I need to take it apart and reinstall Windows to make it mine. It has
an M2 256 GB SATA drive and will also take an ordinary internal SSD,
I want to got to 512 GB. It seems to me there's no speed difference
between the M2 (AS SSD benchmark produces around 500 Mb/s) and a
traditional SSD. There's a wider choice of manufacturers for the
normal SSD, pretty well only Integral for the M2.
Any thoughts?
Am 15.10.2022 um 08:47:30 Uhr schrieb Jeff Gaines:
I need to take it apart and reinstall Windows to make it mine. It has
an M2 256 GB SATA drive and will also take an ordinary internal SSD,
I want to got to 512 GB. It seems to me there's no speed difference
between the M2 (AS SSD benchmark produces around 500 Mb/s) and a >>traditional SSD. There's a wider choice of manufacturers for the
normal SSD, pretty well only Integral for the M2.
Any thoughts?
There are M2 SSDs that support NVME, some of them are faster than
normal SATA drives. But be aware, there are "SATA" drives for M2 slots
too.
So it seems there may be a small advantage in going for a SATA 3 normal
SSD with a wider choice of makes.
On 15/10/2022 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
So it seems there may be a small advantage in going for a SATA 3 normal
SSD with a wider choice of makes.
Whilst you might notice the difference with a benchmark programme, or >possibly even with a very accurate stopwatch, the machine will have died
long before you could recoup the time already spent thinking about it. :)
On 15/10/2022 in message <tie61d$2n0kp$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/10/2022 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
So it seems there may be a small advantage in going for a SATA 3 normal
SSD with a wider choice of makes.
Whilst you might notice the difference with a benchmark programme, or
possibly even with a very accurate stopwatch, the machine will have died
long before you could recoup the time already spent thinking about it. :)
I wanted to check what an M2 SSD was and this group can be helpful with
that sort of thing.
Anyway tis done, BIOS switched to AHCI from RAID (it actually takes 2
drives as well as the M2 SSD), Win 10 reinstalled to MBR so it can't
"update" to Win 11 and the drivers being updated from the Dell site as I type!
I wanted to check what an M2 SSD was and this group can be helpful with >>that sort of thing.
m.2 SATA drives are just the same as normal-sata SSDs, in a different
shape. Go for whichever you prefer.
m.2 NVMe drives can be up to 8x faster than either.
Anyway tis done, BIOS switched to AHCI from RAID (it actually takes 2 >>drives as well as the M2 SSD), Win 10 reinstalled to MBR so it can't >>"update" to Win 11 and the drivers being updated from the Dell site as I >>type!
Oh, sneaky! 11 is GPT only then?
The manual says:
two internal 2.5 inch SATA HDD/SSD (SATA3) + one mSATA SSD (SATA2)
Jeff Gaines wrote:
The manual says:
two internal 2.5 inch SATA HDD/SSD (SATA3) + one mSATA SSD (SATA2)
note that mSATA isn't M.2
Andy Burns wrote:
note that mSATA isn't M.2
Indeed, I wouldn't have needed to ask the question if one option was five times
faster than the other :-)
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
note that mSATA isn't M.2
Indeed, I wouldn't have needed to ask the question if one option was five >>times faster than the other :-)
Just curious why you mentioned M.2 in relation to a machine that can't
accept one?
I went for conventional shape SSD as I feel M2 SSDs are close to obsolete.
Er. I think you've got it the wrong way round.
On 15/10/2022 in message <jqvs99F78gsU1@mid.individual.net> Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
I wanted to check what an M2 SSD was and this group can be helpful with
that sort of thing.
m.2 SATA drives are just the same as normal-sata SSDs, in a different
shape. Go for whichever you prefer.
I went for conventional shape SSD as I feel M2 SSDs are close to obsolete.
m.2 NVMe drives can be up to 8x faster than either.
Too old for one of them!
Anyway tis done, BIOS switched to AHCI from RAID (it actually takes 2
drives as well as the M2 SSD), Win 10 reinstalled to MBR so it can't
"update" to Win 11 and the drivers being updated from the Dell site as I >>> type!
Oh, sneaky! 11 is GPT only then?
Secure boot and TPM 2, doesn't like my processor either!
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 18:33:34 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 17/10/2022 in message <jr5f91F4eikU1@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns >>wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
note that mSATA isn't M.2
Indeed, I wouldn't have needed to ask the question if one option was >>>>five times faster than the other :-)
Just curious why you mentioned M.2 in relation to a machine that can't >>>accept one?
Probably just haste. I quoted from the manual:
two internal 2.5 inch SATA HDD/SSD (SATA3) + one mSATA SSD (SATA2)
Made me look it up, but m(mini)SATA is a predecessor of M.2.
If you want an extra drive it is usable, but noting the SATA2 interface it >will be slower than the SATA SSD on the SATA3 interface.
I can see it being useful as a system drive if you are running 2 * SSD as
a RAID pair data drive but as far as I can tell you aren't proposing to.
Suggests that it was a high specification machine in its day.
On 17/10/2022 in message <jr5f91F4eikU1@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns
wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
note that mSATA isn't M.2
Indeed, I wouldn't have needed to ask the question if one option was
five times faster than the other :-)
Just curious why you mentioned M.2 in relation to a machine that can't >>accept one?
Probably just haste. I quoted from the manual:
two internal 2.5 inch SATA HDD/SSD (SATA3) + one mSATA SSD (SATA2)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 88:33:10 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,333,956 |