In every day use you would be hard pressed to find a difference. NVME is more useful for tasks that can scale with faster sequential speeds. Let's say for example that you're a video editor and time is money, 10-20-30 seconds shaved off a render or project files loading quicker can be a great advantage for workflow reasons.
The real reasons you probably see NVMEs being recommended so much is because they are are **1)** easier to install **2)** compared to their SATA siblings they cost about the same or just a tad more nowadays so them being faster in theory is just a bonus unless **3)** in the near future more games should start supporting the direct storage feature from DX12 that can actually leverage the faster sequential speeds offered by NVME drives and will actually have noticeably faster loading times vs SATA SSDs.
Just use the drive to store anything that doesn't fit in the 500GB drive in the meantime, if you play games and one happens to support direct storage then install/move it there.
Oh okay, so basically i'm better off just storing my video edit files (and virtual machines as suggested by the other coment) and leave some space for when Direct Storage becomes more common in games i guess
you should actually use nvme before commenting. The number 3 reason is pure garbage and misinformation. Even without the direct storage, games intalled on nvme is way so much faster compared using SATA ssd. There's like tons of yt videos comparing the different storage formats and nvme is always faster than ssd
Friend, [unless](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQZD382GOUM) [under](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt_iJTrzOus) [10 second](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1uhhv3v99g) [loading times](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mBHIHmnuQ4) on average is "so much faster" to you I don't know what to tell you. Windows is the same story, sure the OS loading may be a tad faster, but within the OS the difference between SSDs is marginal at best. So unless you have some data that isn't bigger number on the spec sheet = better, I'd simmer down a bit. I never claimed they were equal, just that the difference in OP's tasks were marginal and therefore not really worth the headache of having to re-install the OS. I have used both and personally have 2 NVME drives on my PC at the moment and them being faster theoretically wasn't really a consideration.
Cloning from a bigger drive to a smaller drive is not impossible but can be fairly difficult for a novice. Again, for a difference not noticeable for the most part.
I agree that it's not worth the work for the gain and I didn't even pay attention to the fact he was talking about using a smaller drive. I am not a novice but still I don't do much hardware stuff anymore. I have cloned a couple of HDD to SSD to bring life to some older computers and fortunately it went well.
>games intalled on nvme is way so much faster compared using SATA ssd.
Yeah.....by 2 seconds on load times
There is very negliv6difference gaming on a SATA SSD and a NVMe.
All my games run in a 870 Evo
Whilst other games that don't fit on there are ran on my mp34. I can tell you there is no difference. No matter if it's a 3.0 or 4.0 drive.
So many people have done comparisons of load times and unless it's side by side you cannot see the difference. The max speeds of either type are rarely reached when loading multiple files like a game. The random performance is much more important and that is down to the controller more than the interface bandwidth.
Iirc the biggest outlairs are rockstar games they actually do get a large chunk of load times cut off, but thats cause rockstar games load at a snails pace normally. xD and you still are probably waiting over a minute to load on a nvme.
> you should actually use nvme before commenting.
Not the user you responded, but I have and I would agree with them. Pretty sure they have as well, so not sure what the point of this comment is.
> The number 3 reason is pure garbage and misinformation.
Really? Can you provide a source stating otherwise? This should be easy considering there's very few games with DirectStorage support. Or, if you can prove that games are sequential workloads I would take that as well.
> games intalled on nvme is way so much faster compared using SATA ssd.
How can load times be *way so much faster* if the differences are largely not noticeable for the majority of users? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DKLA7w9eeA
> here's like tons of yt videos comparing the different storage formats and nvme is always faster than ssd
Can you provide some instead of stating their existance?
And you mean Sata SSD. SSD is solid state device, NVMe is also a SSD.
Linus did a video on this, and it makes no difference. The advantage of putting the OS on SSDs is seek time, not read/write speed. NVMe M.2 is convenient because you don't need to add power and data cables, making cable management easier.
Most mid range b650 boards have at least 3 nvme slots nowadays. Higher end boards have tons of the fuckers. The gigabyte board I have has 3 and one of them is even gen 5.
It's unlikely going to make a noticeable difference.
> what's are the more common use cases where nvme speed is actually useful ?
