On Friday, 3 April 2020 16:14:33 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Well, raw throughput is great ’n all, but in real-life you won’t notice much > difference between a SATA and an NVME drive.
Not so. The difference is dramatic. > 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. I can't say anything about temperature, because gkrellm can't see a sensor of it, but I certainly wouldn't go back to plain old SSDs. -- Regards, Peter.
