Please help me choose a B650 board

[Yoshiii335]

To be honest that does not matter. If you don't want any lane issues go with X670. If you want multi GPU both the Taichi and the Strix will do that but not the Gigabyte board. It comes down to what you want as there are many choices. You just need to be aware of the way the lanes are allocated for your storage.

So the boards you suggested, besides the Strix are the better B650 boards for storage?

 

[Tek-Check]

So the boards you suggested, besides the Strix are the better B650 boards for storage?

There are mostly minimal differences on storage. There is plenty of storage on almost all boards. No board has less than two M.2 slots and 4 SATAs, unless some odd ITX with 3 SATA ports. You need to figure out how you want to use storage and then choose a board that fits.

I gave you B650 diagram. You can get minimum twi M.2 slots and maximum four at their full speed. For the rest, decide on priorities.

We can wax on about the Specs but I would never get a Gigabyte board before an Asus.

That's another matter, more linked to preferences. There's nothing wrong with boards from any vendor, if well designed and reliable.

 

[Kapone33]

That's another matter, more linked to preferences. There's nothing wrong with boards from any vendor, if well designed and reliable.

I did not make that statement in empty space. I have been building PCs for quite some time and it is my experience that Gigabyte boards will push through more voltage than reported. They also have insane issues that are very frustrating like updating the BIOS and the board no longer responding. This is a also a brand new platform with no long term information on what boards are better than others but based on my own history would pay the premium for Asus or MSI.

 

[Yoshiii335]

There are mostly minimal differences on storage. There is plenty of storage on almost all boards. No board has less than two M.2 slots and 4 SATAs, unless some odd ITX with 3 SATA ports. You need to figure out how you want to use storage and then choose a board that fits.

I gave you B650 diagram. You can get minimum twi M.2 slots and maximum four at their full speed. For the rest, decide on priorities.


That's another matter, more linked to preferences. There's nothing wrong with boards from any vendor, if well designed and reliable.

I did not make that statement in empty space. I have been building PCs for quite some time and it is my experience that Gigabyte boards will push through more voltage than reported. They also have insane issues that are very frustrating like updating the BIOS and the board no longer responding. This is a also a brand new platform with no long term information on what boards are better than others but based on my own history would pay the premium for Asus or MSI.

I bought the Strix ROG Gaming E B650e board.

 

[Kapone33]

I bought the Strix ROG Gaming E B650e board.

The Strix is a great lineup that will have you appreciate your PC. Direct Storage is becoming real and RAID 0 on hardware is academic with NAND flash. I will give you a recommendation for that last slot. If you don't want to share lanes with your GPU get a WD AN1500 1 TB. You could also get 2 2TB 3.0 drives that are inexpensive (or whatever you want). You would then remove the 2 512GB NVME drives in the AN1500 insert those 2TB drives and install it in the 3rd x16 slot. The fact that that lane is x4 electrically but 4.0 means that the Marvell chip on the AN1500 will be able to fully stretch it's legs even though it is wired as x8. The fact that the controller is on the card means that it will work in any x16 slot with WIndows recognizing the controller and the drives as one. Right now it is $299 for the 1TB. It might not seem competitive but the controller is worth the premium in my opinion.

1TB WD_BLACK™ AN1500 NVMe™ SSD Add-in-Card | Western Digital

The WD BLACK AN1500 NVMe SSD Add-in-Card allows you to experience lightning fast gameplay with minimum effort and includes customizable RGB lighting and heatsink. Shop now.

www.westerndigital.com

 

[Tek-Check]

The fact that that lane is x4 electrically but 4.0 means that the Marvell chip on the AN1500 will be able to fully stretch it's legs even though it is wired as x8

I am afraid that Marvell chip will have one leg cut out. The spec sheet for this device reads PCIe 3.0 x8. So, if inserted in the third slot, it will run as PCIe 3.0 x4 device, half of te speed of that third Gen4 slot on Strix.

 

[Kapone33]

I am afraid that Marvell chip will have one leg cut out. The spec sheet for this device reads PCIe 3.0 x8. So, if inserted in the third slot, it will run as PCIe 3.0 x4 device, half of te speed of that third Gen4 slot on Strix.