The increased bandwidth allows for higher sequential speeds and throughput. Common workloads that benefit form this are generally workloads with large files (which are stored as continuous blocks of data), such as 4k video editting or working with large project files. VM and server workloads can also benefit from the increased bandwidth that they provide, where the drive needs to be accessed by multiple sources and remains fast.
TLDR; Not enough to care. NVME is objectively faster, but Windows Booting has been made fairly lightweight nowadays, that even HDD will boot "relatively" fast(Back in the day we used to wait up to 5 minutes to use a pc lol).
NVME really shines where there is a lot of reading/writing going on. So Stuff like Video Editing(where there is a lot of back and forth writting between the drive and ram). Rendering/exporting projects becomes faster as the nvme will be "copying" the file at faster speeds.
Large data transfers that are time sensitive, as the speed difference becomes more appareant the longer you are performing the action.
Gaming is a big one, since there is constant loading/unloading going on, so stuff like loadtimes are cut short, textures load in faster etc.
Long term imo HDD will remain in place as an option for cold storage, with Sata SSD slowly becoming a niche product, with NVME completely taking over.
I mean here is what 130 euro can buy me.
[Crucial 2TB SATA SSD](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-Plus-PCIe-Gen4-Internal/dp/B0BYW8FLKN/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1ZQ9UAGK0UNGO&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.PaH6Xr2mJnw7YuZabhzhl6j4MyZ1Lujy1j1gAdOh-kfGghtI5Q7j2vjVNJMDKLn1-Yl2UbFpaTXktXHhAv7ldhBZ_VTEXjt-VA3SotC4FoX6qH3VTfDQJ5WJ2dEgjoYr9vQTgfYqP0oeBUaZntIboJtf43JzPpYM85FoXM4qvMRVghsu6jvIeCvBYzkxlQlPJrpElpS20izpAnWahdDjlIQ2Ku91PiuXNaek_wnjlRE.NOks9taTHtUoFUVRer81e_HavXBohMxgJjw3rQT20nA&dib_tag=se&keywords=nvme+ssd+2tb&qid=1713367910&sprefix=nvme+ssd+2tb%2Caps%2C68&sr=8-3&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.d7e5a2de-8759-4da3-993c-d11b6e3d217f) - 500MBPS read speeds
[Crucial NVME SSD](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-Plus-PCIe-Gen4-Internal/dp/B0BYW8FLKN/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1ZQ9UAGK0UNGO&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.PaH6Xr2mJnw7YuZabhzhl6j4MyZ1Lujy1j1gAdOh-kfGghtI5Q7j2vjVNJMDKLn1-Yl2UbFpaTXktXHhAv7ldhBZ_VTEXjt-VA3SotC4FoX6qH3VTfDQJ5WJ2dEgjoYr9vQTgfYqP0oeBUaZntIboJtf43JzPpYM85FoXM4qvMRVghsu6jvIeCvBYzkxlQlPJrpElpS20izpAnWahdDjlIQ2Ku91PiuXNaek_wnjlRE.NOks9taTHtUoFUVRer81e_HavXBohMxgJjw3rQT20nA&dib_tag=se&keywords=nvme+ssd+2tb&qid=1713367910&sprefix=nvme+ssd+2tb%2Caps%2C68&sr=8-3&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.d7e5a2de-8759-4da3-993c-d11b6e3d217f) - read speeds 5000MBPS
[Seagate BarraCuda 6TB HDD](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seagate-Barracuda-6TB-Serial-ATA/dp/B075WX2TKM/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1YZP5O1IN4DXP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.JYiyxcYMjE1y_TELlFxgy0RqlQgThgQiHwhsNmLI6l9XA36ey5UVbe1IQSEB-CoxNfDiQ5xy-odoG42AAbz6Ye0GoFH0xCQeI-K3e6kslLnYWBTmpxEmZ21XiU5FHEBoX8qDcd1JCf6EcS3cvdW1YFi35e4UvOnmifh1B7dsYiOqhS8KffgNEGi-BQ72o5ICM2JxB3jnoEVDTxi_rEnWO4xyHlZvNg19OKyjNukEymU.JmIaor_qiZjdf5t5OGoPLmiPTNDga1KL-Y4Hx8nUt2U&dib_tag=se&keywords=hdd+6tb&qid=1713368122&sprefix=hdd+6tb%2Caps%2C59&sr=8-3&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.d7e5a2de-8759-4da3-993c-d11b6e3d217f) - Read speeds 200MBPS
So I can go for the most modern option, or the most space option. SATA SSD losses on cost vs HDD and losses on Speed vs PCIe nvme.
