Don't have Amazon Prime? Students can get a
free 6-Month Amazon Prime trial with free 2-day shipping, unlimited video streaming & more.
If you're not a student, there's also a
free 1-Month Amazon Prime trial available.
You can also earn cash back rewards on Amazon and Whole Foods purchases with the
Amazon Prime Visa credit card. Read our review to see if it’s the right card for you.
34 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product...2NUY&
It looks like this one tops out at 2TB. Right now, that most likely won't be a problem for most people. But if you plan to keep this and use it for migrating data as you upgrade computers, the 2TB limitation may limit its functional life.
https://www.aliexpress.
https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-Ty...08RVC6F9Y/ [amazon.com]
Sabrent USB 3.2 Type-C Tool-Free Enclosure for M.2 PCIe NVMe and SATA SSDs (EC-SNVE)
Reviewer said it use RTL9210B
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
So once that's not a factor, is it less problematic just to go SATA SSD?
Imagine you're copying a folder with 100 MB of small files (documents), and 1 GB of large files.(movies). You have a NVMe SSD with 3 GB/s sequential speeds, 30 MB/s 4k speeds. And a SATA SSD with 500 MB/s sequential speeds, and 60 MB/s 4k speeds. Which is faster? Obviously the NVMe drive right? There's 10x more large file data than small, and it's 6x faster at large file speeds while the SATA drive is only 2x faster at small file speeds. So everything is in favor of the NVMe drive, right?
NVMe: (100MB / 30 MB/s) +.(1000 MB / 3000 MB/s) = 3.33 sec + 0.33 sec = 3.67 sec
SATA: (100 MB / 60 MB/s) + (1000 MB / 500 MB/s) = 1.67 sec + 2 sec = 3.67 sec
Surprise! They take the same amount of time. Because wait time is the inverse of MB/s, it's the smaller MB/s speeds (the 4k read/write speeds) which make the biggest difference in most use cases. And since 4k read/write speeds still aren't anywhere close to hitting the SATA 3 bandwidth limit, most of the time you won't be able to tell the difference between a SATA SSD and NVMe SSD.
The only time the NVMe SSD has a clear advantage is if you regularly work with lots of large files. Like video editing. Otherwise, you should just ignore the sequential speeds, and concentrate on getting a SSD with fast 4k speeds (NVMe or SATA). That will make a bigger difference in most uses cases than faster sequential speeds. All other things being equal, the NVMe drive will be faster than SATA. But SATA is usually cheaper and in most cases you won't be able to tell the difference. And if you're able to get a SATA SSD with faster 4k speeds because of the lower price, it may very well end up performing faster (albeit imperceptibly) than the NVMe SSD.
(Incidentally, the same problem occurs with fuel mileage. Fuel consumption is measured in volume / distance, so most of the world measures it in liters per 100 km. The US uses the inverse - MPG. This results in car buyers in the US obsessing over high MPG vehicles, when they actually make very little difference. Small improvements in the efficiency of low MPG vehicles (trucks and buses) OTOH make a huge difference in amount of fuel consumed. e.g. Going from 20 to 21 MPG (a 5% increase in MPG) actually saves you more fuel than going from 50 to 55 MPG (a 10% increase). And going from 6 MPG to 6.1 MPG (a 1.7% increase) saves even more fuel for the same distance traveled.)
It was only the usb 10gbps speeds not the usb 5gbps that had issue. Sorry for saying it weird, but I am not real hip to if it is called usb 3.1 gen 1 vs usb 3.1 gen 2. Just shooting from the hip.
Imagine you're copying a folder with 100 MB of small files (documents), and 1 GB of large files.(movies). You have a NVMe SSD with 3 GB/s sequential speeds, 30 MB/s 4k speeds. And a SATA SSD with 500 MB/s sequential speeds, and 60 MB/s 4k speeds. Which is faster? Obviously the NVMe drive right? There's 10x more large file data than small, and it's 6x faster at large file speeds while the SATA drive is only 2x faster at small file speeds. So everything is in favor of the NVMe drive, right?
NVMe: (100MB / 30 MB/s) +.(1000 MB / 3000 MB/s) = 3.33 sec + 0.33 sec = 3.67 sec
SATA: (100 MB / 60 MB/s) + (1000 MB / 500 MB/s) = 1.67 sec + 2 sec = 3.67 sec
Surprise! They take the same amount of time. Because wait time is the inverse of MB/s, it's the smaller MB/s speeds (the 4k read/write speeds) which make the biggest difference in most use cases. And since 4k read/write speeds still aren't anywhere close to hitting the SATA 3 bandwidth limit, most of the time you won't be able to tell the difference between a SATA SSD and NVMe SSD.
The only time the NVMe SSD has a clear advantage is if you regularly work with lots of large files. Like video editing. Otherwise, you should just ignore the sequential speeds, and concentrate on getting a SSD with fast 4k speeds (NVMe or SATA). That will make a bigger difference in most uses cases than faster sequential speeds. All other things being equal, the NVMe drive will be faster than SATA. But SATA is usually cheaper and in most cases you won't be able to tell the difference. And if you're able to get a SATA SSD with faster 4k speeds because of the lower price, it may very well end up performing faster (albeit imperceptibly) than the NVMe SSD.
(Incidentally, the same problem occurs with fuel mileage. Fuel consumption is measured in volume / distance, so most of the world measures it in liters per 100 km. The US uses the inverse - MPG. This results in car buyers in the US obsessing over high MPG vehicles, when they actually make very little difference. Small improvements in the efficiency of low MPG vehicles (trucks and buses) OTOH make a huge difference in amount of fuel consumed. e.g. Going from 20 to 21 MPG (a 5% increase in MPG) actually saves you more fuel than going from 50 to 55 MPG (a 10% increase). And going from 6 MPG to 6.1 MPG (a 1.7% increase) saves even more fuel for the same distance traveled.)
So far seems to work fine, but I haven't used it much.
This part of the conversation is kind of moot as USB/PHY latency is going to dominate the small file operations and it won't matter.
EDIT: a quick Google says USB3 on Windows has a best-case one-way latency of 1ms, which is kind of an eternity with respect to 1GB/s, which would be 1MB/ms, or 256 4k blocks per millisecond. Put it another way, you could've transferred 256 blocks in the time it took your protocol to send the message down. (I know I'm kinda mixing the units of time with through-put, but it's just to emphasize the point.)
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I assume you mean hdd. Have you tried to transfer a 1080p bluray rip at usb 3.1 gen 2 or whatever 10Gbps speeds from an internal nvme? Mine locked up.