Upgrading SSD - Difference between M.2 drives?

Will

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Posts
8,197
Location
%tmp%
Hi all,

Wanted to quickly sense check a planned SSD upgrade for my PC - I currently have a Dell XPS 8930 with a "256GB PCIe M.2 NVMe Class 40" SSD.

I'd like to upgrade this to a 1 or 2TB M.2 drive - I'm looking at a few on Amazon and have some questions.

1) What's the difference between different M.2 drives at different price points? Is something like this okay, or is there any benefit to going up to something like a Samsung EVO M.2 SSD?
2) What's the best way of cloning my current drive onto a new M.2 drive? OS is installed onto the current SSD, and I have no other machines with M.2 slots. Any reason to do a clean install vs cloning the drive?
 
Hi, Will!

The simplest way to clone is Acronis. I've used it before and it does the job well. Clean install is the way to go if the drive is going bad. Then it should not be cloned.

As for the differences between the NVME drives, there is a difference in thermal performance and throttling. Not every drive is okay. Some come with a cooler, some don't. Thermals are especially important when PCIe 4 comes in as the speeds are extremely high and require beefy cooling not to throttle. I have personally been using a Samsung NVME for a little over 2 years with 0 issues.

Obviously, BIOS settings (PCIE bandwidth) need to be adjusted to achieve maximum performance.
 
The simplest way to clone is Acronis. I've used it before and it does the job well. Clean install is the way to go if the drive is going bad. Then it should not be cloned.

In practical terms, how would I go about this? I have a second SATA HD in the machine that I could save the cloned image too - guessing I can then run Acronis off a USB drive to load the image to the new drive?
 
Just my added 2 cents here. Other than what you get from the placebo effect, if you are also looking/asking about performance gains, I highly doubt you will see any - except, maybe, on benchmark scores. So with that in mind, if your primary goal is just to add disk space, then why not just do that? "Add" disk space? This being a PC rather than notebook, adding another drive is a piece of cake and you won't have to worry about cloning/moving your OS and installed apps over.

Your current 256GB M.2 is already plenty big for your OS and should easily hold most if not all of your applications with plenty of room to spare. Then you can move/save/store just your big personal files (and a backup of the 256GB drive) on the new secondary drive. Even if you don't have another PCIe or M.2 slot and have to go with a SATA you still well have some great performance, and probably would not notice that either, even if you have put some apps/games on the SATA SSD.

Clearly, hard drives are snails. But when you move into the realm of supersonic SSDs, you cannot "see" the difference - except on paper.

Sound crazy? Don't believe me? See this: NVME PCIe SSD vs SATA SSD for Gaming, Tested! And see this: Does a Faster SSD Matter for Gamers?? - $h!t Manufacturers Say.

So if me, I would just add a secondary SSD. And probably a good SATA SSD because they typically are cheaper and easily mountable in a PC.
 
Your current 256GB M.2 is already plenty big for your OS and should easily hold most if not all of your applications with plenty of room to spare.

It's actually almost full. :-)

Most applications are installed on my D: drive, but I use enough software that can only be installed on the C drive which is taking up the majority of space.
 
but I use enough software that can only be installed on the C drive which is taking up the majority of space.
That's actually pretty rare. There typically is the option to install elsewhere simply because many people have small boot drives and big secondary drives. I know Belarc advisor insists on being installed on C drive but frankly, IMO, that is simply lazy programming. And I make sure the developers know it!
 
A lot of developer software does this - not sure why.

Microsoft Visual Studio is the biggest culprit for this. Even with the option to install some components on a second hard drive, a large chunk of files always end up on the C drive.
 
Well, I am obviously not a developer, but I've worked long enough around developers to know operating systems are smart enough to easily manage, control, and keep track of the locations of installed programs and the components of those programs - wherever they are stored. So I'll stick with my accusation that insisting programs be installed on the boot drive is just lazy programming. The loader information can go in the Registry - that's one of it's primary purposes. And while the Registry is also used to replace .ini files, they are still used quite a bit for such things. I note there are over 900 .ini files on my C drive. Or a program could just have a small loader program on C and keep the bulk of its files on another drive or even in "the cloud" like Office 365 does. "Workstations" in organizations do this all the time with the bulk of the program kept on file servers. So I know it can be done.