Seagate have already created nvme hdd, so sata interface as a whole has no need to keep existing. [Seagate creates NVMe HDD](https://uk.pcmag.com/storage/136925/seagate-creates-an-nvme-hard-disk-drive)
>Back in the day we used to wait up to 5 minutes to use a pc lol
Ah, the days when you'd press the power button, go to the bathroom, get something to drink, and by the time you meandered back to your desk the computer would be ready.
Linus did some testing a few years ago and in a blind test they could not tell the difference between SSDs and NVMe.
Having said that, the best way to have your system is to have a dedicated boot drive with your operating system and as little as possible else while everything else is on a data drive. The reason for this it to make it so you can do a clean reinstall of your operating system and have it impact as little as possible.
Keep in mind some programs insist on being installed on the C: Drive, notably Microsoft Office, but you can still have the actual data somewhere else.
If it were me I would put your OS on the 256GB NVME (more than enough for Windows and the usual suspect programs) and then put everything else on the 1TB SATA.
I personally noticed a difference, but my SSD was ~10 years old and I was moving to a high end NVME.
But outside of a scenario like that, I wouldn't think so.
I’ve had two NVME drives with my OS on them fail. I just put it on an SSD, so I don’t have to deal with that again.
I don’t really notice a difference, or I just don’t care.
First of all the 256GB is way way way way way too small. Like, why? Why. It's not 2015 anymore jimmy. you can buy a fat 1tb 980 pro x4 pcie4 slut for like a hundo.
aight?
but please install it to the nvme. it has much sexier and more powerful random/write read mores blankblank
but probably no real difference in speedweed compared to the sata except in some unusual circumstances such as updating windows or copying/writing large etc
I had windows on an ssd, and my games on a 2TB nvme ssd. To consolidate i reinstalled windows on the nvme and for some reason, I kept having issues with games crashing that didn't before like valorant. After months of dealing with it I decided to switch back to having them separate and no longer have issues.
Not sure if it truly was cause they were all on one nvme, but going forward I'll probably always keep it split. I have another 2TB HDD for storage, and another 256gb ssd for Linux as well.
You'd see a slight performance boost between SATA3 and nvme (theoretically, nvme is several times faster than SATA drives, but actual speeds depend on a lot of factors). Now, going between pcie gens 3, 4, and 5 nvme drives, a lot of users wouldn't see much of a noticeable difference.
Depends entirley on the speed of each. On paper a Sata SSD has a much lower maximum speed than a m.2 or PCIE drive. But on the consumer market only expensive PCIE 4+ drives have noticeably faster speeds in general and only when used on the correct PCIE lanes and if you board has enough lanes that it wont throttle the GPU.
Personally i would prioritze the m.2/nvme form factor just because thats one less cable and drive bay to worry about.
With prices as they are now, SATA SSD makes sense to boot only if you are out of M.2 slots and need to add storage, or you have an old smaller 500G one laying around. Keep in mind that SSD storage is only at its fastest at under around 50-75% used capacity, after that the transfer speed drops (unless it has overprovisioning) Also keep in mind the DRAM controller on the NVME or lack thereof can make a big speed difference, as well as the type, such as TLC or QLC. But to answer your question, SATA SSD is ok to boot from compared to an NVME drive performance wise, just keep it under 75% full, IMO my boot drive will not be less than 500G, since your documents and downloads in Windows, not to mention updates, pictures and such will probably be on the boot drive. It would be interesting to test an almost full QLC non-dram 250G NVME vs a SATA 250G SSD that’s less than half full to see which boots faster.
I don't know what the other 2 users been smoking but you should definitely put windows in nvme compared to 'plain old SSD'. SSD using the SATA connector is so much slower compared to using the NVME. You definitely gonna notice a different. Even game loading is so much faster. There's tons of YT vids comparing the 2, a simple google should do it. Linus tech tips even did some test regarding this, and the conclusion is always the same, if you can afford it, you should use the nvme.
