off my current SSD as it's been sitting sub 15gb for a bit of time. Although I have a feeling that the curious side of me will take over and I'll end up inevitably transitioning to using this new SSD as my OS, just to make 100% positive if there are any gains to be seen haha.
 

·
Waiting for 7nm EUV
Joined
·
11,540 Posts
Understood. Thanks for the breakdown. So yeah, depending on how far I'm into the life cycle of my current SSD will be the deciding factor. If it's got some life to it, I'll most likely just use this new SSD as a dedicated game drive to take some of the load off my current SSD as it's been sitting sub 15gb for a bit of time. Although I have a feeling that the curious side of me will take over and I'll end up inevitably transitioning to using this new SSD as my OS, just to make 100% positive if there are any gains to be seen haha.

Yeah, one of the factors in reducing the lifespan of an SSD is to run it close to full. Well, it won't reduce the lifespan of all the cells, but it will probably introduce a factor of uneven cell wear. It's true that SSDs have some over provisioning, but it's always good to not take your chances that some data may be lost before it's successfully moved from an old cell into a surplus one (worn out cells are supposed to go into a read-only mode, but don't put all your cards on that). As a rule of thumb, try to keep the SSD at at least 10% free capacity. Doing that will also ensure better performance.

I can somewhat relate to your case because earlier this year I moved my boot drive from a Samsung 830 128 GB from circa 2012 / 2013 to a brand new on the market Crucial MX500 500 GB.

I actually meant to post the benchmarks in a separate thread, but never got to, so here they go below.

They are both tested in regular operating conditions, except for having manually run TRIM and rebooted for full benefits. 128 GB was beginning to fill up too often. It's simply not a comfortable enough capacity in 2018 for a 64-bit OS with applications installed + Windows swap file + hibernation file (these two latter values are relatively high because they're based on the amount of RAM installed, which is 16 GB in my case), etc. The SSD itself was fine, with almost 27 TB written and more than 18k hours on the clock.

These days 256 GB for a main rig is a must and 500 GB is probably the best value right now. Actually, I just checked, 1 TB is also about equal in value as of now.

Samsung 830 128 GB:




Crucial MX500 500 GB:






Edit: By the way, I just noticed, the Newegg page you linked to for the Samsung 860 Evo says it's made with "3-bit MLC", that's an impossibility, 3 bits per cell means it's TLC, not MLC (two bits per cell). The 860 Pro models do use MLC NAND flash, but the EVOs use TLC.

You can confirm the specs in this review: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-860-evo-ssd-review,5446.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
Ah ok, I'll take your word for it being TLC. I got the SSD from Walmart via this link. Was on sale yesterday for $150(possible pricing error?), order still went through so I'm hoping it gets to me haha. Here's my SSD information. 36235 hours, so actually only around 4 years old. Must've forgotten when I had gotten this. Health status says 90%, I wonder if that's accurate or how they quantify that. Would you say this SSD is fine enough to keep as my primary OS, as I offload some of the larger files onto my new one to give it some more breathing room.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
Ah ok, I'll take your word for it being TLC. I got the SSD from Walmart via this link. Was on sale yesterday for $150(possible pricing error?), order still went through so I'm hoping it gets to me haha. Here's my SSD information. 36235 hours, so actually only around 4 years old. Must've forgotten when I had gotten this. Health status says 90%, I wonder if that's accurate or how they quantify that. Would you say this SSD is fine enough to keep as my primary OS, as I offload some of the larger files onto my new one to give it some more breathing room.
The 90% health status is defined by the average block erase count in your case here. So when data is written to a block, that block must be erased before it can be written to again, this value is an average of how many times this has occurred and is well within an acceptable range. That drive has a lot more life in it. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
Edit: By the way, I just noticed, the Newegg page you linked to for the Samsung 860 Evo says it's made with "3-bit MLC", that's an impossibility, 3 bits per cell means it's TLC, not MLC (two bits per cell). The 860 Pro models do use MLC NAND flash, but the EVOs use TLC.