Do you have a WD AN1500? Well I do, notice that I mentioned Direct Storage, that is where Reads matter. This is from my MSI X570S Ace Max board that is running at x4 in the 3rd slot. Notice the Read speeds. I will also admit that using the original drives would have provided even more performance. The drives in here are 2 Adata SX8200 2 TB that were bought within a year of each other. The WD card is the E drive. The G drive is 2 SP 1st Gen 2TB cards in the expansion card that comes with my motherboard. If I put the WD card in the slot that the expansion card is in the writes would improve but not the reads

 

[Tek-Check]

Do you have a WD AN1500? Well I do, notice that I mentioned Direct Storage, that is where Reads matter. This is from my MSI X570S Ace Max board that is running at x4 in the 3rd slot. Notice the Read speeds. I will also admit that using the original drives would have provided even more performance. The drives in here are 2 Adata SX8200 2 TB that were bought within a year of each other. The WD card is the E drive. The G drive is 2 SP 1st Gen 2TB cards in the expansion card that comes with my motherboard. If I put the WD card in the slot that the expansion card is in the writes would improve but not the reads

I am afraid I do not understand. The spec for the third slot in your motherboard reads it is wired PCIe 4.0 x8, so up to 128 Gbps or 15.75 GB/s.
WD AN1500 add-in card has PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, so up to 64 Gbps of traffic or 7.88 GB/s, half of what your third slot is capable of due to Gen3 vs Gen4.
If you run any device in your third slot at Gen4 x4 speed, you get up to 7.88 GB/s, if at Gen3 x4, you get up to 3.94 GB/s.

As WD add-in card interface is Gen3 x8, you can only get those speeds in the screenshots if you run it in x8 mode, as Gen3 x4 mode would limit you to 3.94 GB/s.
It does not matter if it's read or write. It's about available speed over physical link.

 

[AsRock]

Perhaps since you're planning to use the 7900X/7950X with a lot of storage, going with an X670 board would be more beneficial for you for the extra PCI-E Lanes.

All so more sata ports too.

 

[Kapone33]

I am afraid I do not understand. The spec for the third slot in your motherboard reads it is wired PCIe 4.0 x8, so up to 128 Gbps or 15.75 GB/s.
WD AN1500 add-in card has PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, so up to 64 Gbps of traffic or 7.88 GB/s, half of what your third slot is capable of due to Gen3 vs Gen4.
If you run any device in your third slot at Gen4 x4 speed, you get up to 7.88 GB/s, if at Gen3 x4, you get up to 3.94 GB/s.

As WD add-in card interface is Gen3 x8, you can only get those speeds in the screenshots if you run it in x8 mode, as Gen3 x4 mode would limit you to 3.94 GB/s.
It does not matter if it's read or write. It's about available speed over physical link.

The WD AN1500 will do what the Asus M2 expander card or the one that comes with my board. It has the RAID array built into the controller. Those other cards would not support more than one drive in that slot as it does not support lane splitting due to the way the board is wired. Even though it is wired as such it still runs through the chipset. The chipset runs at 4.0x4 and is wired as such to the CPU. How then does a 3.0 Drive get 5 GB/s without the controller doing the magic? WD lists even higher speeds as well. I don't understand why you are mentioning 3.0 when the OP's board supports 4.0 on that slot? I am not arguing that it would not be slower in a 3.0 x4 slot. One thing I will say it is will work in any slot though but you are right that 3.0 x4 would give you about that speed.

 

[Tek-Check]

The WD AN1500 will do what the Asus M2 expander card or the one that comes with my board. It has the RAID array built into the controller. Those other cards would not support more than one drive in that slot as it does not support lane splitting due to the way the board is wired. Even though it is wired as such it still runs through the chipset. The chipset runs at 4.0x4 and is wired as such to the CPU. How then does a 3.0 Drive get 5 GB/s without the controller doing the magic? WD lists even higher speeds as well. I don't understand why you are mentioning 3.0 when the OP's board supports 4.0 on that slot? I am not arguing that it would not be slower in a 3.0 x4 slot. One thing I will say it is will work in any slot though but you are right that 3.0 x4 would give you about that speed.

