Z170 Extreme6+ and M.2 Samsung 950 Pro 512gb

Urcinza wrote: Greetings, I'm using a Samsung 950 Pro 512GB M.2 Drive as main boot in my Z170 Extreme6+. It's working quite well, with the exeption that the full capacity of 4k reads/writes isn't nearly met with the values provided by Samsung. I monitor the webpage of the motherboard for a while, and the SSD isn't listed under the offical supported devices since quiet a while (it was once, i think, but isn't anymore). I dont have any direct problems with the combination, just two simple questions: 1. Are you planning to officially suppport the drive in the future? 2. Can i expect a increase of the performance by that (or is it limited by dmi 3.0 anyway and the called performance by Samsung will only be met on a X99 with direct PCIe links to the cpu, f.ex.)? Please don't explain to me that SSD performance of M.2 is not noticable in usual everyday experience for most users anyway. I'm aware of that. I'm just asking asrock, if they planing to change something about the official support of the device.

What are you using to test the the 4K read and write performance of your 950 Pro?

If you're using the Samsung Magician software benchmark test, that is known to not show the specified performance of a 950 Pro. That is true for the 4K Read and Write IOPs results. Is that what you are referring to? Samsung acknowledged this, and will be updating their benchmark test in a future release of the Magician software.

You can read about that in the OCN SSD thread below. It's a long thread, so I suggest starting at the end and working your way back in order to find what I mentioned above:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1579581/official-samsung-950-pro-owners-club

Or are you using something else to test your 950 Pro's performance? Samsung's performance specifications for the 950 Pro are not the results of the benchmark program in the Magician software.

This is the AS SSD benchmark results for my 256GB 950 Pro on my Z170 Extreme7+ board, in the Ultra M.2 slot. This SSD had been used as the OS drive in this PC for about six months:





This is the IOPs results for another 256GB 950 Pro in an ASRock DeskMini 110W PC. This benchmark is the results of the 950 Pro as an OS drive for a week or two:



Regarding "official support" of the 950 Pro, as being listed in the Storage Support List, it makes no difference regarding performance or compatibility whether or not a drive is listed or not.

NVMe, like SATA or USB, is a device protocol. If a board's UEFI/BIOS supports NVMe, as yours does, then it will be compatible with any NVMe SSD.

Actually, the UEFI's NVMe support only adds support for the SSD as an OS drive. Otherwise, NVMe SSDs can be used with any mother board and UEFI/BIOS that does not provide NVMe support, but only as a storage/data drive. There is nothing that can be added to a board's UEFI/BIOS to enhance compatibility with any particular SSD, whether NVMe or SATA.

The performance specifications for any SSD/HDD are taken from tests done under the best circumstances. That is, a new, unused drive that is not being used as the OS drive. Any drives performance, including SSDs, is reduced over time as it is used, particularly as an OS drive.

Also, the performance of the CPU in a PC affects benchmark results. If CPU power saving options are enabled (for Intel systems, SpeedStep and C States), they cause increased latency that affects benchmark results, even though IO causes very little CPU usage. Other power saving options like PCH and DMI ASPM cause latency that affect benchmark results. Over clocking the CPU in a PC causes a slight increase in benchmark performance. Some users claim DRAM memory speed affects benchmark results.

There are many variables that together cause differences in benchmark results.

I've tested a 950 Pro in my Z170 board using an M.2 to PCIe slot adapter card, which uses the CPU's PCIe 3.0 lanes rather than the chipset's DMI 3.0 interface. The difference in performance was minimal, nothing that will ever be noticed in actual use.

The 950 Pro's performance can be affected by the NVMe driver being used. That would be either the inbox Windows NVMe driver, or Samsung's NVMe driver.

What driver are you using, and which version of Windows?