expiredTenderPiranha posted Sep 20, 2024 05:36 PM
Item 1 of 2
Item 1 of 2
expiredTenderPiranha posted Sep 20, 2024 05:36 PM
KingSpec XG 7000 4TB M.2 2280 PCIe 4.0x4 NVME - Newegg $200
$200
$300
33% offNewegg
Visit NeweggGood Deal
Bad Deal
Save
Share
ur product offers a comprehensive three-year warranty. For any inquiries, please feel free to contact us.
Leave a Comment
24 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
The real issue that should make everyone question this product is nowhere in any product literature or specs from the manufacturer is the TBW listed. That is a deal killer. DO NOT BUY DRIVES THAT HIDE THEIR TBW. TBW=terabytes written. This means the lifespan of the drive. Typically cheap drives that hide this spec can only fill up a handful of times before they're no longer writable. That is not acceptable at 50 dollars let alone 200 dollars. At this price it would be advisable to get a quality drive from a budget brand like the Silicon Power 4TB US75 for 205US. Also Gen 4, speeds are the same but it has a well documented and advertised 2400TBW. That is robust enough that the drive will likely outlive your use for it. It does not have DRAM cache but it is still YMTC 232-Layer TLC which is important. It also uses a slightly better Maxio MAP1602 controller vs the Kingston's InnoGrit IG5236 which is a bad controller if it hasn't received a firmware patch (and I doubt Kingston has firmware updater tool for the customer to use). Apparently the Kingston can also come with the Maxio controller so you're playing the lottery with 200 dollars.
Benchmarks: https://www.tomshardwar
Link to drive: https://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Po...B0CJ2N9485
The real issue that should make everyone question this product is nowhere in any product literature or specs from the manufacturer is the TBW listed. That is a deal killer. DO NOT BUY DRIVES THAT HIDE THEIR TBW. TBW=terabytes written. This means the lifespan of the drive. Typically cheap drives that hide this spec can only fill up a handful of times before they're no longer writable. That is not acceptable at 50 dollars let alone 200 dollars. At this price it would be advisable to get a quality drive from a budget brand like the Silicon Power 4TB US75 for 205US. Also Gen 4, speeds are the same but it has a well documented and advertised 2400TBW. That is robust enough that the drive will likely outlive your use for it. It does not have DRAM cache but it is still YMTC 232-Layer TLC which is important. It also uses a slightly better Maxio MAP1602 controller vs the Kingston's InnoGrit IG5236 which is a bad controller if it hasn't received a firmware patch (and I doubt Kingston has firmware updater tool for the customer to use). Apparently the Kingston can also come with the Maxio controller so you're playing the lottery with 200 dollars.
Benchmarks: https://www.tomshardwar
Link to drive: https://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Po...B0CJ2N9485
The real issue that should make everyone question this product is nowhere in any product literature or specs from the manufacturer is the TBW listed. That is a deal killer. DO NOT BUY DRIVES THAT HIDE THEIR TBW. TBW=terabytes written. This means the lifespan of the drive. Typically cheap drives that hide this spec can only fill up a handful of times before they're no longer writable. That is not acceptable at 50 dollars let alone 200 dollars. At this price it would be advisable to get a quality drive from a budget brand like the Silicon Power 4TB US75 for 205US. Also Gen 4, speeds are the same but it has a well documented and advertised 2400TBW. That is robust enough that the drive will likely outlive your use for it. It does not have DRAM cache but it is still YMTC 232-Layer TLC which is important. It also uses a slightly better Maxio MAP1602 controller vs the Kingston's InnoGrit IG5236 which is a bad controller if it hasn't received a firmware patch (and I doubt Kingston has firmware updater tool for the customer to use). Apparently the Kingston can also come with the Maxio controller so you're playing the lottery with 200 dollars.
Benchmarks: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-c...ay-gamer/2 [tomshardware.com]
Link to drive: https://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Po...B0CJ2N9485 [amazon.com]
Same for suspecting that a lack of TBW rating kills this product. It's trust and user experience that counts for more than arbitrary self-reporting of TBW. And you are shilling the SP product without actual spec comparison to this product. You also fail to account for SP's other models.
The real issue that should make everyone question this product is nowhere in any product literature or specs from the manufacturer is the TBW listed. That is a deal killer. DO NOT BUY DRIVES THAT HIDE THEIR TBW. TBW=terabytes written. This means the lifespan of the drive. Typically cheap drives that hide this spec can only fill up a handful of times before they're no longer writable. That is not acceptable at 50 dollars let alone 200 dollars. At this price it would be advisable to get a quality drive from a budget brand like the Silicon Power 4TB US75 for 205US. Also Gen 4, speeds are the same but it has a well documented and advertised 2400TBW. That is robust enough that the drive will likely outlive your use for it. It does not have DRAM cache but it is still YMTC 232-Layer TLC which is important. It also uses a slightly better Maxio MAP1602 controller vs the Kingston's InnoGrit IG5236 which is a bad controller if it hasn't received a firmware patch (and I doubt Kingston has firmware updater tool for the customer to use). Apparently the Kingston can also come with the Maxio controller so you're playing the lottery with 200 dollars.