No controller can do any magic if you have physical constraints in data lanes supporting different PCIe standards.
WD AN1500 is PCIe 3.0 x8 device with maximum throughput of 64 Gbps or 7.88 GB/s. It feeds this speed into the chipset from the third slot of your board. X570 chipset is wired Gen4 x4 to the CPU, which is 64 Gbps or 7.88 GB/s too. The same bandwidth. Mind you, you can only get those speeds if nothing else from your chipset I/O uses the chipset at that moment. Try copying data from/to USB and other drives on the chipset and run the DiskMark test at the same time. Speed from WD card will dramatically drop.

On X570/X670 chipsets, if you want any higher speeds than 64 Gbps via RAID, storage devices MUST be connected to primary and/or secondary GPU slots, which have more lanes directly attached to CPU, typically x8 and x8 in bifurcated mode. Such RAID connections will avoid the chipset bandwidth bottleneck, which is x4 link.

The OP bought B650 Strix board. This board, as you said in previous days, has a third slot on the chipset that is wired Gen4 x4, so 64 Gbps.
If he connects WD AN1500 which has Gen3 x8 wiring to this slot, the add-in card will run at Gen3 x4 speed at 32 Gbps only, as other four lanes on WD card are not wired in the slot and therefore not supported. Lanes 5-6-7-8 from WD card give you literally 0 Gbps in this slot. No data. Zero traffic.

You are basically trying to recommend the OP to waste $300 on a device that would work the same as usual Gen3 x4 NVMe drive, so twice as slow as his x4 slot is capable of. Why? I haven't heard of more silly idea in a while. If he wants to use that slot to its full speed, he should insert add-in card which is wired Gen4 x4, and not older products based on PCIe Gen3 that take 8 lanes for full performance in RAID.

Even when in RAID mode with two drives, when connected to appropriate slot, minimally wired x8, WD is still slower almost in all tests than single NVMe Gen4 drive such as Samsung 980 Pro, which is also much cheaper. Please do not recommend such products without researching first.

 

[Kapone33]

No controller can do any magic if you have physical constraints in data lanes supporting different PCIe standards.
WD AN1500 is PCIe 3.0 x8 device with maximum throughput of 64 Gbps or 7.88 GB/s. It feeds this speed into the chipset from the third slot of your board. X570 chipset is wired Gen4 x4 to the CPU, which is 64 Gbps or 7.88 GB/s too. The same bandwidth. Mind you, you can only get those speeds if nothing else from your chipset I/O uses the chipset at that moment. Try copying data from/to USB and other drives on the chipset and run the DiskMark test at the same time. Speed from WD card will dramatically drop.

On X570/X670 chipsets, if you want any higher speeds than 64 Gbps via RAID, storage devices MUST be connected to primary and/or secondary GPU slots, which have more lanes directly attached to CPU, typically x8 and x8 in bifurcated mode. Such RAID connections will avoid the chipset bandwidth bottleneck, which is x4 link.
The OP bought B650 Strix board. This board, as you said in previous days, has a third slot on the chipset that is wired Gen4 x4, so 64 Gbps.
If he connects WD AN1500 which has Gen3 x8 wiring to this slot, the add-in card will run at Gen3 x4 speed at 32 Gbps only, as other four lanes on WD card are not wired in the slot and therefore not supported. Lanes 5-6-7-8 from WD card give you literally 0 Gbps in this slot. No data. Zero traffic.


You are basically trying to recommend the OP to waste $300 on a device that would work the same as usual Gen3 x4 NVMe drive, so twice as slow as his x4 slot is capable of. Why? I haven't heard of more silly idea in a while. If he wants to use that slot to its full speed, he should insert add-in card which is wired Gen4 x4, and not older products based on PCIe Gen3 that take 8 lanes for full performance in RAID.

Even when in RAID mode with two drives, when connected to appropriate slot, minimally wired x8, WD is still slower almost in all tests than single NVMe Gen4 drive such as Samsung 980 Pro, which is also much cheaper. Please do not recommend such products without researching first.

You can read whatever you want. Please if you don't know what my system tell me what my system can do. I guess my Crystal Disk mark scores are not real enough for you. I know that the lanes on some X570 boards are separated by 8 instead of the 4 that the 3rd slot provides. If you read the OP's wants he wants a RAID 0 SSD and NVME system. I never said it should be his main storage device. By the way I have another NVME, a huge SSD and a RAID 0 SSD running on the chipset. Do you want me to show you that there is no difference between a Seagate 530 and Corsair MP600XT if you have one on the chipset and one on the CPU? I also would like to know if you think that sequential is the only thing that matters for storage as well.