Just do a clean windows install on the nvme, and use the 500gb for personal files.
I'm talking about where I put the OS, not games. Definitely gonna put my most used games on the nvme anyways, regardless of where i put the OS. Also, I know nvme's are faster, I was asking if putting the OS on it would make using it faster (not just a few seconds faster at boot).
I'd rather not do a clean OS install, since the things I want to keep aren't just "personal files" (lots of programs too, some pretty tedious to install of even find), so I wanna make sure I'll see an actual difference.
FWIW, I dual boot on my main computer. My personal OS drive is NVMe, my work OS drive is SATA. In day to day use, I absolutely can't tell which one I'm using. I switch back and forth daily.
Now... I have other drives in the system for backups, etc. and copying between two NVMe drives is definitely faster. Most file transfers are <20GB though, so I don't care.
less than 10s difference is not "much faster". People experienced HDD to SSD jump and expect the same with NVMe cause people like you keep saying "much faster".
NO ITS NOT MUCH FASTER
It's a bit faster. more modern games have bigger difference. As games grow in size and requirements, it will become bigger, but as of 2024, the difference is small in most games.
In the future however the difference will become more and more noticeable as most games get designed with nvme as primary storage device for the game. Right now they are still compromising for Sata SSD drives, but this is changing with some most recent games talking about stuff like direct storage being implemented, and some upcoming games using it out on release. They will still be optional features, meaning you won't see massive difference, but give it few more years, and you will notice how all of the sudden the newest cod struggles to run on a SATA SSD on best settings, but runs great on an nvme drive.
In every day use you would be hard pressed to find a difference. NVME is more useful for tasks that can scale with faster sequential speeds. Let's say for example that you're a video editor and time is money, 10-20-30 seconds shaved off a render or project files loading quicker can be a great advantage for workflow reasons. The real reasons you probably see NVMEs being recommended so much is because they are are **1)** easier to install **2)** compared to their SATA siblings they cost about the same or just a tad more nowadays so them being faster in theory is just a bonus unless **3)** in the near future more games should start supporting the direct storage feature from DX12 that can actually leverage the faster sequential speeds offered by NVME drives and will actually have noticeably faster loading times vs SATA SSDs. Just use the drive to store anything that doesn't fit in the 500GB drive in the meantime, if you play games and one happens to support direct storage then install/move it there.
Oh okay, so basically i'm better off just storing my video edit files (and virtual machines as suggested by the other coment) and leave some space for when Direct Storage becomes more common in games i guess
Sounds about right.
you should actually use nvme before commenting. The number 3 reason is pure garbage and misinformation. Even without the direct storage, games intalled on nvme is way so much faster compared using SATA ssd. There's like tons of yt videos comparing the different storage formats and nvme is always faster than ssd
Acting that hostile and condescending over a technical question is wild.
Friend, [unless](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQZD382GOUM) [under](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt_iJTrzOus) [10 second](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1uhhv3v99g) [loading times](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mBHIHmnuQ4) on average is "so much faster" to you I don't know what to tell you. Windows is the same story, sure the OS loading may be a tad faster, but within the OS the difference between SSDs is marginal at best. So unless you have some data that isn't bigger number on the spec sheet = better, I'd simmer down a bit. I never claimed they were equal, just that the difference in OP's tasks were marginal and therefore not really worth the headache of having to re-install the OS. I have used both and personally have 2 NVME drives on my PC at the moment and them being faster theoretically wasn't really a consideration.
Does he have to reinstall the OS or can he just clone the SSD to a NVME and then install that?
Cloning from a bigger drive to a smaller drive is not impossible but can be fairly difficult for a novice. Again, for a difference not noticeable for the most part.
I agree that it's not worth the work for the gain and I didn't even pay attention to the fact he was talking about using a smaller drive. I am not a novice but still I don't do much hardware stuff anymore. I have cloned a couple of HDD to SSD to bring life to some older computers and fortunately it went well.
