Original Post
Written by
Edited June 14, 2021
at 01:11 PM
by
SAMSUNG 870 QVO SATA III 2.5" SSD 2TB
only $161 with EDU discount Not as good as the Amazon deal from March, but $161 is still pretty decent.
https://www.samsung.com/us/comput...7q2t0b-am/
**warranty is only 3-year**
screenshot of the $161 price on Samsung EDU website attached below:
45 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
Because of the finer gradations of voltages at higher bit counts, it's slower to write. You have to be more careful placing the proper charge in the cell, and reading it back. Sometimes they even resort to reading it multiple times, and averaging the result to get the "correct" voltage measurement.
Because the charge slowly leaks out over time, the voltage gradually drops, eventually resulting in data loss. The more bits per cell, the smaller a drop before the data is lost. And the shorter the longevity of the data (unless the drive regularly refreshes the charge, which decreases the lifespan of the cell).
These are all consequences of using more voltage levels per cell. Nothing to do with the chips themselves.
Note that this puts these high-capacity QLC and PLC SSDs between a rock and a hard place. They're too slow for enthusiast use (unless you do a ton of SLC buffering). And they have poor reliability for long-term storage. So if you don't want to use them if you need to fast data access, and you don't want to use them if you need to write a little data and leave it there a long time, what exactly are you supposed to use them for? The caching performance is gonna have to be stellar, or they're going to have to prove its long duration endurance for QLC to be accepted.
The cost savings is not that big a deal either.
Say SLC costs $100 per TB of flash cells (NAND)
MLC would be $50, a $50 savings per GB compared to SLC
TLC would be $33, a $17 savings per GB compared to MLC
QLC would be $25, an $8 savings per GB compared to TLC
PLC would be $20, a $5 savings per GB compared to QLC
QLC is pretty close to the point where I would just rather pay the extra $8 (about $15 at retail) for the better speed and reliability of TLC. (The endurance issues with TLC have largely been canceled out by increases in drive size. A 1 TB SSD has 4x the write endurance of a 250 GB SSD, 8x that of a 125 GB SSD. Maybe that might be a niche for QLC in a decade, when a 10 TB SSD costs $100, and endurance is a non-issue.)
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Because of the finer gradations of voltages at higher bit counts, it's slower to write. You have to be more careful placing the proper charge in the cell, and reading it back. Sometimes they even resort to reading it multiple times, and averaging the result to get the "correct" voltage measurement.
Because the charge slowly leaks out over time, the voltage gradually drops, eventually resulting in data loss. The more bits per cell, the smaller a drop before the data is lost. And the shorter the longevity of the data (unless the drive regularly refreshes the charge, which decreases the lifespan of the cell).
These are all consequences of using more voltage levels per cell. Nothing to do with the chips themselves.
Note that this puts these high-capacity QLC and PLC SSDs between a rock and a hard place. They're too slow for enthusiast use (unless you do a ton of SLC buffering). And they have poor reliability for long-term storage. So if you don't want to use them if you need to fast data access, and you don't want to use them if you need to write a little data and leave it there a long time, what exactly are you supposed to use them for? The caching performance is gonna have to be stellar, or they're going to have to prove its long duration endurance for QLC to be accepted.
The cost savings is not that big a deal either.
- Say SLC costs $100 per TB of flash cells (NAND)
- MLC would be $50, a $50 savings per GB compared to SLC
- TLC would be $33, a $17 savings per GB compared to MLC
- QLC would be $25, an $8 savings per GB compared to TLC
- PLC would be $20, a $5 savings per GB compared to QLC
QLC is pretty close to the point where I would just rather pay the extra $8 (about $15 at retail) for the better speed and reliability of TLC. (The endurance issues with TLC have largely been canceled out by increases in drive size. A 1 TB SSD has 4x the write endurance of a 250 GB SSD, 8x that of a 125 GB SSD. Maybe that might be a niche for QLC in a decade, when a 10 TB SSD costs $100, and endurance is a non-issue.)go look up the benchmarks, gameload on ssd is at placebo difference.
https://www.techradar.c
https://en.wikipedia.or
https://nascompares.com/2021/04/0...lc-vs-qlc/
Are you saying to completely disregard all of the info in the post simply because you disagree that the chips aren't the same between MLC/TLC/QLC/PLC? If that's the case, some supporting info would be very helpful.
This is what I found and seems to support the claim that at least in the case of Samsung EVO vs QVO, the NAND is actually the same product:
https://www.xbitlabs.co
From this article, the 970 EVO and QVO both use the same Pheonix controller:
https://www.partitionwi
Would love to be proven wrong 'cause I'll learn.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
https://www.techradar.com/news/na...-explained [techradar.com]
https://en.wikipedia.or
https://nascompares.com/2021/04/0...lc-vs-qlc/ [nascompares.com]
Are you saying to completely disregard all of the info in the post simply because you disagree that the chips aren't the same between MLC/TLC/QLC/PLC? If that's the case, some supporting info would be very helpful.
This is what I found and seems to support the claim that at least in the case of Samsung EVO vs QVO, the NAND is actually the same product:
https://www.xbitlabs.co
From this article, the 970 EVO and QVO both use the same Pheonix controller:
https://www.partitionwizard.com/c...s-evo.html [partitionwizard.com]
Would love to be proven wrong 'cause I'll learn.
I mean ps5 doesn't allow you to play it from but to save it.
Because of the finer gradations of voltages at higher bit counts, it's slower to write. You have to be more careful placing the proper charge in the cell, and reading it back. Sometimes they even resort to reading it multiple times, and averaging the result to get the "correct" voltage measurement.
Because the charge slowly leaks out over time, the voltage gradually drops, eventually resulting in data loss. The more bits per cell, the smaller a drop before the data is lost. And the shorter the longevity of the data (unless the drive regularly refreshes the charge, which decreases the lifespan of the cell).
These are all consequences of using more voltage levels per cell. Nothing to do with the chips themselves.
Note that this puts these high-capacity QLC and PLC SSDs between a rock and a hard place. They're too slow for enthusiast use (unless you do a ton of SLC buffering). And they have poor reliability for long-term storage. So if you don't want to use them if you need to fast data access, and you don't want to use them if you need to write a little data and leave it there a long time, what exactly are you supposed to use them for? The caching performance is gonna have to be stellar, or they're going to have to prove its long duration endurance for QLC to be accepted.
The cost savings is not that big a deal either.
- Say SLC costs $100 per TB of flash cells (NAND)
- MLC would be $50, a $50 savings per GB compared to SLC
- TLC would be $33, a $17 savings per GB compared to MLC
- QLC would be $25, an $8 savings per GB compared to TLC
- PLC would be $20, a $5 savings per GB compared to QLC
QLC is pretty close to the point where I would just rather pay the extra $8 (about $15 at retail) for the better speed and reliability of TLC. (The endurance issues with TLC have largely been canceled out by increases in drive size. A 1 TB SSD has 4x the write endurance of a 250 GB SSD, 8x that of a 125 GB SSD. Maybe that might be a niche for QLC in a decade, when a 10 TB SSD costs $100, and endurance is a non-issue.)Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.