In looking at the system requirements for Visual Studio, it says a typical installation is 30 - 50GB, but depending on added features, could be as high as 210GB! That's huge, but no where does it say that space must be on Drive C. In any case, if that is the worst offender, and unless you have all the added features, it seems it could still work for you if most of the other apps were put on D.

But it is not my place to tell you what to do here. And maybe you have other plans for that 256GB SSD. I'm just offering what I think is a viable, easier (and safer) solution than cloning and replacing your current SSD. I note my C drive is a 256GB SSD that provides 237GB of useable storage (after formatting). Installed on this disk is 64-bit Windows 10 Pro and Office 2016 Home and Business (which includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint Outlook and OneNote) as the two biggest space hogs. Also on this drive is Malwarebytes Premium, SAS, FF, PM, Chrome, Foxit Reader, MailWasher Pro, CCleaner, Macrium Reflect, TurboTax, and a host of other smaller installed programs. And of course, all my hardware drivers, and the Page File. Plus my Documents folder is on C and it alone takes up 4.74GB of the 13.4GB my C:\Users\Bill folder uses.

As seen here, there is still plenty of space.

Drive space.JPG

And for sure, I could have put Office and most if not all of those installed apps, and my Documents and Downloads folders, and my Page File on my D drive, if I needed the extra space. And it is simple to configure most apps to save data files, by default, on secondary or tertiary drives.

That said, these days, replacing the boot drive is a fairly simple task. In fact, your new drive may even come with a utility for that - if not, the maker probably has one on their website. While I have had clones that failed, the cloning process has never damaged the source drive so rolling back always restored me to the point before I started the migration process. Nothing lost but time. And maybe I am being the lazy one here but for me, simply adding a secondary drive, ensuring my boot drive is untouched, is just a whole lot easier (and safer) than migrating every thing over to a new drive. Plus you don't lose that original 256GB of space - you are adding more space to it. And again, since this is a PC and not notebook, adding drives is pretty easy.
 
You can create a junction in d:
Code:
cd /d "c:\program files"
mklink /j "MS visual studio" "d:\program files\MS visual studio"
(Paths are an example, I don't know the actual paths)
Then install visual studio, and you'll find it in d:
 
A lot of the space taken up by Visual Studio are system components - these have to be installed on the C drive as they're essentially an expansion of the OS. These components are often also much larger than the non-developer versions. It's not bad programming.

I'm aiming to maximise space on the machine - so the current M.2 drive will be replaced, and all slots will be filled with SSDs either way, so it's a bit of a moot point.
 
It's not bad programming.
I didn't say or mean to imply it was "bad" programming. Just "lazy". On a brand new Windows installation, there are over a dozens folders created on the boot drive. If there are multiple drives installed and/or multiple partitions created, Windows will create folders on them too. Windows manages all that just fine. It is a piece of cake to move many user folders such as the Documents and Download folders, the Temp folder and even the Page File to another drive. You can even set up multiple Page Files on multiple drives and Windows knows how to deal with all of them effectively. The Page File(s) along with system RAM make up the computer's virtual memory and Windows again, manages that all just fine when spread across multiple drives. Surely, virtual memory must be considered essential parts/expansions of the OS too.

You can even change the default drive for where Windows saves new content by going to Settings > System > Storage > Change where new content is saved > New apps will save to:, then select the drive you want new programs installed to.

So it is not Windows that insists Visual Studio be installed on C or the boot drive. At least, as you noted above, some components can be installed on other drives. :)
I'm aiming to maximise space on the machine - so the current M.2 drive will be replaced, and all slots will be filled with SSDs either way, so it's a bit of a moot point.
Fair enough. Frankly, I'm just happy you are going all SSD! IMO, if the budget allows, that's the only way to go! :)
 

Has Sysnative Forums helped you? Please consider donating to help us support the site!

Back
Top