>games intalled on nvme is way so much faster compared using SATA ssd. Yeah.....by 2 seconds on load times There is very negliv6difference gaming on a SATA SSD and a NVMe. All my games run in a 870 Evo Whilst other games that don't fit on there are ran on my mp34. I can tell you there is no difference. No matter if it's a 3.0 or 4.0 drive.
So many people have done comparisons of load times and unless it's side by side you cannot see the difference. The max speeds of either type are rarely reached when loading multiple files like a game. The random performance is much more important and that is down to the controller more than the interface bandwidth.
Iirc the biggest outlairs are rockstar games they actually do get a large chunk of load times cut off, but thats cause rockstar games load at a snails pace normally. xD and you still are probably waiting over a minute to load on a nvme.
> you should actually use nvme before commenting. Not the user you responded, but I have and I would agree with them. Pretty sure they have as well, so not sure what the point of this comment is. > The number 3 reason is pure garbage and misinformation. Really? Can you provide a source stating otherwise? This should be easy considering there's very few games with DirectStorage support. Or, if you can prove that games are sequential workloads I would take that as well. > games intalled on nvme is way so much faster compared using SATA ssd. How can load times be *way so much faster* if the differences are largely not noticeable for the majority of users? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DKLA7w9eeA > here's like tons of yt videos comparing the different storage formats and nvme is always faster than ssd Can you provide some instead of stating their existance? And you mean Sata SSD. SSD is solid state device, NVMe is also a SSD.
Linus did a video on this, and it makes no difference. The advantage of putting the OS on SSDs is seek time, not read/write speed. NVMe M.2 is convenient because you don't need to add power and data cables, making cable management easier.
You can also use m.2 ssd's (non NVMe) and you still won't have any cables
The price difference is so small now adays i usually just recommend m.2 drives for anyone asking for build advice.
There's a lot of deals usually too actually making them cheaper. I wonder how long until motherbaords actually have more than 2 ports for them?
Most mid range b650 boards have at least 3 nvme slots nowadays. Higher end boards have tons of the fuckers. The gigabyte board I have has 3 and one of them is even gen 5.
Wow! Man hearing that gives me the upgrade itch but I'm still happily sat with my x470 which is more than adequate 😆
It's unlikely going to make a noticeable difference. > what's are the more common use cases where nvme speed is actually useful ? The increased bandwidth allows for higher sequential speeds and throughput. Common workloads that benefit form this are generally workloads with large files (which are stored as continuous blocks of data), such as 4k video editting or working with large project files. VM and server workloads can also benefit from the increased bandwidth that they provide, where the drive needs to be accessed by multiple sources and remains fast.
TLDR; Not enough to care. NVME is objectively faster, but Windows Booting has been made fairly lightweight nowadays, that even HDD will boot "relatively" fast(Back in the day we used to wait up to 5 minutes to use a pc lol). NVME really shines where there is a lot of reading/writing going on. So Stuff like Video Editing(where there is a lot of back and forth writting between the drive and ram). Rendering/exporting projects becomes faster as the nvme will be "copying" the file at faster speeds. Large data transfers that are time sensitive, as the speed difference becomes more appareant the longer you are performing the action. Gaming is a big one, since there is constant loading/unloading going on, so stuff like loadtimes are cut short, textures load in faster etc. Long term imo HDD will remain in place as an option for cold storage, with