SSD Thread (Benchmarks, Brands, News, and Advice)

if you're doing video editing on the same drive, go NVMe it is the best option by far. if you don't mind the speed, sata is fine too.

 

A second or two is not a deal breaker, if it were 30 secs plus, YES. a second, sometimes less...meh. I will deal with the Sata.

 

I'm assuming that wasn't what @ole!!! is getting at. It's getting pretty well known these days (at least here I guess) in daily general use SATA/nVME usually won't make a much difference in things like boot times, game loading, opening (most) apps etc. Honestly if they had tested with a better SATA drive like an Sk Hynix P31 or Samsung 860 EVO I'm sure those results would have been much closer as both have much better 4K random performance.

However work requiring numerous large file transfers / parallel IO work; large transfers like when working repeatedly with large video files that can be 10-20+ gigabytes in size the speed can matter for some, time saved is money made.

If merely doing video work for home and you aren't doing a lot of transfers at a time use, yeah it's probably not a big deal to go SATA. At the same time you can get decent nVME drives pretty cheap (1TB Inland Premium at $110 & 2TB at $215), somewhat close to SATA prices. These days SATA is losing its pricing edge.

Also just for reference, you can get PCI slot adapters that support like 4 nVME drives for ~$50 on Amazon, if you really want/need, and some times even cheaper. The following requires PCIE bifurcation support in the motherboard but MUX chip models are also there where you don't need to worry about that.
https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-M-2-X16-V2-Threadripper/dp/B07NQBQB6Z/ref=sr_1_2?crid=14JDYUDCNI6SL&dchild=1&keywords=dual+nvme+pcie+adapter&qid=1614016608&s=electronics&sprefix=dual+name,electronics,170&sr=1-2

 

If you want consistency in your workflows for photo/video editing, intelligent OP'ing by up to 35% will be needed (for any 'scratch disks you may use).

If you're spending more than 4 hours a day doing this, an Optane solution is what is required to do the actual work on. All else is toys.

 

the premise is all wrong. in your post you mention about video editing and then proceed to post a SSD comparison in games, do you know how much of a difference video editing software vs game software are when taking advantage of SSDs?

that is why I specifically said that if you want it for video editing, go NVMe, as the video shows gaming and the rest of my comment says if do not mind the speed, sata is fine.

heres me quoting my earlier msg.

Im not sure if people reading comment are not reading the context, or perhaps they don't know enough about SSD & think the importance of context dont matter much, if the latter, then I can understand why the video review means more to them.

NVMe is few seconds at best over SATA SSDs in games, but will do many times better in video editing, unless you use crappy cheap NVMe SSDs, or render 360p videos.

 

Ahhh Now I got what you are saying. I wonder is there a comparison on video editing comparing the two. Would be very interesting to see.

EDIT: went to youtube and found the results were similar vs gaming. Within a couple of seconds of each other. Since I have 8 Sata ports I can have 2 Sata drives in raid 0 for programs, a Sata drive for cache, a Sata drive for scratch and 2 14tb HDD drives in raid 1 for storage. Again, No need for NVME. The price for performance difference is negligable. 2 seconds saving in time for double the price. Just not worth it. If it were WAY Faster using NVME, sure, but in reality it's not.

 

I'm not in that field, so no first hand experience with Adobe workloads. Roughly how much faster is Optane vs top tier nvme vs sata, in video/photo editing? I would imagine it boils down to more than just video render times e.g. clicking back and forth to preview in a large clip.

Even small margins of 'snappiness' might be enough to justify a more expensive storage over sata if the professional is paid highly enough/spending enough time on these workloads

 

Agreed, But for the average joe, NO. It's not worth spending twice as much on storage for a second faster rendering times. You would not notice the difference between a SATA ssd and an NVME drive if you were just surfing etc. Living in a place where video/photo work is limited because of population, I can't see spending 500 bucks plus on 2 drives when I can loose a second of rendering time, and save 250 dollars or more to go to other gear to increase my business. Now, if one starts making 100k or more a year on video work...yep, build with NVME out your butt.

 

What...Good SATA drives like the SK Hynix Gold are around $95-110 for 1TB... nVME prices for the decent drives like the Inland Premium ($110 /1TB & $209 / 2 TB) which has a Phison controller are pretty close to SATA pricing.

If you mean like even the cheapest DRAM-Less SATA models for like $80-90 for 1TB drives even those aren’t much value, usually close to standard drive pricing, terrible if doing a lot of writes in the first place....will be pretty terrible all round unless you’re comparing to a spinning hard drive.

 

If you watch the gaming video I posted, it is comparing the A400 sata SSD i am currently using in all of my computers, compared to the 970 evo nvme. They are so close in most situations that it's a non issue. So...Prices I quoted are pulled directly from amazon.ca