I am looking at replacing the mobo in my sig with an 8700k and figured I might consider replacing my SSD too. I have a 512 GB Evo 850 SATA drive and I am considering an OEM 256 GB Pro 960 M.2. I am wondering if there will be any noticeable speed improvements. I dont really do large file transfers that often, I mostly use the computer for browsing and gaming. Will the upgrade make a noticeable improvement in the day-to-day Windows 10 environment?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Worth it to upgrade from Evo 850 SATAIII to Pro 960 M.2?
- Thread starter SPL Tech
- Start date
Nobody.
Worth it, SPL, is up to you. There are improvements to be had, slightly faster boot times, the desktop 'feels' snappier to me just opening anything, really. Wlrth it TO ME. But if those minor improvments are worth it to you, is up to you.
There are articles and reviews out there going over this exact conundrum as well.
Worth it, SPL, is up to you. There are improvements to be had, slightly faster boot times, the desktop 'feels' snappier to me just opening anything, really. Wlrth it TO ME. But if those minor improvments are worth it to you, is up to you.
There are articles and reviews out there going over this exact conundrum as well.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
over all, not really for most people.
faster boot times over sata are nice but not really important to most.
yea, windows program loads and such are snappier but nothing "amazing" out of the box but with a monster overclocked cpu it can be.
I have them in a couple of rigs and I won't bother with them any more for gaming and browsing rigs, the bang for the buck is just not there.
now, for pure E-peen sure, I'll use them.
are you doing anything that makes the extra cores of the 8700K useful?
I'm still on gen4 I7 4790K and see nothing that causes me to think about even the 8700K, it's the I3 8100 (I think) and I3 8350K that looks interesting if building a new budget rig from scratch.
faster boot times over sata are nice but not really important to most.
yea, windows program loads and such are snappier but nothing "amazing" out of the box but with a monster overclocked cpu it can be.
I have them in a couple of rigs and I won't bother with them any more for gaming and browsing rigs, the bang for the buck is just not there.
now, for pure E-peen sure, I'll use them.
are you doing anything that makes the extra cores of the 8700K useful?
I'm still on gen4 I7 4790K and see nothing that causes me to think about even the 8700K, it's the I3 8100 (I think) and I3 8350K that looks interesting if building a new budget rig from scratch.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2001
I would say that the load times for wndows10 are about the same between sataIII and pciex4 m.2 are pretty close- potentially even slower depending on setup for m.2.
If you use large programs- there may be some differences there. Value is pretty poor- especially when you already have the sataIII drive in 512gb size
If you use large programs- there may be some differences there. Value is pretty poor- especially when you already have the sataIII drive in 512gb size
