Whats replacing 960 Pro?

[mojothehut]

Hey all
I'm looking at building a new rig this fall/winter when Coffee lake comes out.
So until then, I'm slowly buying things like the case, power supply and perhaps SSD.
I've been eye balling the 960 Pro. But I haven't kept up on SSD tech in the last several
months. But last time I checked, consensus was that the 960 pro was all around top dog.

Is there any new SSD tech or model expected this fall or early next year that will be the replacement for Samsung's 960pro? I don't mind the price tag. I want speed and durability, I want it to last me several years.

Thanks!

 

[UsandThem]

Samsung hasn't stated or hinted any replacement, but I would be surprised if they replaced it this soon. Likely there won't be a true replacement until late 2018.

There is nothing you do that will make a 960 PRO even break a sweat. And if you are just looking at throwing money at the fastest thing possible, buy two of them and run them in RAID 0.

 

[Billy Tallis]

Samsung usually announces stuff either around Flash Memory Summit (next week) or at their own SSD Summit (usually September). However, I don't expect any major updates to the Polaris controller used by the 960s. They'll probably announce that the 960s and 850s are going to switch over to 64-layer 3D NAND from the current 48-layer, but that shouldn't significantly affect performance and the migration could take another one or two quarters to complete.

 

[mojothehut]

Thanks for the info.
Just ordered a 960 Pro 1tb

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

They'll probably announce that the 960s and 850s are going to switch over to 64-layer 3D NAND from the current 48-layer, but that shouldn't significantly affect performance and the migration could take another one or two quarters to complete.

Haven't seen that Samsung has mentioned 64-layer 3D MLC NAND though, just TLC NAND so I thought they might do like Toshiba/WD and just focus on 3D TLC NAND.
Or do you know if they will come out with 64-layer 3D MLC NAND too?

Also Samsung claimed an increase in performance of 1.5 over their 48-layer 3D TLC NAND so couldn't performance be a bit improved over previous drives?
Though such claims may be worth to take with a bit of salt.

 

[deustroop]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/samsung-flash-memory-summit,35180.html

 

[Billy Tallis]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/samsung-flash-memory-summit,35180.html

Yeah, this is probably a case of the UNH-IOL NVMe Integrator's List disclosing earlier than Samsung really wanted. But the drives on the list are almost certainly just the enterprise ones; Samsung's never previously submitted a consumer drive for the Integrator's List that I can tell. The Phoenix controller used by drives like the PM983 will probably show up in Samsung's consumer NVMe line, though.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

There are maybe three ways to configure a 960 Pro NVMe (in my way of thinking . . . ).

You can plug it into the M.2 motherboard slot, most likely making it work through SATA Express. You can buy a $15 PCIE M.2 interface card, and add the 960 Pro to the motherboard x4 slot that works through the chipset controller. My chipset allows for 20 PCIE lanes, but only four can communicate with the processor at once. Finally, you would use up a precious x16/x8 slot using the controller on the CPU.

I only suspect that choosing option 2 (the x4 slot) slightly degrades the performance of my 960 Pro. The benchmarks for sequential read hover between 2900 and 3100 MB/s, although once in a blue moon the benchie will show something close to 3,500 -- the spec seq read speed for that drive.

Of course, the opportunities change with motherboards beyond Z170, and most certainly with the X99 systems, which have a U.2 interface for NVMe -- if I remember. If I'm all mixed up about these things, let me know. It has been a very mixed up summer of crises and distractions. Only the computers seem healthy at the moment.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

There are maybe three ways to configure a 960 Pro NVMe (in my way of thinking . . . ).

You can plug it into the M.2 motherboard slot, most likely making it work through SATA Express. You can buy a $15 PCIE M.2 interface card, and add the 960 Pro to the motherboard x4 slot that works through the chipset controller. My chipset allows for 20 PCIE lanes, but only four can communicate with the processor at once. Finally, you would use up a precious x16/x8 slot using the controller on the CPU.

I only suspect that choosing option 2 (the x4 slot) slightly degrades the performance of my 960 Pro. The benchmarks for sequential read hover between 2900 and 3100 MB/s, although once in a blue moon the benchie will show something close to 3,500 -- the spec seq read speed for that drive.

Of course, the opportunities change with motherboards beyond Z170, and most certainly with the X99 systems, which have a U.2 interface for NVMe -- if I remember. If I'm all mixed up about these things, let me know. It has been a very mixed up summer of crises and distractions. Only the computers seem healthy at the moment.

Whether the drive connects through CPU or chipset derived lanes is entirely on the platform and motherboard specific implementation. X99/x299/x399 all only have CPU derived lanes, and in any possible configuration will be connected through them.