"The OP bought B650 Strix board. This board, as you said in previous days, has a third slot on the chipset that is wired Gen4 x4, so 64 Gbps.
If he connects WD AN1500 which has Gen3 x8 wiring to this slot, the add-in card will run at Gen3 x4 speed at 32 Gbps only, as other four lanes on WD card are not wired in the slot and therefore not supported. Lanes 5-6-7-8 from WD card give you literally 0 Gbps in this slot. No data. Zero traffic".

The WD has a controller do you know what a controller does? What you are describing is the way an Add in card that has no controller "The WD AN1500 will do what the Asus M2 expander card or the one that comes with my board" will not do. Windows sees the controller not the storage. That means that anything the controller sees on the card will show up in Windows. Yes it is restricted to x4 but since the chipset communicates to the CPU at 4.0 that provides the bandwidth of 3.0 x 8. I guess you won't see the drop in performance you are describing after all. Now tell me which of those scores are for the 530 and which are the Corsair drive? If you notice all of my drives are plenty fast and the chipset is also plenty fast. I see B650 being as fast as X570 anyway so. The most important thing though is would you notice a difference using any of these drives in daily use? The WD does suffer in sequential writes but 3 GB/s is plenty fast.

 

[Tek-Check]

You can read whatever you want. Please if you don't know what my system tell me what my system can do. I guess my Crystal Disk mark scores are not real enough for you. I know that the lanes on some X570 boards are separated by 8 instead of the 4 that the 3rd slot provides. If you read the OP's wants he wants a RAID 0 SSD and NVME system. I never said it should be his main storage device. By the way I have another NVME, a huge SSD and a RAID 0 SSD running on the chipset. Do you want me to show you that there is no difference between a Seagate 530 and Corsair MP600XT if you have one on the chipset and one on the CPU? I also would like to know if you think that sequential is the only thing that matters for storage as well.

"The OP bought B650 Strix board. This board, as you said in previous days, has a third slot on the chipset that is wired Gen4 x4, so 64 Gbps.
If he connects WD AN1500 which has Gen3 x8 wiring to this slot, the add-in card will run at Gen3 x4 speed at 32 Gbps only, as other four lanes on WD card are not wired in the slot and therefore not supported. Lanes 5-6-7-8 from WD card give you literally 0 Gbps in this slot. No data. Zero traffic".

The WD has a controller do you know what a controller does? What you are describing is the way an Add in card that has no controller "The WD AN1500 will do what the Asus M2 expander card or the one that comes with my board" will not do. Windows sees the controller not the storage. That means that anything the controller sees on the card will show up in Windows. Yes it is restricted to x4 but since the chipset communicates to the CPU at 4.0 that provides the bandwidth of 3.0 x 8. I guess you won't see the drop in performance you are describing after all. Now tell me which of those scores are for the 530 and which are the Corsair drive? If you notice all of my drives are plenty fast and the chipset is also plenty fast. I see B650 being as fast as X570 anyway so. The most important thing though is would you notice a difference using any of these drives in daily use? The WD does suffer in sequential writes but 3 GB/s is plenty fast.

Dude, what is it that you do not understand? It's pretty clear what's going on here if you know how PCIe lanes and generations work.

The same WD card runs twice as fast in your system in x8 slot then it would run on B650 Strix board in Gen4 x4 slot.

Why would you want anyone to run Gen3 x8 device in Gen4 x4 slot and lose 50% of speed? It's a crazy idea!

In your system, WD card runs at Gen3 x8 mode at 64 Gbps, which is why you get those speeds in DiskMark, up to 7.88 GB/s max. And that's great; for you.

The OP would get only half of that speed, so 32 Gbps in Gen4 x4 slot because the add-in card is Gen3. Four out of eight lanes on WD card are not supported in his x4 slot on Strix board, and the other four that are wired run at Gen3 speed in Gen4 slot. Why would you want anyone to do this?

He either needs newer add-in card with Gen4 x4 interface which is bifurcated for two drives, or to set-up RAID between stand-alone NVMe drives. Your WD is good for you, no doubt, but it would be 50% slower for him.

This is how PCIe lanes work. Your controller can be made of gold, but it cannot break physics laws in electrical wiring of PCIe lanes.

 

[Kapone33]

Dude, what is it that you do not understand? It's pretty clear what's going on here if you know how PCIe lanes and generations work.

