500GB Samsung 840 Series 2.5" SATA III TLC Internal Solid State Drive SSD (MZ-7TD500BW) $280 + Free Shipping

Quote from blackb1rd88 : I wouldn't call whoever defends TLC an evangelist. IMHO, I think they believe that TLC is every bit useful to consumers as MLC drives are and I tend to agree.

TLC isn't very useful. As NAND continues to shrink, its longevity goes down. So, let's make everything worse and add in the drawbacks of TLC!

I see TLC NAND as an inferior product because it isn't that much less expensive for a manufacturer to use over MLC and the savings is going to go more to the seller in terms of margin. Consumers associate MLC with SSDs because this is the first TLC product in the market.

I see TLC is filling a void in the market for seller (how to sell a substandard NAND type by riding on the coattails of a successful NAND type) but not so much for the buyer.

Companies pull all sorts of trickery, like the infamous "panel lottery" in LCD TVs.

Quote from HardOCP : The MDX controllers do suffer some read speed degradation in steady state, but for the 120GB 840 this amount of degradation is terrible. This equates to the one strength of the 120GB 840, its read speed, being null and void after regular use.

Not only is this an issue, the power usage may go up as the errors pile up, according to one of their reviews.

I would feel much better about this product if Samsung had called it the 820 TLC, instead of disguising it with practically the same name as a good MLC drive. This is too much like the LCD panel lottery and the naming trickery of Nvidia and ATI/AMD. I'm tired of companies trying to pull a fast one on people, as OCZ did when it switched from 32-bit NAND to 64-bit in the Vertex 2, not changing the name or the stated specs on the box.

Great drive for price, but the PRO specs are way better. This feels like your average ssd drive.

From Anandtech:
"If you use your computer for checking email and browsing the Internet, no doubt a TLC based SSD will be sufficient. For the majority of consumers, TLC SSDs should meet their demands."

Getting the 128GB for the girlfriend who pretty much uses her laptop for that. Different products suit different people. Some should stay away, some shouldn't.

Quote from the_neon_cowboy : I wont go that far but I will say people NEED to read: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5067/understanding-tlc-nand http://www.anandtech.com/show/6459/samsung-ssd-840-testing-the-endurance-of-tlc-nand And decide for themselfs

Quote from 5thElement : TLC memory. Stay away.

Quote from superstition : I love how the TLC evangelists gloss over the higher power usage issue that "alarmist" HardOCP discussed, too. In a desktop system, the power usage isn't an issue. In a laptop, it is. I've also just now seen that HardOCP is playing the Anandtech game now, and trying to gloss over the flaws of TLC in their latest review (the 120 GB model). Samsung must have leaned on them. The selection of MLC drives they compared was flawed, the opening page is far too glowing, and the power usage problem was really glossed over.

Let's set this straight. I did NOT state that HardOCP is alarmist. I am stating that YOU are being alarmist, in the way you are interpreting and reporting the data and the associated remarks. We've seen plenty of reviews that state that TLC is of lower quality than MLC. That is fine, we aren't disputing that. However, when it comes to projected endurance, especially in terms of years, I would find some actual stress testing, where results can be better extrapolated, more reliable than estimates of 3.5 - 4 years of life based on some "expert" theoretical evaluation. I am stating that you should not base your whole argument on a single review, or a single source of information.

I'll even list a post from a HardOCP member that not only states that they wish that HardOCP would do the type of testing that's being done by TweakTown, and likely xtremesystems, as well, but that. (Link [hardocp.com]) those numbers show an estimated lifespan of 10-12 years; that is 3 times that "educated guess" offered in the review.

Are you seriously going to make statements that suggest everyone is conspiring to hide some secret performance issue? First it's with Samsung, and now it's the review sites? I don't think people are glossing over the power consumption. It just isn't that notable. It's pretty average. It is still an improvement over mechanical drives, and in no way severely hinders battery life. As far as I'm concerned, you're just continuing to be alarmist about some supposed higher consumption, which is actually more specific to the 120GB model, than the higher capacity drives, of which this thread is specifically targeting. (more below)

Quote from blackb1rd88 : I wouldn't call whoever defends TLC an evangelist. IMHO, I think they believe that TLC is every bit useful to consumers as MLC drives are and I tend to agree (though I haven't bought one just yet). As for the power consumption, I don't understand what the big fuss is. Yes, it would be nice to have minimal power consumption, but was it an issue when people were buying Samsung 830. Looking at the power consumption data from Anandtech, 840 non-pro has about the same active power consumption as the 830. http://www.anandtech.com/show/633...-review/12 http://www.overclock.net/t/126476...t_17389544

Thanks for making that point, and providing those links. I will also go ahead and provide some other links, that shines additional light on the whole power consumption "issue," that supposedly isn't being addressed.

Here is a complete chart from a recent review of the 120GB model by HardOCP: Link [hardocp.com] (*Notice that they list the 250GB model as 240GB, which, even as a typo, lowers their credibility. Perhaps it's excusable, but they actually mislabel it in ALL the charts from the review [hardocp.com]..)

