M2 SSD for a Gaming laptop, please help!

I'm looking forward to purchasing this laptop by mid-September:
http://www.cdiscount.com/informatiq...7-3-i5/f-10709-bun9s7179b11239.html#mpos=7|cd

Since it does not sport an M.2 SSD (But does have an HDD), I'm looking into a few M.2 models I've found for sale with interesting discounts. My maximum budget for an SSD is 300 Euros. I'd be grateful if anyone helps me pick an SSD with valid reasons!

Western Digital Blue SATA SSD - 545 MB / 525 MB
512 GB = 155 Eur
1 TB = 278 Eur

Western Digital Black NVMe SSD - 2050 MB / 800 MB
512 GB = 212 Eur

Samsung 960 EVO NVMe SSD - 3200 MB / 1800 MB
512 GB = 240 Eur
1 TB = 472 Eur

Kingston KC1000 NVMe SSD - 2700 MB / 1600 MB
480 GB = 247 Eur
960 GB = 475 Eur

Since I'm not that familiar with SSD prices and performance, I'm hoping anyone could shed some light and answer a few questions:

1- Is it worth paying an extra and jumping from SATA to NVMe? Does it make a substantial difference when it comes to moderate loads? (Gaming, boot, running programs and transferring files to HDDs)

2- If it were up to you, would you choose bulk (Sata) or high performance (NVME)?

Thank you!

 

Having used both types of SSDs, I've not noticed a drastic difference between them. NVMe boots a bit faster, but we're talking 8 seconds versus 10 with SATA. I'd purchase the largest capacity SATA drive you can afford.

 

Valid point. Thank you!
Meanwhile, do you know of any good 1TB M.2 SSDs besides the WD Blue?

 

Samsung 850 Evo, SanDisk X400.

 

Hmm, the 850 Evo costs 350 Euros while the X400 is out of stock...
I guess the WD Blue still remains the optimal Gb/$ right now. Thanks!

 

Not able to tell, is there just the one drive bay? On a budget I like the crucial mx300

 

@D2 Ultima

I'd personally say the 850 Pro for boot and important files, 850 EVO for general storage

 

You said good, why are you mentioning WD Blue? MX300 is likely your only choice at this price point.

Sent from my OnePlus 1 using a coconut

 

Why is the WD Blue bad?

EDIT: At 295€, the MX300 is nowhere near a budget SSD, seeing the WD Blue priced at 280.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

For 15€ difference (or ~5% difference) the MX300 is in a league of it's own vs. the WD Blue (note; not the Blue 3D).

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd-blue-3d-sandisk-ultra-3d-ssd,5134.html

The new BiCS SSD's (link above) are the (budget) drives to buy today. Everything else is either unavailable for a long time now (SanDisk Extreme Pro) or sadly outdated, even if the firmware has been tweaked extensively for the last 36 months to minimize the pitfalls that TLC nand 'offers' us (Samsung EVO's...).

The MX300 is a good drive - the new BiCS SSD's are better (performance and bang for the buck). Especially when a couple of firmware updates or so are released to show their full potential.

 

Okay, change of plans! No more talks about WD. Thank you @D2 Ultima and @tilleroftheearth.

Does this mean the MX300 is a much better bang-for-buck SSD compared to the 960 Evo?
I'm mostly considering a 500GB M2 SSD for boot and programs (except games).
Will the 525GB MX300 (currently priced at 149€) obliterate the 960 Evo (240€) despite the massive difference in theoretical numbers?

 

Based on performance per value MX300 is the better option.
PCIe SSD is overall faster when you're imaging your bootdrive with lot of games and apps, there PCIe SSD might win by 5 mins less time whilst comparing similar SATA SSD.
Day to day performance on PCIe and SATA is barely noticeable as others said.

 

I would recommend an SATA III SSD with greater capacity than ~500GB (i.e. 1TB or higher) over an M.2 model of any capacity (heat/throttling being the biggest issues with M.2 in notebooks - not to mention $$$ over a SATA III alternative). Including the ability to OP by 33% or more if you want the fastest platform over time (almost no matter how you use the system...).

While an M.2 NVMe drive can feel faster initially and even during brief sequential writes to the drive - depending on the cooling design of the system it's in... it can not only throttle itself to below HDD speeds - it can also heat up the surrounding components and throttle the entire system down too.

If you can buy both drives (of similar capacities) and test in the specific system you're buying - then you'll know for sure. But based on spec's and speculation?

I'd choose the SATA III drive every time at the highest possible capacity available and OP'd by 33% or more for the best user experience (sustained).