You can confirm the specs in this review: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-860-evo-ssd-review,5446.html
M = Multi (which could mean 2 or even 2 million)

When MLC NAND was first used in consumer SSDs, there was only SLC (single level cell) and 2-bit MLC. Referring to TLC as 3-bit MLC is technically correct albeit convention/colloquial is MLC = 2-bit and TLC = 3-bit.
 

·
Waiting for 7nm EUV
Joined
·
11,540 Posts
M = Multi (which could mean 2 or even 2 million)

When MLC NAND was first used in consumer SSDs, there was only SLC (single level cell) and 2-bit MLC. Referring to TLC as 3-bit MLC is technically correct albeit convention/colloquial is MLC = 2-bit and TLC = 3-bit.

You're right, I was talking about the convention. I always suspect when sites make use of technicalities like this to promote the cheaper products; they are usually too at comfort to put everything in the same bag for their own convenience (putting reviews of a category of products all in the same bag is another example), which is especially important in this case as the Pro models use the better 2-bit MLC instead of the 3-bit TLC of the EVO models. The fact is that most people use the SLC, MLC, TLC and QLC naming convention instead of bits per cell convention, so mixing it all up may be used as a deceiving tactic.

Retroactively renaming 2-bit MLC as something like DLC would be even more confusing because of computer games, I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Ok, here are my two benchmarks, first is old nearly full Crucial SSD, 2nd is the new EVO. Just making doubly sure I wouldn't see too much real world gain in reinstalling my OS onto this new one. I mean, I'm not dissatisfied with the current speed of my OS at the moment, and do plan to move all of my games onto this new SSD so I guess I'll benefit from the speed in that way. Not too sure if I'm willing to commit to reinstalling OS and every program again haha.
 

Attachments

·
Waiting for 7nm EUV
Joined
·
11,540 Posts
Ok, here are my two benchmarks, first is old nearly full Crucial SSD, 2nd is the new EVO. Just making doubly sure I wouldn't see too much real world gain in reinstalling my OS onto this new one. I mean, I'm not dissatisfied with the current speed of my OS at the moment, and do plan to move all of my games onto this new SSD so I guess I'll benefit from the speed in that way. Not too sure if I'm willing to commit to reinstalling OS and every program again haha.

Who said anything about reinstalling the OS and every program? I've been running on the same Windows 7 installation since 2012 when I built my sig rig and I've been through three SSDs as the boot drive, cloning from one to the other when I moved to the newest one.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
You're right, I was talking about the convention. I always suspect when sites make use of technicalities like this to promote the cheaper products; they are usually too at comfort to put everything in the same bag for their own convenience (putting reviews of a category of products all in the same bag is another example), which is especially important in this case as the Pro models use the better 2-bit MLC instead of the 3-bit TLC of the EVO models. The fact is that most people use the SLC, MLC, TLC and QLC naming convention instead of bits per cell convention, so mixing it all up may be used as a deceiving tactic.
Oh yes, I do expect companies take advantage of naming conventions for their marketing. That said, I do have the Samsung 840 (basic), Samsung's first TLC consumer SSD and even back then, the product specifications show 3-bit MLC so it's not like this is something new.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,374 Posts
I'd image the new one with your OS anyway.
There might not be massive differences but your boot time should get better and anything installed on your C drive will launch faster. As easy as it is to do I can't imagine why you wouldn't.
There is also the NAND wear, the new drive should be the one getting used so your older one stops degrading. I don't know what you use storage drives for but once I fill one a rarely do anything but read from it which shouldn't degrade it.


EDIT: You don't need to reinstall all your stuff again, just use one of the many clone tools or use the one built into windows. I use the one built into windows because it's there and it's never let me down. Just let it create the image on an external HDD, hold shift + restart, then get into system recovery mode. Once you select the new drive and let it run, you'll end up with 2 SSDs that are mirrored.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Ok thanks. I think I will go that way through Windows. Just to make sure, if I clone the drive will it only add the files to the next drive? I ask because I've already moved 300gb of games to my new SSD, but if by cloning it'll wipe what's currently on it I'll have to move them back to my HDD in the mean time.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top