choosing an SSD - focused on power/heat
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:23 pm
I'm preparing to build my next near-silent PC. My computing requirements are modest so I'm focused more on power & heat than performance. Today I'm researching 240GB SSD's -- that's way more than enough capacity for OS and data storage. My current system's C: partition only takes about 43GB, and I have maybe another 40GB of stuff stored on other internal partitions. I have a 3TB external drive for backups.
Here's what worrying me regarding selecting an SSD... I've seen plenty of complaints that some NVMe SSD's can get quite hot, even though M.2 specification limits bus power to 7 watts. Apparently that's enough to push temps above 80C since the SSD is so small.
I've been looking at SSD's that support PCI-E 3.0 x 4 bus, mostly @ newegg since they show idle and active power specs for most SSD's. I find that most have active power around 4 to 5 watts, and idle power ratings are well under a watt. Idle is clearly important in terms of cumulative consumption, since a storage device spends the bulk of its time at idle. But peak power is important to consider in cooling system design and fan performance (and SSD longevity I imagine).
I was shocked to see these specs for the WD Black SSD: 135mW (Avg.), 50mW (Low Power Mode PS3), 5.5mW (Low Power Mode PS4)
THOSE are unbelievably low power numbers!! At first I figured it was a misprint, but WD's datasheet confirms. Also, the ADATA XPG SX8000 is rated @ 333mW active, 140mW idle. Not quite as low as the WD, but in the same ballpark compared to all the other PCI-E 3.0 x 4 SSD's. In contrast, the Corsair MP500 is rated at 4.9W active, 400mW idle. The MP500 has significantly better performance than the WD, but I just can't see a 36x difference in active power!
I think the problem is a lack of any standards for rating active power consumption. So I want to solicit from others who care about 'penny pinching' their power budgets. Is there any way to objectively compare SSD's in terms of typical power/heat under load?
Also, from what I gather, the M.2 slot is typically located under the video card slot, presumably so it can benefit from the GPU fan. But that's a horrible place to put an SSD for those who use a passively cooled video card. I'm considering the fanless GeForce GT 1030 for my new build. Is there any reason why I can't move it to a lower slot to separate it from the M.2 header? Alternatively, do some mobo's have the M.2 header in a different position? (I haven't selected a mobo yet, but it will need to have Intel 2xx chipset for 7700T CPU I just purchased).
Here's what worrying me regarding selecting an SSD... I've seen plenty of complaints that some NVMe SSD's can get quite hot, even though M.2 specification limits bus power to 7 watts. Apparently that's enough to push temps above 80C since the SSD is so small.
I've been looking at SSD's that support PCI-E 3.0 x 4 bus, mostly @ newegg since they show idle and active power specs for most SSD's. I find that most have active power around 4 to 5 watts, and idle power ratings are well under a watt. Idle is clearly important in terms of cumulative consumption, since a storage device spends the bulk of its time at idle. But peak power is important to consider in cooling system design and fan performance (and SSD longevity I imagine).
I was shocked to see these specs for the WD Black SSD: 135mW (Avg.), 50mW (Low Power Mode PS3), 5.5mW (Low Power Mode PS4)
THOSE are unbelievably low power numbers!! At first I figured it was a misprint, but WD's datasheet confirms. Also, the ADATA XPG SX8000 is rated @ 333mW active, 140mW idle. Not quite as low as the WD, but in the same ballpark compared to all the other PCI-E 3.0 x 4 SSD's. In contrast, the Corsair MP500 is rated at 4.9W active, 400mW idle. The MP500 has significantly better performance than the WD, but I just can't see a 36x difference in active power!
I think the problem is a lack of any standards for rating active power consumption. So I want to solicit from others who care about 'penny pinching' their power budgets. Is there any way to objectively compare SSD's in terms of typical power/heat under load?
Also, from what I gather, the M.2 slot is typically located under the video card slot, presumably so it can benefit from the GPU fan. But that's a horrible place to put an SSD for those who use a passively cooled video card. I'm considering the fanless GeForce GT 1030 for my new build. Is there any reason why I can't move it to a lower slot to separate it from the M.2 header? Alternatively, do some mobo's have the M.2 header in a different position? (I haven't selected a mobo yet, but it will need to have Intel 2xx chipset for 7700T CPU I just purchased).