Sorry, this deal has expired. Get notified of deals like this in the future. Add Deal Alert for this Item
Popular Deal

512GB ADATA XPG SX6000 M.2 PCIe NVMe Solid State Drive SSD w/ DIY Heatsink w/ 2x HDMI Cable $90.97 w/ MasterPass Checkout + Free Shipping via Newegg

$90.97
+17 Deal Score
7,017 Views
ADATA via Newegg

For those interested

Note, must apply the listed promo code to receive discount and use MasterPass Checkout as your method of payment. Offer valid only for August 10, 2018.
Share
Good deal?
You gave rep to Discombobulated for this post.
Thank you!
Discombobulated posted this deal. Say thanks!
Give Rep Points
If you purchase something through a post on our site, Slickdeals may get a small share of the sale.
Deal
Score
+17
7,017 Views
$90.97
About the OP
Give Rep Send Message
Pro Deal Editor
SoCal Joined Dec 2005 Slickdeals Editor #iloveslickdeals
137,932 Reputation Points
9,528 Deals Posted
6,488 Votes Submitted
23,478 Comments Posted

9 Comments

1

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2005
Captain Underpants
314 Posts
300 Reputation
Pro
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not rep bengalih?
#2
This drive looks half as fast as the XPG SX8200

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Comp...8vsm410831

Considering there were a couple times the SX8200 could be had for < $100 in the last few weeks, I'm not sure I would jump at this deal.

Also, there is this drive:

https://slickdeals.net/f/11913819-intel-660p-series-m-2-2280-512gb-pci-express-3-0-x4-3d-nand-internal-solid-state-drive-ssd-ssdpeknw512g8xt-90?v=1&src=SiteSearch

Not alot of specs out yet on the 660p - but using the 760p as comparison, Intel drive is 80% rated higher:

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Comp...6vsm410831

Here are more specs on the 660p:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3...debut.html
Reply Helpful Comment? 9 0
Last edited by bengalih August 10, 2018 at 08:30 AM.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Nov 2017
L4: Apprentice
446 Posts
315 Reputation
Pro
#3
Fyi, my 128gb sx6000 died after 3 months. Adata replaced it, but it did take 2 weeks. If you are going to buy this, then dont store anything important on it.
Reply Helpful Comment? 1 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2007
Temporally unavailable
32,466 Posts
4,110 Reputation
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not rep fyu?
#4
Quote from armharm
:
Fyi, my 128gb sx6000 died after 3 months. Adata replaced it, but it did take 2 weeks. If you are going to buy this, then dont store anything important on it.
that applies to any drive then.


always have backups.
Reply Helpful Comment? 5 0
Last edited by fyu August 10, 2018 at 01:16 PM.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2018
New User
2 Posts
10 Reputation
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not rep redbrick?
#5
Quote :
Quote from bengalih
:
This drive looks half as fast as the XPG SX8200

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Comp...8vsm410831 [userbenchmark.com]

Considering there were a couple times the SX8200 could be had for < $100 in the last few weeks, I'm not sure I would jump at this deal.

Also, there is this drive:

https://slickdeals.net/f/11913819-intel-660p-series-m-2-2280-512gb-pci-express-3-0-x4-3d-nand-intern...

Not alot of specs out yet on the 660p - but using the 760p as comparison, Intel drive is 80% rated higher:

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Comp...6vsm410831 [userbenchmark.com]

Here are more specs on the 660p:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3...debut.html [pcworld.com]
bengalihThis drive looks half as fast as the XPG SX8200

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Comp...8vsm410831 [userbenchmark.com]

Considering there were a couple times the SX8200 could be had for < $100 in the last few weeks, I'm not sure I would jump at this deal.

Also, there is this drive:

https://slickdeals.net/f/11913819-intel-660p-series-m-2-2280-512gb-pci-express-3-0-x4-3d-nand-intern...

Not alot of specs out yet on the 660p - but using the 760p as comparison, Intel drive is 80% rated higher:

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Comp...6vsm410831 [userbenchmark.com]

Here are more specs on the 660p:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3...debut.html [pcworld.com]
Good point on the XPG SX8200--that would likely be a better option when in the same price ballpark.

The Intel 660p is a different beast though--it's using a cheaper (more cost effective, less robust) type of flash (QLC). Intel--who admittedly tends to rate conservatively--is suggesting that it's only ~1/3 as durable as the 760p; one can see this in the TBW specification, which is the number of Terabytes written before one should consider the drive worn out. Performance-seekers may well upgrade before they wear it out and how much you write is very sutuational (YMMV)

Presumably all the manufacturers will be moving to this new tech to stay competitive, but if the prices and performance are close--durability is a welcome property ;-)


XPG SX8200 (480GB[1]): 3.2GB/s read, 1.7GB/s write, 320TBW
Intel 760p (512GB[2]): 3.2GB/s read, 1.6GB/s write, 288TBW
XPG SX6000 (512GB[3]): 1G/B/s read, 0.8GB/s write, 300TBW
Intel 660p (512GB[4]): 1.5GB/s read, 1GB/s write, 100TBW