Let's assume, even though it isn't stated, that the startup power is what they measured to be the average. Even so, we can see that both the idle and statup wattages are actually LOWER than this whole range of drives from 2009: Link [anandtech.com]

Who was complaining about the power consumption of SSDs in 2009? If you're saying that it should be better, then fine. However, to state that it is somehow retroactively an issue, even compared to drives from over 3 years ago, I grow very reluctant to take your opinion seriously.

I'll even provide this additional chart that has the power consumption measurements for some other drives just to make the point that much more lucid. (Link [tomshardware.com])

Please stop spouting nonsense. Others that are against this propagation of misinformation, including myself, are not "evangelists". We are simply stating that the supposed issues that have been continuously stated are not as prodigious as you, and other hear/read and tell/type people, are attempting to market. If you are so concerned about the lifespan of TLC, then don't use any USB thumb drives. Those typically use TLC memory, as well. How many of those have died on you?

Quote from hellagrant : Wow, the price of SDDs are dropping. I want to jump on this but also feel like it might be worth it to hold off another month or so. With 500gb I could put all my programs in there!

i'm in the same boat. i thought of getting 2x 256gb ssds and raiding them instead, but have too many mechanical drives with not enough sata ports. i am hoping that we see somewhat affordable 1TB ssd's by next year.

Quote from albundyhere : i am hoping that we see somewhat affordable 1TB ssd's by next year.

Counting the days!

http://www.vortez.net/news_story/..._2013.html

Quote from totherescue : Let's set this straight.

The bottom line is that it's deceptive product naming to call this an 840 and call the MLC version with good performance 840 Pro. Samsung also uses the "panel lottery" in its LCD panels. Companies pull all sorts of fast ones on consumers, so the purposeful naming confusion isn't surprising.

The other bottom line is that, as NAND continues to shrink, the program/erase lifespan of NAND also shrinks. TLC compounds that by being even more error prone than MLC. If people want to pay for a high-voltage/high-power low lifespan product, that's their prerogative. However, Samsung should have named the product clearly since it's the first TLC SSD in the market and chose not to. The established expectations for a consumer SSD are MLC-based. Consumers look at the price tag and think they're getting a great deal on an MLC drive, hence the 10 or so front page listings in the last two weeks for this 840 Series.

Quote from jephtastic : In the real world would anyone notice a difference between 840 vs 840 pro?

Never. You ll notice it when you put them under testing.

Had a hell of a time installing a 250gb 840 PRO yesterday, the Norton Ghost that came bundled in the Samsung Magician didn't support the drive cloning feature. Fortunately, Hiren's Boot CD 10.4 has a full version of Ghost, which worked like a charm.

Quote from superstition : The bottom line is that it's deceptive product naming to call this an 840 and call the MLC version with good performance 840 Pro. Samsung also uses the "panel lottery" in its LCD panels. Companies pull all sorts of fast ones on consumers, so the purposeful naming confusion isn't surprising. The other bottom line is that, as NAND continues to shrink, the program/erase lifespan of NAND also shrinks. TLC compounds that by being even more error prone than MLC. If people want to pay for a high-voltage/high-power low lifespan product, that's their prerogative. However, Samsung should have named the product clearly since it's the first TLC SSD in the market and chose not to. The established expectations for a consumer SSD are MLC-based. Consumers look at the price tag and think they're getting a great deal on an MLC drive, hence the 10 or so front page listings in the last two weeks for this 840 Series.

I think you're just making too many assumptions about consumers. Firstly, you've been saying that it's a error in labeling, which it is not. It is not a decrease in performance to the 830, so logically, the higher number relates to its updated performance and market release date. If a consumer somehow wishes to verify the NAND, they are not hiding this fact, and resellers/retailers can duly note this in the specs.

Secondly, how can you openly state that there is trickery, and then say that a consumer has some expectation that isn't being met? If this average group is aware of what an SSD is, shouldn't they know just a bit about the types of memory, and what to look for? I would think that they should be fairly informed. However, if not, then how would they even know what MLC is, to anticipate that they "should" be receiving that technology in their drive?

Now, not knowing how Samsung officially determines the model numbers, I see that there is a 'T' in the TLC drive number, and a 'P' in the Pro drive's model number. Are you saying that the average consumer would not notice this? If there are 2 different model names, not to mention listed capacities, I think people are likely to look into what the differences are. If not, then they clearly aren't the best audience for this market, and that is their own fault for not being proactive with their purchases.

MZ-7TD250BW
MZ-7PD256BW

Again, you are bickering over some marginally moderate power usage... That topic is pretty dead... I will not go about restating all the evidence to the contrary that I have already provided.

Amazon now has it for 276.

I bought this a month ago and my wife loves it.

Just to be clear for the complainers! Average users will not see a difference on the proformance of a high end ssd and this one. Yes, the TLC is not as good, but the price is. The price I save now; I can use that to get a better one later. Samsung warranty the ssd for 3 years. That means it will last longer than that. So why are you complaining. People are suppose to do backup of their data anyways.

Lol saw the drive on Best Buy's website yesterday (listed as NEW ITEM) and was going to price match today, but they deleted the item. They now only have the KW kit online.