The same WD card runs twice as fast in your system in x8 slot then it would run on B650 Strix board in Gen4 x4 slot.

Why would you want anyone to run Gen3 x8 device in Gen4 x4 slot and lose 50% of speed? It's a crazy idea!

In your system, WD card runs at Gen3 x8 mode at 64 Gbps, which is why you get those speeds in DiskMark, up to 7.88 GB/s max. And that's great; for you.

The OP would get only half of that speed, so 32 Gbps in Gen4 x4 slot because the add-in card is Gen3. Four out of eight lanes on WD card are not supported in his x4 slot on Strix board, and the other four that are wired run at Gen3 speed in Gen4 slot. Why would you want anyone to do this?

He either needs newer add-in card with Gen4 x4 interface which is bifurcated for two drives, or to set-up RAID between stand-alone NVMe drives. Your WD is good for you, no doubt, but it would be 50% slower for him.

This is how PCIe lanes work. Your controller can be made of gold, but it cannot break physics laws in electrical wiring of PCIe lane

What matters for the controller are not the lanes but bandwidth. All I was suggesting was something to add to the 3rd lane, what else would you use an add in card with 1 M2 slot? The OP already does not want to split lanes. You are arguing with me on how my storage performs and not appreciating why the WD card is not cheap. If you notice PCi 3.0 x8 and 4.0 x4 have the same bandwidth. A regular M2 adapter would not split those lanes just as you are describing. None of what you are saying matters anyway as Windows 11 has a limit of about 2.7GB/s moving files around.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=PCIe+4.0x4+bandwidth

 

[Tek-Check]

What matters for the controller are not the lanes but bandwidth. All I was suggesting was something to add to the 3rd lane, what else would you use an add in card with 1 M2 slot? The OP already does not want to split lanes. You are arguing with me on how my storage performs and not appreciating why the WD card is not cheap. If you notice PCi 3.0 x8 and 4.0 x4 have the same bandwidth. A regular M2 adapter would not split those lanes just as you are describing. None of what you are saying matters anyway as Windows 11 has a limit of about 2.7GB/s moving files around.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=PCIe+4.0x4+bandwidth

Read again what I wrote and focus finally, so you don't post nonsense anymore.

Bandwidth for data transfer comes directly from the PCIe standard running on those electrical lanes. Get informed, I beg you. No lanes, no bandwidth, no data. OK?

Price and fitting with pcie slots may be good for you, but not for others. Also, usage and compatibility with own slots. I am repeating myself. The card clearly works for you as you have that x8 slot, but curiously you have never asked how fast it would work for him who has four lanes less electrically wired.

We know now that by following your advice the card would have 50% less bandwidth and perform 50% slower in Gen4 x4 slot because the card doesn't support Gen4 standard and can use only half of data lanes. 64 Gbps/2 =32 Gbps

Another adapter must have PCIe switch chip installed on it, and that's not cheap at all, in addition to WD card itself, which is already an adapter for M.2 format to PCIe slot format. Why would anyone buy another adapter for adapter? Even more silly idea...

Learn something. Gen3 x8 PCIe RAID device hosts two NVMe drives. Each drive gets four lanes allocated, out of eight lanes in total, so that it can operate at its full speed, so each drive gets Gen3 x4. Once you create RAID pool, this speed will double as Windows sees it as one pool running at Gen3 x8 speed, aka bandwidth 64Gbps, aka data up to 7.88GB/s, which is what your screenshot showed.

It works well for you, but most boards don't have third slot wired for x8 connections. Most boards have third slot wired at x4.

Windows can show a hardware limit if data must pass through the chipset bottleneck. If on CPU only, RAID will be faster, up to Gen4 x4 speed, in other words Gen3 x8, but only if a slot is electrically wired x8.

 

[Kapone33]

Read again what I wrote and focus finally, so you don't post nonsense anymore.

Bandwidth for data transfer comes directly from the PCIe standard running on those electrical lanes. Get informed, I beg you. No lanes, no bandwidth, no data. OK?

Price and fitting with pcie slots may be good for you, but not for others. Also, usage and compatibility with own slots. I am repeating myself. The card clearly works for you as you have that x8 slot, but curiously you have never asked how fast it would work for him who has four lanes less electrically wired.

