ASUS Hyper M.2 x16 V2 card

Have you considered using the built-in nvme slots on the motherboard?
Most come with 2-3 of them.

 

That's odd. The slots on my Z170 series board support both sata and nvme.
Now I'm curious. Mind posting a link of your particular motherboard model from the ASUS site?

 

Well, nvme utilizes pcie mode. Suppose you can forget about the external card then.

 

Sure, whatever floats your boat. I don't upgrade very often either.
One more thing. The pcie x4 interface is via the nvme slot, if you aren't familiar.

 

if youre getting constant 500mbps not sure why do you need to upgrade to nvme.
pcie nvme cards are bad usually just below gpu thats why i dont use it in my pc.
i have got 2x2tb nv2 nvme no dram transfer rates arent great they usually start from 2gbps then drop even 300mbps
1tb c drive kc3000 this one is better than the one you want to buy 990 pro and it cheaper too and stays cooler
as i tried nvmes i wouldnt mind having now sata ssd.

if you want nvme to perform well you need to buy decent motherboard

 

Wrong.

NVME drives are just PCIe devices with a different connector, a cheap passive NVME adapter is all you need to get past the SATA speed (or close the sata speed in case of (rare) PCIe 1X adapters.

NO MATTER THE AGE of the MB.

I used NVME drives even in a Phenom II era MB, which (obviously) came w/o any M2 slot and was still BIOS based.

In short no need to waste money in a moderm MB just to connect a stupid M2 drive

 

i have 2x2tb nv2 kingston and 1tb kc3000. kc3000 is a c drive its temp 26c never goes over 30C doesnt matter how huge files i copy, nv2 drives i use for storage their temp is around 32C idle under load 40 and without heatsink up to 55C they're also dramless. when i copy large files from nv2 their speed sometimes drops to even 100MBs but kc3000 never has a problem. also cheap nvmes last shorter time and if you keep them under stress and high temp their remaining life will drop from 100 to 80 or less withing a year.

i have tested tones of nvmes and compared to ssds cheap dramless nvmes are worse than a decent ssd as ssd will keep constantly writing at 500MBs while nvme will drop below it if you copy 100gb file.

when i first bought nvmes i have actually also bought nv2 for c drive but as i saw its performance and temp it went straight into trash and i actually wanted to go back to ssd but bought Samsung then kc3000.

 

Sorry but what this has to do with a poor connectivity?

The discussion about SSD intrinsic speed can be 100 pages long w/o exhausting the argument, given the constant release of new models, controllers and so on

And given there are SSD models that are silently changed (usually for worse components) w/o any way to distinguish them.

Still, no matter the SSD brand and model, hardly you get speed below 1Gb/s at least for the first portion that's usually fast even on the cheapest garbage

 

Sorry but what this has to do with a poor connectivity?
you said even cheapest nvmes are better than any ssd and i just tried explain to you that youre wrong as i have tested it myself. as to 1gbs on cheapest nvmes you will get that for the fist 3 secs. anyways its free world get what suits you, some people are still buying hdds because of theyre cheap use less electricity than nvmes and stay cool.

 

Who said poor? Here is matter of faster or slower connectivity given M2 drives can be SATA, PCIe 1X, 2X, 4X, then there is the PCIe revision 3/4/5 and so on...

You seem pretty confused here about what I said and about what a SSD is.

First: SATA SSD, M2 SATA SSD and M2 NVME are all SSD, so is better if you use the correct terminology to avoid to add confusion to a matter which isn't deadly simple by itself.

Second I didn't say that chepest NVMEs are faster than SATA, I said that NVMEs usually are able to transfer data at 1GB or more unless they are connected to a PCIe 1X slot.

Unless you are talking of really scam devices, even the RAMless NVME use the host ram as cache, which usually means many hundreds of MBs or even few GBs of full speed transfer. Then if that takes just 3 seconds good for you.

Aside the RAM, cache even the cheapest QLC drives have usually a pseudo SLC section where a 10/20% share of the QLC cells are used differently than than the big remaining 80/90%, which means that such 10/20% store 1/2 or 1/4 of the data they normally store in QLC mode, but at the same time the data transfer on such share id WAY faster than the rest of the disk.

In practice you get a file transfer that start at (say) at 400MB/s, then it may drop even to 50MB/s, but that 400MB/s is sustained for a lot of time.

And which means that if used as OS drive a QLC with a Pseudo TLC (or real TLC) section is as fast as a pure TLC drive, given using the OS implies relatively small writes that fits well in the first 100/200 MB section.

In short if you have a NVME that has slow tranfer since the beginning, the problem hardly is the drive itself, but rather there is a problem with the PCI adapter, the drivers or whatever.

People uses HDDs (for data storage) because the are proven tech which in cold storage the retain the data undefinitely, while no one has a clear idea about how much time is needed in cold storage to lose the data in SSD (no matter if SATA, NVME, U2 or whatever).

The price per GB difference is still there but is not as big as it was just few years ago.

The electricity consumption is (again) a long discussion. A typical HDD consumes from 6 to 10W while there are many SSDs that are below 4W, only recent NVMEs with PCIe 5 connectivity and superfast cells (the one good for kids doing pissing contexts) are electricity hogs.

As usual the rules is never buy the cheapest one, but never buy the top of the line either. A rule that rarely is wrong no matter the HW we are talking about