P3dv4 load times with m.2 Samsung 960 vs SSD 850 Evo?

[Guest]

On 9/13/2017 at 11:09 AM, pgde said:

See the thread about P3D V4.1.

A public thread about P3D V4.1?  Do you have a link?

Cheers, Rob.

[pgde 571]

Hi Rob:

 

[theskyisthelimit 48]

Hi all.. i have some numbers now that I have the m.2 1tb (non pro) along with comparisons with the 850 evo 1tb.  In short, as many mentioned, like Rob with his notes on there being about a 350 mB/sec cap on throughput.. It seems using this as the p3d drive results in NO change in load times.. in one test it was worse than on the 850, but that might have been a fluke.

I made sure to set the scenery.cfg such that nothing (about 25% of my whole p3d install) was pulling from a 7200 drive.. entirely on the SSD(s).

The same basic load was taking around 3min50 sec.. around 4min 12 seconds on the 850 evo, but in one load (it was a warm load as well, not the first load), it rung in faster at around 3min 20 sec.

**I'm going to try to clone my OS drive over to the m2 drive this weekend and redo these same tests just to see if there are any changes.  I suspect general windows loading will be pretty amazing comparatively (my OS is also an 850 evo 1tb currently).  Unless someone has done this test and can say that doing so wont be much change either, going from 850evo OS to m.2 in terms of p3d load times all held equal.

I was also going to try to bump my ram up from 3200 to 3466 (i've throttled back a few months ago to 3200) just to see if it helped any, i'd assume if it did, the numbers would still be equal.

 

Here are some shots of the Performance test results.. pretty much what you would expect in that arena:

 

[theskyisthelimit 48]

I discovered something I should have tried before. A little obvious I guess, can help save a few mins load in my case.

Eset nod32. If I disable it then things load a bit faster (in general)  

Unfortunately just adding exclusions didn't help and I added quite a few. 

Anyone else ran into this?

[HighTowers 1,434]

I have an 960 EVO 512gb plugged directly in the MB and with the OS and P3D on it. Windows loads up extremely quick in under 10sec. P3D on the other hand wasnt a huge difference from its previous install off an SSD.  Now reading the thread, the thoroughput cap makes sense. Too bad thats the case.  Benchmark wise, the 960 has great numbers, but in practical aspects its too dependent on the application limitations , in this case P3D. 

[Uteman 51]

On 14/09/2017 at 0:35 AM, theskyisthelimit said:

Mine is the default, 8.. i wasnt sure setting to 10 was worth it, load times aside.. hadnt really tried a 10 yet.

Rob was spot on with his comment about performance, the only part of the value (worth it) question Rob didn't anwer was the eye candy, and 10 is definitely an improvement in detail over 8 if your system has enough grunt. Mine hasn't got it for 10, I run at 9 and I can see the benefit over 8, I am upgrading everything in a fortnight so I can run at L10 or more now that I can see the i9 series running comfortably at 4.8-5GHz as my CPU although very good in performance for a 6 core it wont get the first core up high enough to feed the other cores the way I like.

[theskyisthelimit 48]

I'm considering switching from what is now a hodge podge samsung evo (non pro) 850 1TB + an 850 512GB (after testing that m.2 and seeing there was no change).. to a 2TB ssd..

Anyone compared the crucial with the samsung 850 series?  The samsung appears to have the edge, ever so slightly.. but brand new the samsung is almost $150 more, not sure that justifies the higher price tag for p3d purposes.. either way both exceed the 500 MB/sec range.

 

edit: i guess i should also consider SanDisk, Mushkin and the WD.. all comparable, possibly used to save some coin  I think longevity is key on the lower prices of these other drives compared to the Samsung Evo.. they are more likely to fail over time than the Samsung.  I believe the Samsung has built in software to keep the drive healthy.

I still need to tackle the antivirus issue though.