We know now that by following your advice the card would have 50% less bandwidth and perform 50% slower in Gen4 x4 slot because the card doesn't support Gen4 standard and can use only half of data lanes. 64 Gbps/2 =32 Gbps

Another adapter must have PCIe switch chip installed on it, and that's not cheap at all, in addition to WD card itself, which is already an adapter for M.2 format to PCIe slot format. Why would anyone buy another adapter for adapter? Even more silly idea...

Learn something. Gen3 x8 PCIe RAID device hosts two NVMe drives. Each drive gets four lanes allocated, out of eight lanes in total, so that it can operate at its full speed, so each drive gets Gen3 x4. Once you create RAID pool, this speed will double as Windows sees it as one pool running at Gen3 x8 speed, aka bandwidth 64Gbps, aka data up to 7.88GB/s, which is what your screenshot showed.

It works well for you, but most boards don't have third slot wired for x8 connections. Most boards have third slot wired at x4.

Windows can show a hardware limit if data must pass through the chipset bottleneck. If on CPU only, RAID will be faster, up to Gen4 x4 speed, in other words Gen3 x8, but only if a slot is electrically wired x8.

Where does the bandwidth come from in terms of standard from the chipset to the CPU and back no is that not 4.0? First you said it wouldn't work. Now you are only defending sequential speeds. I could easily put it in my X570E PC and you know what? The speeds won't be different in feel. At QD32 there is no real difference but funnily enough the WD card at 3.0 is faster than 2 4.0 drives running at 4x4 in the 2nd PCIe lane. In support of your argument the sequential writes on the WD card are the slowest but that does not mean it is a bad product. It provides flexibility in a slot that does not do much else as with his 3090 the OP does not need a capture card.

"Another adapter must have PCIe switch chip installed on it, and that's not cheap at all, in addition to WD card itself, which is already an adapter for M.2 format to PCIe slot format. Why would anyone buy another adapter for adapter? Even more silly idea..."

https://www.amazon.ca/GLOTRENDS-Adapter-Aluminum-Heatsink-PA09_HS/dp/B07FN3YZ8P/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=NVME+adapter&qid=1669040548&qu=eyJxc2MiOiI1LjMwIiwicXNhIjoiNC43MCIsInFzcCI6IjQuNDAifQ%3D%3D&sr=8-6

If that is expensive it is an indication that you are not as aware as you think you are

Even these are available if you have a HEDT

JEYI Quad NVMe PCIe 4.0 Expansion Card, Supports 4 NVMe M.2 SSD 2280 up to 8TB, Raid Bandwidth 256Gbps, Required Bifurcation : Amazon.ca: Electronics

JEYI Quad NVMe PCIe 4.0 Expansion Card, Supports 4 NVMe M.2 SSD 2280 up to 8TB, Raid Bandwidth 256Gbps, Required Bifurcation : Amazon.ca: Electronics

www.amazon.ca

This is what you are thinking about with the WDAN1500

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B071S3ZY8P?smid=A1KNIZL1JRPIAI&psc=1

What is the difference between all of those and the WD AN1500? As I have been trying to say the controller.

 

[Tek-Check]

First you said it wouldn't work

I did not say such a thing.

Now you are only defending sequential speeds.

I am not defending anything. I tried to explain how lanes and devices work together.

I could easily put it in my X570E PC and you know what? The speeds won't be different in feel.

There is no issue with this AIC working in your system. It is suitable for your system.

In support of your argument the sequential writes on the WD card are the slowest but that does not mean it is a bad product.

I have never said it's a bad product on its own.

It provides flexibility in a slot that does not do much else as with his 3090 the OP does not need a capture card.

It doesn't provide any "flexibility" for the OP's system.

