We're working on a new Slickdeals. Click here to check it out.
You last visited: Today at 10:37 PM
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|02-26-2013 08:48 PM|
|02-26-2013 08:32 PM|
Damn. So much hatred here... Calm down everyone. We are all on the same side here as consumers.
My opinion is that TLC is not good enough for my usage. This is based on my experiences with all sorts of drives. The biggest problem is that file systems are not made to be redundant and not made to withstand higher than "Exceptionally low" error rates. When you have a error on a normal file system it may try to read the data again, or it may just crash the system and lose everything you were doing. This depends on your OS mostly, as well as drivers, firmware, and what exactly you were doing at the time.
On a file system made to withstand errors like a RAID-5 or even a RAID-6 array the problem is even worse. Ironically, the RAID array has no choice but to attempt to rebuild the array when there is any failure. So give up on doing anything for the hours it will take to rebuild the array when there is an error because you bought a drive with worse reliability than floppy diskettes. And it will fail to rebuild the array when it encounters another error while doing the rebuild. So you are risking the entire array if you have one or more of these PoS drives in the array.
If this were a tenth the price I still would not touch it.
(Before anyone comes to correct me, yes, I know and acknowledge some good quality RAID controller cards will handle all of this differently. Some can withstand minor errors and even function without the additional volumes it was made with. But if you can afford a $300 RAID card, why the hell would you use a cheaper than *Expletive* SSD in your array?)
|02-25-2013 07:33 PM|
|Gw0Mike||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.|
|02-25-2013 01:21 PM|
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.
|02-25-2013 01:01 PM|
|kumastha||Amazon now has it for 276.|
|02-25-2013 12:51 PM|
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.
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.
|02-25-2013 12:14 PM|
|Manadyne||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.|
|02-25-2013 10:49 AM|
|02-25-2013 10:00 AM|
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.
|02-25-2013 09:42 AM|
|02-25-2013 12:10 AM|
|02-24-2013 11:24 PM|
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 ) 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)
Here is a complete chart from a recent review of the 120GB model by HardOCP: Link (*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 ..)
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
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 )
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?
|02-24-2013 09:30 PM|
"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.
|02-24-2013 09:29 PM|
|x2ruff4u||Great drive for price, but the PRO specs are way better. This feels like your average ssd drive.|
|02-24-2013 09:04 PM|
|superstition||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.|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|