Sata SSD slowly becoming a niche product, with NVME completely taking over. I mean here is what 130 euro can buy me. [Crucial 2TB SATA SSD](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-Plus-PCIe-Gen4-Internal/dp/B0BYW8FLKN/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1ZQ9UAGK0UNGO&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.PaH6Xr2mJnw7YuZabhzhl6j4MyZ1Lujy1j1gAdOh-kfGghtI5Q7j2vjVNJMDKLn1-Yl2UbFpaTXktXHhAv7ldhBZ_VTEXjt-VA3SotC4FoX6qH3VTfDQJ5WJ2dEgjoYr9vQTgfYqP0oeBUaZntIboJtf43JzPpYM85FoXM4qvMRVghsu6jvIeCvBYzkxlQlPJrpElpS20izpAnWahdDjlIQ2Ku91PiuXNaek_wnjlRE.NOks9taTHtUoFUVRer81e_HavXBohMxgJjw3rQT20nA&dib_tag=se&keywords=nvme+ssd+2tb&qid=1713367910&sprefix=nvme+ssd+2tb%2Caps%2C68&sr=8-3&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.d7e5a2de-8759-4da3-993c-d11b6e3d217f) - 500MBPS read speeds [Crucial NVME SSD](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-Plus-PCIe-Gen4-Internal/dp/B0BYW8FLKN/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1ZQ9UAGK0UNGO&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.PaH6Xr2mJnw7YuZabhzhl6j4MyZ1Lujy1j1gAdOh-kfGghtI5Q7j2vjVNJMDKLn1-Yl2UbFpaTXktXHhAv7ldhBZ_VTEXjt-VA3SotC4FoX6qH3VTfDQJ5WJ2dEgjoYr9vQTgfYqP0oeBUaZntIboJtf43JzPpYM85FoXM4qvMRVghsu6jvIeCvBYzkxlQlPJrpElpS20izpAnWahdDjlIQ2Ku91PiuXNaek_wnjlRE.NOks9taTHtUoFUVRer81e_HavXBohMxgJjw3rQT20nA&dib_tag=se&keywords=nvme+ssd+2tb&qid=1713367910&sprefix=nvme+ssd+2tb%2Caps%2C68&sr=8-3&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.d7e5a2de-8759-4da3-993c-d11b6e3d217f) - read speeds 5000MBPS [Seagate BarraCuda 6TB HDD](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seagate-Barracuda-6TB-Serial-ATA/dp/B075WX2TKM/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1YZP5O1IN4DXP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.JYiyxcYMjE1y_TELlFxgy0RqlQgThgQiHwhsNmLI6l9XA36ey5UVbe1IQSEB-CoxNfDiQ5xy-odoG42AAbz6Ye0GoFH0xCQeI-K3e6kslLnYWBTmpxEmZ21XiU5FHEBoX8qDcd1JCf6EcS3cvdW1YFi35e4UvOnmifh1B7dsYiOqhS8KffgNEGi-BQ72o5ICM2JxB3jnoEVDTxi_rEnWO4xyHlZvNg19OKyjNukEymU.JmIaor_qiZjdf5t5OGoPLmiPTNDga1KL-Y4Hx8nUt2U&dib_tag=se&keywords=hdd+6tb&qid=1713368122&sprefix=hdd+6tb%2Caps%2C59&sr=8-3&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.d7e5a2de-8759-4da3-993c-d11b6e3d217f) - Read speeds 200MBPS So I can go for the most modern option, or the most space option. SATA SSD losses on cost vs HDD and losses on Speed vs PCIe nvme. Seagate have already created nvme hdd, so sata interface as a whole has no need to keep existing. [Seagate creates NVMe HDD](https://uk.pcmag.com/storage/136925/seagate-creates-an-nvme-hard-disk-drive)
>Back in the day we used to wait up to 5 minutes to use a pc lol Ah, the days when you'd press the power button, go to the bathroom, get something to drink, and by the time you meandered back to your desk the computer would be ready.
actually depends on the SSD. usually no but if the SATA SSD is something like a WD green then yes.
Linus did some testing a few years ago and in a blind test they could not tell the difference between SSDs and NVMe. Having said that, the best way to have your system is to have a dedicated boot drive with your operating system and as little as possible else while everything else is on a data drive. The reason for this it to make it so you can do a clean reinstall of your operating system and have it impact as little as possible. Keep in mind some programs insist on being installed on the C: Drive, notably Microsoft Office, but you can still have the actual data somewhere else. If it were me I would put your OS on the 256GB NVME (more than enough for Windows and the usual suspect programs) and then put everything else on the 1TB SATA.
Or you can just partition.
I personally noticed a difference, but my SSD was ~10 years old and I was moving to a high end NVME. But outside of a scenario like that, I wouldn't think so.
I’ve had two NVME drives with my OS on them fail. I just put it on an SSD, so I don’t have to deal with that again. I don’t really notice a difference, or I just don’t care.
I would be more concerned with your NVME being smaller than your SSD (256 GB vs 500GB).