[1] http://www.adata.com/downloadfile...201804.pdf
[2] https://www.intel.com/content/www...m-3d2.html
[3] http://www.adata.com/downloadfile...170921.pdf
[4] https://ark.intel.com/products/14...x4-3D2-QLC
Reply Helpful Comment? 3 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Sep 2011
L3: Novice
164 Posts
404 Reputation
#6
XPG series have some heat issue. I thought only my 128gb version has problem, but reviews say they all have same heat problem from 128gb to 512gb.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2017
New User
13 Posts
18 Reputation
#7
Quote from armharm
:
Fyi, my 128gb sx6000 died after 3 months. Adata replaced it, but it did take 2 weeks. If you are going to buy this, then dont store anything important on it.
My 128gb SX600 lasted 6 months. Not bothering with the RMA because I'm certain the next one will die too. If I can't use it as a boot drive it fails as a NVMe completely.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2017
New User
13 Posts
18 Reputation
#8
Quote from Phishlistener
:
My 128gb SX600 lasted 6 months. Not bothering with the RMA because I'm certain the next one will die too. If I can't use it as a boot drive it fails as a NVMe completely.
I keep CrystalMark running all the time and mine never went above 45 degrees. Well within spec. Mine lasted six months. It's not heat that's killing these drives.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2005
Captain Underpants
314 Posts
300 Reputation
Pro
#9
Quote from redbrick
:
Good point on the XPG SX8200--that would likely be a better option when in the same price ballpark.

The Intel 660p is a different beast though--it's using a cheaper (more cost effective, less robust) type of flash (QLC). Intel--who admittedly tends to rate conservatively--is suggesting that it's only ~1/3 as durable as the 760p; one can see this in the TBW specification, which is the number of Terabytes written before one should consider the drive worn out. Performance-seekers may well upgrade before they wear it out and how much you write is very sutuational (YMMV)
I haven't read anything about QLC drives being less robust than TLC drives from a durability standpoint. QLC just increases the capacity as 4 (Quad) can be stored instead of 3 (Tri) on a cell. From a physics standpoint this makes the QLC able to store more but be more unstable and thus not be able to transfer data as quickly. Either you get higher capacity or you get speed (from the reliability at the physical layer).
I'm interested from where you got information regarding actual drive durability based on the actual cell density.

QLC is no worse than TLC than TLC is compared to MLC or MLC compared to SLC. You'll always lose speed as you increase density with this technology. The exception here is there are some benefits to be had from the different cell arrays that are out now like 3D Vertical, etc. Those smooth out some of the issues.

QLC drives are fine - and I expect we are going to see a lot more of them. What you need to make sure is they have enough TLC/MLC cache for your needs. The Intel was reviewed with some issues as it's cache wasn't necessarily large enough for some of the testing (though probably fine for most users) and it slowed down remarkable once it was out.

Personally, I'm still of the camp of using a small fast as possible drive for OS/program files so boots and launches are speedy. I don't consider NVM a good writable media for long term.

At prices like these (< $100 for 500 GB) I think they are all fair choices for this. Of course, you can probably pay < $50 for a 128 GB for OS and programs and be just as good.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2016
L2: Beginner
31 Posts
10 Reputation
#10
Quote from bengalih
:
I haven't read anything about QLC drives being less robust than TLC drives from a durability standpoint. QLC just increases the capacity as 4 (Quad) can be stored instead of 3 (Tri) on a cell. From a physics standpoint this makes the QLC able to store more but be more unstable and thus not be able to transfer data as quickly. Either you get higher capacity or you get speed (from the reliability at the physical layer).
I'm interested from where you got information regarding actual drive durability based on the actual cell density.

QLC is no worse than TLC than TLC is compared to MLC or MLC compared to SLC. You'll always lose speed as you increase density with this technology. The exception here is there are some benefits to be had from the different cell arrays that are out now like 3D Vertical, etc. Those smooth out some of the issues.

QLC drives are fine - and I expect we are going to see a lot more of them. What you need to make sure is they have enough TLC/MLC cache for your needs. The Intel was reviewed with some issues as it's cache wasn't necessarily large enough for some of the testing (though probably fine for most users) and it slowed down remarkable once it was out.

Personally, I'm still of the camp of using a small fast as possible drive for OS/program files so boots and launches are speedy. I don't consider NVM a good writable media for long term.

At prices like these (< $100 for 500 GB) I think they are all fair choices for this. Of course, you can probably pay < $50 for a 128 GB for OS and programs and be just as good.
QLC requires the cell to precisely distinguish 16 level of charge while TLC has 8. The error margin is shrieked by 1/2. Cell slowly loss charge no matter what. QLC will meet the end earlier than TLC as it degrades.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 1 of 1
1
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2018. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard