Is this M.2 slot PCIe 3.0 compatible? Because in the BIOS, I can set the associated PCIe slot to 3.0. I only noticed this recently after upgrading my CPU to the 6950X. I'm planning on getting a Samsung 950 PRO SSD and if it isn't PCIe 3.0 compatible then I'll just get the Asus M.2 to PCIe adapter card.

And to top it off, game load times and windows boot times see zero performance increase even using the best m.2 NVME drives in a PCIE 3.0 X4 slot.

http://techreport.com/rev...o-512gb-ssd-reviewed/4 

http://www.pcgamer.com/samsung-ssd-950-pro-review/

GTXJackBauer
Its 2.0 on the Classy boards.  You will need an adapter to get PCI 3.0.

What adapter are you talking about? Because I was just thinking of getting the Asus Hyper M.2 x4 Mini Card and installing it on to the associated PCIe slot and running it at 3.0.

arestavo

V84x4
I can vouch for M.2 in gaming being mush faster MAP load times
 
My buddy's and I play Titanfall every day after work
and we all have fantastic gaming machines (Mine X99 Micro 2)
Every time a new match starts and loads
I am always First in a new match, if I were to say by how much
I am a head of them sometimes  by 20 to 30 sec and already killing people (It makes them mad.......lol)
 
By M.2 if you can you wont be disappointed

Regards, RIck

A multiplayer game? You both have the same Internet service provider and live in the same area, have the same internet plan, have the same cable modem and router, etc.? Because game latency and download/upload speed actually has more to do with multiplayer load times than NVME and SSD load speeds. Games are single queue depth loads, and the difference in SSD and NVME q=1 speeds is negligible. One has to only glance at the (very few) benchmarks out there to realise that.
 
I even tested a notoriously long load time game, Dragon Age Inquisition, on an SSD, NVME, and 3200MHz RAM drive - there wasn't a tangible difference between the three.
 
I've also tested with the MMORPG Guild Wars 2. I was waiting on the server, not the SSD or RAM drive. Load times were the same.
 
Although it may be that Titanfall takes advantage of deeper queue depth loading, and I can test it later today.
 
That doesn't mean that games won't eventually all (or mostly) be written to better take advantage of the massive queue depths that NVME provides, but for now a gamer/regular computer user will see no tangible benefits other than faster read and write speeds for file transfers/video encoding.

Guess I should have mentioned all of that.................Sorry
 
Yes 2 of us have the exact same provider with the exact same up and download speeds and same router
as a mater of fact by buddy is a Programmer and computer wiz so I molded my system after his
Of course he's using MSI products and Im using EVGA but other than that...........Oh he lives 10 miles away from me (As the crow flies)

Multi Player game (Were on a team) are a bit different than single player
were on a team in the LOBY of the game so when the game starts and takes us into the match
were all loading at the same time but they both load at a different speeds then me.........I swear that they always yell at me about it.......LOL
they even ask me who's in game .................thats how much faster in game I am before them  !!!!!

So I have to disagree with you ...........about Titanfall anyway................The only game we play............
My M.2 is reading at 1800MBS and his SSD is reading at 500MBS That's triple the speed
the 50 gigs of maps that reside on my HHD for this game (Titanfall)
and the game pulls from your HHD to load MAPS and many other things like Key board layout or controller, etc
 
your definition of tangible difference may be why you question my post
Again were only talking about seconds not minutes but it's still a difference
 
I guess you would say It's the same tangible difference between X99 and Z170 in game
there is a difference but only 2% and to me that an advantage over my peers
 
Also, since the M.2 Pro has come down in price
why wouldn't you purchase a NVME over a SSD ?
 
Best Regards, Rick

On my Micro2 X99 motherboard I see consistently faster results via the M.2 NVMe than from the SSDs and/or mechanical hard drives I have used.

Idk man.  I remember my game loads as well and noticed a faster loading time.  You keep going against us by running tests on your PC which can differ with testing from ours.  You're running 4K! ffs.  Most of us are on 1080p or what not.  You're running a 28 lane CPU with a TON of things on it while others run a 40 Lane CPU with not much load.  I know this might sound silly but some of this stuff might add up and that's the reason why you're not seeing good numbers on your tests.  Seeing your spinners in RAID compete with a M.2 of that level is a freaking joke.  You don't think the companies that make the M.2s would make sure they are faster than your standard SSD and spinners?  It would be a PR nightmare if it was a scam.
 
Anyways, I've felt the difference and many others around me that have got a M.2 have said the same except one guy running tests that keeps telling everyone don't buy one.   

You've been telling everyone and their mothers on these forums who will have a DIFFERENT setup than yours not to purchase a M.2.  Since most peoples rigs run at 1080p, it will differentiate from the few that run 4K.  YOU JUST SAID IT!  You've been telling us NO, NO, NO this whole time that M.2 isn't worth it and running your amateur tests with a few links of the same sites.  

As for loading up, sometimes when you load too many things on a PC, while it should run, you might see a slight performance decrease.  So before trying to call me out, get your end straight. 
 
Anyways, this has gone far too long.

Ask and you shall receive:
 
Titanfall at 1080P.
 
All match loads were into the Attrition map, in game settings manually set to max and 1920X1080. Computer specs in the ModRigs link on the left.

All times in seconds. My timer was started when I clicked on the attrition map and was stopped when I was loaded into the match, with two exceptions where I had to wait several minutes in a lobby to get a match - for those I started the timer when the match counter read 0.
 
Three tests were run for each disk type.

8 Hard Disk RAID 6 Array (WD Black 5TB 128MB Cache 7200RPM drives)
12.24 (no lobby)
11.56 (no lobby)
11.97 (no lobby)
 
512GB 950 Pro NVME in PCIE 3.0 X4 slot (with passive heatsink) (boot drive, 75GB free)
9.25 (lobby load, timer started at 0)
11.88 (no lobby)
12.31 (no lobby)

512GB 850 Evo (empty except for Titanfall)
7.28 (lobby load, timer started at 0)
12.11 (no lobby)
12.52 (no lobby)
 
 
If this actual, factual, evidence can't make you see the light - well, I'm not going to try any longer because you're someone who 1) won't test it for yourself on your own computer with a stopwatch and 2) doesn't care about the facts.

As it stands, you still haven't shown anything tangible can can be impartially compared.
 
If you had given actual game load times between SSD and NVME we could have compared them to my numbers and gone from there.
 
My last statement stands: "If this actual, factual, evidence can't make you see the light - well, I'm not going to try any longer because you're someone who 1) won't test it for yourself on your own computer with a stopwatch and 2) doesn't care about the facts." - that includes giving offset times, which can't be compared to known numbers since no one knows your actual numbers. And for best comparison, loading into the same map (Attrition) would help as that would be an apples to apples comparison.

arestavo
As it stands, you still haven't shown anything tangible can can be impartially compared.
 
If you had given actual game load times between SSD and NVME we could have compared them to my numbers and gone from there.
 
My last statement stands: "If this actual, factual, evidence can't make you see the light - well, I'm not going to try any longer because you're someone who 1) won't test it for yourself on your own computer with a stopwatch and 2) doesn't care about the facts." - that includes giving offset times, which can't be compared to known numbers since no one knows your actual numbers. And for best comparison, loading into the same map (Attrition) would help as that would be an apples to apples comparison.

 
Did you not read my post ?
 
I just said I put my old SSD in and ran titanfall 3 times and loaded 18 sec slower into attrition than my M.2 ....3 Times on a stop watch
 
Sad you are so strong in your own conviction that you can't even read the proof
 
oh well
have a nice day with you slower computer
 
Im done !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
regards, rick

Cool GTX
Just double check that the Asus card is compatible with non-Asus MB, it should be but it never hurts to check

Should be, the only system requirements is an available PCI-E 3.0 x4, x8, or x16 slot. That was all I can find regarding compatibility.

V84x4

arestavo
As it stands, you still haven't shown anything tangible can can be impartially compared.
 
If you had given actual game load times between SSD and NVME we could have compared them to my numbers and gone from there.
 
My last statement stands: "If this actual, factual, evidence can't make you see the light - well, I'm not going to try any longer because you're someone who 1) won't test it for yourself on your own computer with a stopwatch and 2) doesn't care about the facts." - that includes giving offset times, which can't be compared to known numbers since no one knows your actual numbers. And for best comparison, loading into the same map (Attrition) would help as that would be an apples to apples comparison.

 
Did you not read my post ?
 
I just said I put my old SSD in and ran titanfall 3 times and loaded 18 sec slower into attrition than my M.2 ....3 Times on a stop watch
 
Sad you are so strong in your own conviction that you can't even read the proof
 
oh well
have a nice day with you slower computer
 
Im done !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
regards, rick

How is your computer faster? You've provided no actual numbers, so all we have is your saying so.

Double post.  Delete me pls