 

That sounds great, thank you for input!

The thing is, I'm not really sure if I truly need a whole TB of storage, seeing I'd already own 2TBs of HDD storage (one internal and one external).

A 1TB MX300 costs 294€, which makes me dead set on my budget for laptop hardware, if I decide to discard the 8GB stick of HyperX 2133Mhz I'm trying to add.

Is 8GB of RAM enough for multitasking? (Say from multiple Chrome tabs to an editing software or a CAD program).
Thanks again

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

Even if you don't need a TB of storage - the SSD does to operate properly (with the OP I've mentioned). It will give you effectively ~650GB after all...

Thanks for mentioning the RAM. That is one thing I forgot to mention in my previous post.

16GB RAM is what I would recommend for the bare minimum in today's platforms. With 32GB+ being highly recommended if your budget allows...

Not only will more RAM make your system much more responsive in everyday tasks - it will also make your SSD perform better too (disable System Restore, hibernation and the pagefile too if your programs don't depend on that last aspect of the O/S...).

 

Again, very valuable information, thank you!
The RAM being extremely viable for the system snapiness, it looks like I absolutely must spend 70€ to make it 16G. (That's how much an 8gigs stick costs now, they are spiking in price quite a lot lately, If I wait more, they're likely to increase)

Having said such, am I losing too much opting for 525GB instead of 1TB? How much effective storage will that give me? As long as it's between 350 and 400, and as long as the stability loss isn't that critical in the long run, I could live with it.
If moving to 1TB makes a massive difference, I'll forcefully increase my budget xD

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

Here is the calculation of how much actual storage capacity you can expect with 33% OP'ing.

Nominal capacity as stated by manufacturer = 525GB

525 x 1000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 /1024 = ~488.9GB actual

488.9 x (1-.33) = ~327.6GB Available to O/S and user after OP'ing 33%.

So, it just misses your expectations...

Of course; you don't have to OP by 33%... In my use (desktops) I have SSD's OP'd by 65% or more (depending on what they're used for) - but for a single drive, I've found 33% (over and above what the manufacturer may have OP'd already) is the best balance between sustained (over time) storage performance and 'lost' capacity.

As it seems you're able to increase your budget (even grudgingly...) I would.

Think twice about 32GB of RAM too. Maxing out 16GB is just a few tabs in your favorite browser (depending on the website) and a handful of other programs away...


(Note: I'm assuming you're buying an i7 based platform, of course).

Good luck.

 

My platform is quiet on the "budget" side of things, here it is anyway so you could get an idea:

MSI GE72VR 6RF

i5-6300HQ 2.3Ghz - 3.2Ghz
GTX 1060 3GB
8GB DDR4 2133Mhz + Potential RAM
1TB 7200RPM HDD + Potential SSD
1080p, Chi Mei 120Hz 5ms
MSI Backpack
Steelseries Mouse + mousepad
Dragon toy
Notebook

Price before rebate: 1499€ (initial budget)
Price after rebate: 1135€

I'm therefore left with a total of 365€ for the RAM and SSD.
I'm starting with a minimum of 16GB in my current system and see if I can increase it in the long run, and that leaves me with approximately 295€ for the storage, which is exactly the MX300's price XD




Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

Does that notebook have room for two 7/9.5mm drives?

The i5-6300HQ may not have 4C/8T, but it still supports up to 64GB of RAM.

Buy the most processor and RAM you can afford; everything else can come later.

 

No, unfortunately only one 2.5" (populated by the HDD) and one M2 slot, which I'm getting an SSD for.

The i5-6300HQ is basically a downclocked 6700HQ with hyperthreading force-disabled, it should run much cooler with a minor performance loss of about 10-15% in single threaded, and 25% adding the virtual cores. I'm not that much behind

16GB should be more than enough for what I'll be doing, I've already simulated the worst case scenario, I could barely need 32, let alone 64!
Also, yes, the CPU does support up to 64, but the mobo itself only has 2 RAM slots, making the max 32GB, which is already overkill for me.

I was looking for a balance between high performance, good graphics for games, CAD and productivity, and a great screen to look at while working and gaming. I honestly couldn't find a better balance at such killer price (knowing it's new and comes with free goodies).

That Terabyte MX300 will nicely fit in such package!

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

I have a 525gb crucial mx300 in my desktop and have just added a 1tb crucial mx300 to my dell (to give it 1.5tb storage) no complaints so far. I chose the mx300 over a mushkin reactor even though they were similar price because the crucial had better over provisioning and was faster on all the bench marks except read (so overall faster)