You remain deaf to basic operational rules of PCIe slot, wired lanes and PCIe standards. I will try one last time.
Your system:
- bottom PCIe slot x16 is wired electrically x8; it is PCIe Gen4 x8 slot, but it works at Gen3 x8 bandwidth due to interface speficifation of WD card
- WD card's interface is Gen3 x8 => each Gen3 lane at 8 Gbps x8 lanes = 64 Gbps of bandwidth
- the card takes two M.2 Gen3 NVMe drives and provides four lanes to each drive to operate at its maximum speed 32 Gbps
- when RAID0 is operational, two drives form one common pool running at => 32+32=64 Gbps/8 (bits into bytes) = 8 GB/s of data transfer
- some benchmarks show over 7 GB/s write speed, which means that your card can utilize Gen3 x8 bandwidth link in RAID mode
- your PCIe slot is capable of 128 Gbps bandwidth, double the bandwidth of WD card's interface, but to use this capability, you would need add-in card Gen4 x8

The OP system:
- his last PCIe slot is electrically wired on four lanes and can operate at Gen4 x4 => each Gen4 lane at 16 Gbps x4 lanes = 64 Gbps of bandwidth
- although your WD card and OP's slot both can operate at 64 Gbps, WD card does it over eight Gen3 lanes and OP's slot does it over four Gen4 lanes
- this fact alone brings the problem that I have been trying to explain to you several times in the above posts
- this means that when WD card is connected to PCIe slot x4, only four lanes will transmit data, and at Gen3 bandwidth, as per the card interface specification
- other four lanes on WD card will be inactive and useless in the OP's PCIe slot
- as such, WD card will operate in RAID0 mode over four lanes at 32 Gbps, 50% of the bandwidth comparing to your system
- data rate will be 32 Gbps/8 (bits into bytes) = 4 GB/s, again 50% of what the same card can read or write in your system
- in practice, this means that OP's slot capable of 64 Gbps would run at 32 Gbps with WD card and two M.2 drives with 50% of performance
- he would be better off using that PCIe slot with one simple Gen4 x4 PCIe-M.2 adapter and one M.2 Gen4 drive to run it at full speed of 64 Gbps

What I say matters, as it gives operational bandwidth and data transfer basis of different storage solutions used on different systems.
Therefore, WD product is not useful for the OP's system, as he does not have the same bottom x8 slot as your system has.

You can easily test my calculations here at home. Your x8 slot shares bandwidth with several devices (look at the manual). It's enough if you populate specific M.2 slot and your PCIe x8 slot would run at x4 speed, so half. Try and test WD card in x4 mode and you will see what you get in DiskMark bench.

 

[Hofnaerrchen]

This discussion is getting quite ridiculous, especially because the OP already bought a motherboard. I doubt that anything will convince the believer in changing his view (faith) on the topic, not even hard, electrically wired facts.

 

[Kapone33]

I did not say such a thing.

I am not defending anything. I tried to explain how lanes and devices work together.

There is no issue with this AIC working in your system. It is suitable for your system.

I have never said it's a bad product on its own.

It doesn't provide any "flexibility" for the OP's system.

You remain deaf to basic operational rules of PCIe slot, wired lanes and PCIe standards. I will try one last time.
Your system:
- bottom PCIe slot x16 is wired electrically x8; it is PCIe Gen4 x8 slot, but it works at Gen3 x8 bandwidth due to interface speficifation of WD card
- WD card's interface is Gen3 x8 => each Gen3 lane at 8 Gbps x8 lanes = 64 Gbps of bandwidth
- the card takes two M.2 Gen3 NVMe drives and provides four lanes to each drive to operate at its maximum speed 32 Gbps
- when RAID0 is operational, two drives form one common pool running at => 32+32=64 Gbps/8 (bits into bytes) = 8 GB/s of data transfer
- some benchmarks show over 7 GB/s write speed, which means that your card can utilize Gen3 x8 bandwidth link in RAID mode
- your PCIe slot is capable of 128 Gbps bandwidth, double the bandwidth of WD card's interface, but to use this capability, you would need add-in card Gen4 x8

The OP system:
- his last PCIe slot is electrically wired on four lanes and can operate at Gen4 x4 => each Gen4 lane at 16 Gbps x4 lanes = 64 Gbps of bandwidth
- although your WD card and OP's slot both can operate at 64 Gbps, WD card does it over eight Gen3 lanes and OP's slot does it over four Gen4 lanes
- this fact alone brings the problem that I have been trying to explain to you several times in the above posts
- this means that when WD card is connected to PCIe slot x4, only four lanes will transmit data, and at Gen3 bandwidth, as per the card interface specification
- other four lanes on WD card will be inactive and useless in the OP's PCIe slot
- as such, WD card will operate in RAID0 mode over four lanes at 32 Gbps, 50% of the bandwidth comparing to your system
- data rate will be 32 Gbps/8 (bits into bytes) = 4 GB/s, again 50% of what the same card can read or write in your system
- in practice, this means that OP's slot capable of 64 Gbps would run at 32 Gbps with WD card and two M.2 drives with 50% of performance
- he would be better off using that PCIe slot with one simple Gen4 x4 PCIe-M.2 adapter and one M.2 Gen4 drive to run it at full speed of 64 Gbps

What I say matters, as it gives operational bandwidth and data transfer basis of different storage solutions used on different systems.
Therefore, WD product is not useful for the OP's system, as he does not have the same bottom x8 slot as your system has.