Mainstream platform depends on the motherboard implementation. Usually the m.2 slots are chipset derived, so you won't get CPU lanes unless you use one of the two x16 slots.

In no case is it possible to use a 960 pro over SATA Express - its a different interface. I suppose if your motherboard supported the 2x lanes over it, you could probably use some kind of adapter for sata express to m.2, if someone makes one. However, the number of times I have ever even seen someone considering using the sata express on their motherboard has been precisely 0.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Actually, I think you are right and I was mistaken. The sig mobo is Sabertooth Z170 S. The BIOS shows option for "M.2" versus "PCI-Express" -- not SATA-Express. This is what happens with the latter: you lose two SATA ports on the "SATA-Express #1" if you use "M.2" -- or so I recall and I will have to confirm.

But I still only suspect that using a PCIE card in the x4 (to chipset) slot may show less performance than using an x16/x8 slot for it.

Wouldn't you think that I could simply move my KryoM.2 card to the x16/x8 without any boot problems or need to troubleshoot? I like to anticipate the possible outcomes before I go forward with some "experiment."

 

[UsandThem]

Wouldn't you think that I could simply move my KryoM.2 card to the x16/x8 without any boot problems or need to troubleshoot? I like to anticipate the possible outcomes before I go forward with some "experiment."

I have my KryoM.2 adapter plugged into a X16 slot (dropping it to 8X speed) with no issues. The only reason I did this is because my only 4X slot sits directly on top of my PSU, and I didn't want to directly funnel the heat into it.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I have my KryoM.2 adapter plugged into a X16 slot (dropping it to 8X speed) with no issues. The only reason I did this is because my only 4X slot sits directly on top of my PSU, and I didn't want to directly funnel the heat into it.

Did the benchies show any perceptible difference? I would only deduce that 4 to 8 dedicated lanes for an x4 device would have better throughput than 4 lanes allocated among 20 (in the case of my own mobo and chipset.)

The drawback for me would only be loss of 1% performance in my GTX 1070.

 

[UsandThem]

Did the benchies show any perceptible difference? I would only deduce that 4 to 8 dedicated lanes for an x4 device would have better throughput than 4 lanes allocated among 20 (in the case of my own mobo and chipset.)

The drawback for me would only be loss of 1% performance in my GTX 1070.

Not really. Regardless of which slot I use, it is a little bit slower than using it directly in the M.2 slot. I know it's not needed, but the adapter keeps my 960 EVO very cool, and nothing I do is affected by the slightly reduced performance.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Not really. Regardless of which slot I use, it is a little bit slower than using it directly in the M.2 slot. I know it's not needed, but the adapter keeps my 960 EVO very cool, and nothing I do is affected by the slightly reduced performance.

That's good to hear from a fellow user. Using the mobo M.2 slot(s) definitely limits cooling options. I still believe one could get the little M.2 heatsink offered by Gnome-Tech for $12, or otherwise jerry-rig pads and a sink on an M.2 card without glue. But since I still use SATA drives, I don't want an M.2 sharing bandwidth with SATA. I'll have to think about it, but I'm not even sure the PCIE x4 option completely avoids that.

 

[UsandThem]

That's good to hear from a fellow user. Using the mobo M.2 slot(s) definitely limits cooling options. I still believe one could get the little M.2 heatsink offered by Gnome-Tech for $12, or otherwise jerry-rig pads and a sink on an M.2 card without glue. But since I still use SATA drives, I don't want an M.2 sharing bandwidth with SATA. I'll have to think about it, but I'm not even sure the PCIE x4 option completely avoids that.

It depends on the board. I know one of my M.2 slots (my board has two) disables the 4X slot if used, and the other one disables some SATA ports. So for me, the PCIe adapter lets me bypass all of that, and keeps my drive cooler. Without it the adapter, my 960 EVO hit 58c when pushed (still well within the safe thermal limits). However, using the adapter makes it top out at 30c.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

It depends on the board. I know one of my M.2 slots (my board has two) disables the 4X slot if used, and the other one disables some SATA ports. So for me, the PCIe adapter lets me bypass all of that, and keeps my drive cooler. Without it the adapter, my 960 EVO hit 58c when pushed (still well within the safe thermal limits). However, using the adapter makes it top out at 30c.

I agree with all of that. I navigated my way through the Z170 board features of my Sabertooth to get it right. As it stands, I lose two of six SATA ports to make the x4 slot functional as such. If I use the M.2 board slot, I THINK I would be sharing bandwidth with two remaining ports otherwise constituting "SATA-Express #1." I'd have to review the particulars to reassure myself that this is all accurate. But it shouldn't be too different than other mid-range Z170 boards -- those with 2x x16/x8 slots and an x4/x1 slot of x16 size.