On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 09:45:58AM -0500, Dale wrote: > Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2020-04-02, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Oooooooo. <me wipes up the drool> That nvme speed is faaaasssssstttt. > >> Do you happen to have the OS on that and if so, just how fast does it go > >> from BIOS or Grub to bootup complete? I'm almost scared to ask. o_O > > I've been wondering if older fairly generic motherboards (7-8 years > > old) from the likes of Asrock would be able to boot from an NVMe card > > using a PCIe adapter like this: > > > > https://www.amazon.com/QNINE-Adapter-Express-Controller-Expansion/dp/B075MDH28Y > > > > I suspect not... > > > > -- > > Grant > > I have a Gigabyte 970 that is only a few years old and it doesn't > support it. I wish it did.
Well, raw throughput is great ’n all, but in real-life you won’t notice much difference between a SATA and an NVME drive. The bottleneck quickly becomes the CPU again during boot or loading more complex applications (browser, office). The biggest improvement in those situation comes from the fast “seeking” and reading of many small files. HDDs are at a big disatvantage here due to their moving head and mechanical seeking. In fact I doubt you have many use cases for reading many gigabytes at a time over and over again every day without much CPU overhead, like video editing (loading previews in 4K or 8K), copying, archiving, checksumming and so on. Due to their immense speed, those NVMEs also tend to heat up quite a bit under load, eventually leading to throttling. So from a practical POV, and since you’re on a budget, I suggest cutting cost by staying with SATA. -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. “He doesn’t know how to use the three seashells!”
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