You can easily test my calculations here at home. Your x8 slot shares bandwidth with several devices (look at the manual). It's enough if you populate specific M.2 slot and your PCIe x8 slot would run at x4 speed, so half. Try and test WD card in x4 mode and you will see what you get in DiskMark bench.

View attachment 271157

I am not disputing the electrical facts all I am saying is the card will work just fine in that slot and recognize all of the storage. To say it is not useful means that you don't have a WD AN 1500 to appreciate how flexible it is. The fact that there is no other consumer drive that allows you to run 2 NVME drives on a x4 wired slot is one reason alone.

As I said before can you suggest something else that the OP could put in that slot that allows them to upgrade their storage as they see fit and still have those 2 PCIe 5.0 slots open for whatever you want to do? Indeed the OP could use that card until PCIe 5.0 drives are more plentiful and affordable and have the room to expand to a RAID 0 5.0 card (and still have the card). Since that is a dream right now it does give some credence to that card as a solution for storage but you are caught up on understanding how controllers can mitigate lane allocation.

WD is not going to tell you that you can put any drive in the WD AN1500 because they want $1300 for the 4TB version but you could put 2 Kingston NV2 2TB in the 1 TB card for about $400 and spend $700 to get 4TB. if you want more performance you could get 2 SX8200 2TB for $600 or a $900 aggregate cost for 2TB. You will probably lose some performance vs using the storage that comes with the AN 1500 as they are optimized to work with the controller and have DRAM as well.

Unless you have a HEDT lanes matter. If there is a product that allows me to have RAID 0 on any X570 board that has the 2nd x16 slot (Even the budget boards) it seems pretty good to me. Please read this review to understand my position.

Hi TPU, I know you guys are busy but if I sent you a WD AN1500 could you guys do a review?

WD Black AN1500 NVMe AIC SSD Review: For RGB Addicts Who Need Speed

WD’s Black AN1500 fuses two Gen3 SSDs into one sleek RGB add-in-card for Gen4-like performance.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[Tek-Check]

To say it is not useful means that you don't have a WD AN 1500 to appreciate how flexible it is.

Again, it is not useful at 50% of its speed for the OP's current system in x4 slot. It's like buying Ferrari and driving on rural roads.

The fact that there is no other consumer drive that allows you to run 2 NVME drives on a x4 wired slot is one reason alone.

It's a bad idea to run Gen3 x8 device in Gen4 x4 slot. That is not flexibility, that's waste of time and money to run a fast device in 50% slower slot.

As I said before can you suggest something else that the OP could put in that slot that allows them to upgrade their storage as they see fit and still have those 2 PCIe 5.0 slots open for whatever you want to do?

third x4 slot - PCIe-M.2 adapter for Gen4 x4 NVMe drive
third x4 slot - PCIe-SATA SSD RAID card

Please read this review to understand my position.

This card works best in x8 slot, not in x4. I have been trying to epxlain this from the very beginning.
There is nothing more to say.

 

[Hofnaerrchen]

May

This card works best in x8 slot, not in x4. I have been trying to epxlain this from the very beginning.
There is nothing more to say.

Maybe it's your scientific approach that is not working here. You could use a more real world approach with a better (highly accurate and realistic) picture to exemplify the truth. Something like the attached drawing. The PCIe gen3x8 fish might be as fat as the PCIe gen4x4 fish, but as soon BOTH of the fish want to go through the bottleneck you get a problem, they simply won't fit together.

@kapone32 Aparat from that and I said this when refering to your wrong PCIex16 assumption: PCIe is a system of least common denominator. If you would put a gen 5x8 card in a gen 4x16 socket it will run at gen 4x8 speed, not 4x16 and when you put a gen 3x8 card in a gen 4x4 socket it will run at gen 3x4.