Thread 106190149

Which one is the best?
Why do the others even exist?

>>106190149 (OP)
>Which one is the best?
U.3
>Why do the others even exist?
Because you can't afford it.

>>106190149 (OP)
>Which one is the best?
The one that suits your needs.
>Why do the others even exist?
People have different needs.
Welcome to /g/, newfriend.

>>106190149 (OP)
>Which one is the best?
None of them.
>Why do the others even exist?
To scam the goyim out of their shekels.

>>106190239
this will probably be the best post in the entire thread

M.2. SATA
>small form factor
>large volume
>nearly identical performance to NVMe drives
>doesn't heat up to 9001 degrees under load

>>106190149 (OP)
EDSFF

>>106190149 (OP)
eMMC

>>106190149 (OP)
NVMe has the best performance. SATA and mSATA are older formats from before NVMe existed. Frankly I don't know why m.2 SATA is a thing, I don't know of any device that only takes SATA over m.2 but I guess there might be some niche somewhere.

>>106190572
I've seen sata-only m.2 in some usb enclosures.
nvme-only m.2 on the other hand is or was a popular option for secondary motherboard slots.

>>106190149 (OP)
>2.5 sata
Old but OK
>M.2 NVMe
Lacking technical merit in 2025 and riding purely on momentum and "consumer sensibilities"
Manufacturers literally have to break the standard and intention for drives to not overheat
>M.2 sata
Abomination, not always keyed correctly
>mSATA
Abomination

>>106190279
what do you mean nearly identical performance? my m2 nvme is 14 GB/s while msata tops out at the same speeds as normal sata6

>>106190177
So much this. The convenience of a SATA SSD with the speed of a NVMe SSD. Why the fuck is it only for servers?
Or why the fuck did SATA stopped to evolve, why no SATA 4?
Or why the fuck don't desktop motherboard let you use a cable to put the NVMe SSD away from the CPU and GPU?

>>106190149 (OP)
what's the difference between NVMe SSD and M.2 SATA?

>>106191355
M.2 SATA is 500MB/s max. In real life you rarely really feel the difference, but on big files you do.

>>106191340
>Why the fuck is it only for servers?
Biggest problem is the cables you use for it are unwieldly.
Like SAS, the SFF-8639 doesn't lend itself to nice compact and wieldable cables like sata.
It's really meant for backplanes, the actually use cables on these drives are a kludge.

You need like 3 inches behind the drive just to clear the connector and not have to much of a bending radius

>>106191441
ty

>>106190279
>sata
>nearly identical performance to nvme drives
???
>doesn't heat up
this isn't a fucking issue, stop bringing it up
nand literally lives longer at higher temperatures, while the controller literally doesn't care, at worst it will throttle its performance but will still have higher performance than a sata drive
and besides, it would only get hot in situations where it's delivering significantly faster speeds than a sata drive so...?

>>106191458
>Optane
my nigga

>>106190149 (OP)
I bought a 2.5" SATA instead of an nvme SATA because they had the same speed on paper and they had the same price.
Did I fuck up?

>>106192628
>nvme sata
I think those are mutually exclusive, anon.

>>106192628
Me? I wish 2.5" inch SATA with comparable endurance to modern consumer nvme weren't so expensive. There's only 2 m.2 slots on my board, while I have 4 sata ports free, and 3 slimsas 4i. Which I suppose I can use for u.2 drives, but they're even more expensive. I'd rather have more sata ssds for cheap storage.

>>106192733
Oops, it was just nvme then, my bad.

>>106192851
Waitwaitwait, you found a nvme ssd that was sata speeds?

>>106192925
Yeah it was 6GB/s iirc
It was the same speed just different form factor. I'm talking about cheap stuff here, the cheapest while still being okay quality.

>>106192996
Are you sure it was nvme and not just a m.2 sata ssd?

>>106191340
>Why the fuck is it only for servers?
I guess it's because manufacturers have chosen the m2 form-factor for laptop to make them thin and desktop manufacturers followed
>Or why the fuck did SATA stopped to evolve, why no SATA 4?
yeah it's a shame given that sas keep evolving to this day (altough very slowly as we still don't have sas-5 drives which came out in 2018 and barely any sas-4 drives)
I guess pci-based storage won and implementing a sas controller on coomsumer-grade motherboard costs too much? even microsd and compact-flash are based on pci now...
everyone in the server space is migrating to u2 (or 3) and e1.s form-factors too which does not help sas growing.
>Or why the fuck don't desktop motherboard let you use a cable to put the NVMe SSD away from the CPU and GPU?
the trend is to eliminate 2.5 drives and one or two m2 don't take much space on a motherboard. it's a real shame as I don't want to imagine the trouble they have to design atx boards with 4 or 5 m2 slots on it when they could just replace the sata interface with SFF-8639

>>106192996
I'll assume you mean 6Gb/s (gigabit), since that's the max speed of a sata drive. While nvme drives are easily capable of 6GB/s (gigabyte), you specified both drives were the same speed.
Yeah, you made the right decision. There's no point wasting a m.2 slot on your motherboard if you're limiting it to 6Gb/s. It's better to just use 2.5" sata ssds since there are usually a lot more sata ports on a motherboard. With your free m.2 you can use a riser and adapter to add extra sata ports or pcie x16 riser for a gpu. Although it won't run in x16 mode.

>>106193288
SAS has mostly stopped growing not because of form factor changes but because Broadcom are assholes.
They basically have a monopoly on SAS interfaces having eaten up LSI.

The industry wants to ween themselves off Broadcom, going so far as eliminating SATA and moving everything including HDDs to PCIe. This is still playing into Broadcom's hands because they also own PLX as PCIe switches are going to be necessary in the future but figuring out PCIe switches is going to be easier for other firms to figure out and probably less of a patent and implementation minefield.

>>106193485
fuck I didn't know about, yet another reason to hate this company...

>>106190149 (OP)
isn't mSATA only for old pre-2015 laptops?

>>106190149 (OP)
nvme is objectively the best
>2.5 SATA
backwards compatible with devices that only accept 2.5 and 3.5 SATA HDDs
>mSATA
similar dimensions to mini PCIe cards typically used in 10-20 year old laptops. Apparently not compatible for some reason
>M.2 SATA
backwards compatible with controllers that normally handle SATA HDDs and/or the mobo manufacturer is too cheap to buy a proper NVMe controller.

>>106192107
>nearly identical performance to nvme drives
he's not wrong tho
NVME drives slow down massively after they use the dram and slc caches

>>106194648
a midrange 1 tb drive has on average like 50-100 gb of slc cache... you are writing more than 100 gb in sequence how often? like once a year? this problem doesn't exist
and besides, a 6 GB/s gen 4 drive isn't slowing down anywhere close to sata speeds after the cache is full.
this is like retards claiming "qlc sata drives are slower than HDDs" all over again, nonsense, you are just nitpicking a very rare scenario were that's almost true.

>>106190149 (OP)
m.2 sata is the most flexible one, with a 2.5" adapter. works in any laptop as upgrade, or any PC, still snappier than a regular HDD, and pretty cheap.

>>106190149 (OP)
i don't care. all NVMe's should be backwards compatible with m.2 SATA's though. i have so many m.2 stat's i can't use

>>106194978
>lose power to ramdisk
>eat shit

>>106195122
That's the thrill of it.

>>106195167
>>106195122
>doesn't use any kind of USB backup
Delete yourselves.