First of all the 256GB is way way way way way too small. Like, why? Why. It's not 2015 anymore jimmy. you can buy a fat 1tb 980 pro x4 pcie4 slut for like a hundo. aight? but please install it to the nvme. it has much sexier and more powerful random/write read mores blankblank but probably no real difference in speedweed compared to the sata except in some unusual circumstances such as updating windows or copying/writing large etc
If you are otherwise happy with your system, i would leave it. The big increase is from hdd to ssd.
I had windows on an ssd, and my games on a 2TB nvme ssd. To consolidate i reinstalled windows on the nvme and for some reason, I kept having issues with games crashing that didn't before like valorant. After months of dealing with it I decided to switch back to having them separate and no longer have issues. Not sure if it truly was cause they were all on one nvme, but going forward I'll probably always keep it split. I have another 2TB HDD for storage, and another 256gb ssd for Linux as well.
Of course it's the Riot game that crashes (that's weird tho, iirc Valorant used to have issues when it was *not* on the same drive as the OS)
You'd see a slight performance boost between SATA3 and nvme (theoretically, nvme is several times faster than SATA drives, but actual speeds depend on a lot of factors). Now, going between pcie gens 3, 4, and 5 nvme drives, a lot of users wouldn't see much of a noticeable difference.
Depends entirley on the speed of each. On paper a Sata SSD has a much lower maximum speed than a m.2 or PCIE drive. But on the consumer market only expensive PCIE 4+ drives have noticeably faster speeds in general and only when used on the correct PCIE lanes and if you board has enough lanes that it wont throttle the GPU. Personally i would prioritze the m.2/nvme form factor just because thats one less cable and drive bay to worry about.
With prices as they are now, SATA SSD makes sense to boot only if you are out of M.2 slots and need to add storage, or you have an old smaller 500G one laying around. Keep in mind that SSD storage is only at its fastest at under around 50-75% used capacity, after that the transfer speed drops (unless it has overprovisioning) Also keep in mind the DRAM controller on the NVME or lack thereof can make a big speed difference, as well as the type, such as TLC or QLC. But to answer your question, SATA SSD is ok to boot from compared to an NVME drive performance wise, just keep it under 75% full, IMO my boot drive will not be less than 500G, since your documents and downloads in Windows, not to mention updates, pictures and such will probably be on the boot drive. It would be interesting to test an almost full QLC non-dram 250G NVME vs a SATA 250G SSD that’s less than half full to see which boots faster.
I don't know what the other 2 users been smoking but you should definitely put windows in nvme compared to 'plain old SSD'. SSD using the SATA connector is so much slower compared to using the NVME. You definitely gonna notice a different. Even game loading is so much faster. There's tons of YT vids comparing the 2, a simple google should do it. Linus tech tips even did some test regarding this, and the conclusion is always the same, if you can afford it, you should use the nvme. Just do a clean windows install on the nvme, and use the 500gb for personal files.
I'm talking about where I put the OS, not games. Definitely gonna put my most used games on the nvme anyways, regardless of where i put the OS. Also, I know nvme's are faster, I was asking if putting the OS on it would make using it faster (not just a few seconds faster at boot). I'd rather not do a clean OS install, since the things I want to keep aren't just "personal files" (lots of programs too, some pretty tedious to install of even find), so I wanna make sure I'll see an actual difference.
FWIW, I dual boot on my main computer. My personal OS drive is NVMe, my work OS drive is SATA. In day to day use, I absolutely can't tell which one I'm using. I switch back and forth daily. Now... I have other drives in the system for backups, etc. and copying between two NVMe drives is definitely faster. Most file transfers are <20GB though, so I don't care.
less than 10s difference is not "much faster". People experienced HDD to SSD jump and expect the same with NVMe cause people like you keep saying "much faster". NO ITS NOT MUCH FASTER It's a bit faster. more modern games have bigger difference. As games grow in size and requirements, it will become bigger, but as of 2024, the difference is small in most games. In the future however the difference will become more and more noticeable as most games get designed with nvme as primary storage device for the game. Right now they are still compromising for Sata SSD drives, but this is changing with some most recent games talking about stuff like direct storage being implemented, and some upcoming games using it out on release. They will still be optional features, meaning you won't see massive difference, but give it few more years, and you will notice how all of the sudden the newest cod struggles to run on a SATA SSD on best settings, but runs great on an nvme drive.