Benchmarks: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-c...ay-gamer/2 [tomshardware.com]
Link to drive: https://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Po...B0CJ2N9485 [amazon.com]
The real issue that should make everyone question this product is nowhere in any product literature or specs from the manufacturer is the TBW listed. That is a deal killer. DO NOT BUY DRIVES THAT HIDE THEIR TBW. TBW=terabytes written. This means the lifespan of the drive. Typically cheap drives that hide this spec can only fill up a handful of times before they're no longer writable. That is not acceptable at 50 dollars let alone 200 dollars. At this price it would be advisable to get a quality drive from a budget brand like the Silicon Power 4TB US75 for 205US. Also Gen 4, speeds are the same but it has a well documented and advertised 2400TBW. That is robust enough that the drive will likely outlive your use for it. It does not have DRAM cache but it is still YMTC 232-Layer TLC which is important. It also uses a slightly better Maxio MAP1602 controller vs the Kingston's InnoGrit IG5236 which is a bad controller if it hasn't received a firmware patch (and I doubt Kingston has firmware updater tool for the customer to use). Apparently the Kingston can also come with the Maxio controller so you're playing the lottery with 200 dollars.
Benchmarks: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-c...ay-gamer/2 [tomshardware.com]
Link to drive: https://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Po...B0CJ2N9485 [amazon.com]
To oversimplify, the original primary purpose of dram is to hold the data map (ftl allocation table) of the ssd. Since the ssd's nand is far slower than dram, keeping and updating the data map in nand flash means the drive is slower to figure out where data is and where data should go, leading to worse performance, particularly for operations for many small files (hence random 4k iops being such an important metric). Storing the ftl allocation tables in nand also leads to additional wear on the nand, leading to a reduction in drive longevity. However, most modern dramless drives have a clever way to mitigate most of these issues: hmb (host memory buffer). Essentially, the ssd is able to use a portion of the ram in your computer as if it were a dram cache. While this obviously isn't nearly as fast as having a dram cache on the ssd itself that the controller can directly and immediately access, it drastically reduces the performance penalty of lacking dram, and eliminates the additional wear that would reduce the drive's lifespan. As a side note, the primary performance benefits of dram will manifest in doing many operations with smaller files rather than in workloads involving the reading or writing of large individual files, peak sequential speeds are hardly affected by whether or not a drive has dram. Prolonged write performance is much more heavily affected by the size of the drive's pseudo slc cache. Also, hmb doesn't tend to work when a drive is installed in an external enclosure, so you should generally make sure an external drive has dram. Having dram will increase a drives most important (for general workloads, such as use as a boot/os drive) random 4k performance, but the use of hmb in modern dramless drives means that the downsides are no longer nearly as severe for those who don't wish to spend the premium for a drive with dram.
Moving on to tbw, the nand flash of a ssd will become less and less reliable the more times it is written to. At it's most basic level, the tbw number represents how many terabytes of data can be written to a drive before reliability is affected to a sufficient degree that the manufacturer believes it is no longer worthwhile for their warranty to apply on the drive. Therefore, for any manufacturer that actually carries through with their warranties, you can reasonably assume that the drive is unlikely to become unreliable due to wear on the nand before ~tbw amount of data has been written to it. Hence, when dealing with reputable brands, you can get an approximate idea as to the drives endurance from the listed tbw.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
To oversimplify, the original primary purpose of dram is to hold the data map (ftl allocation table) of the ssd. Since the ssd's nand is far slower than dram, keeping and updating the data map in nand flash means the drive is slower to figure out where data is and where data should go, leading to worse performance, particularly for operations for many small files (hence random 4k iops being such an important metric). Storing the ftl allocation tables in nand also leads to additional wear on the nand, leading to a reduction in drive longevity. However, most modern dramless drives have a clever way to mitigate most of these issues: hmb (host memory buffer). Essentially, the ssd is able to use a portion of the ram in your computer as if it were a dram cache. While this obviously isn't nearly as fast as having a dram cache on the ssd itself that the controller can directly and immediately access, it drastically reduces the performance penalty of lacking dram, and eliminates the additional wear that would reduce the drive's lifespan. As a side note, the primary performance benefits of dram will manifest in doing many operations with smaller files rather than in workloads involving the reading or writing of large individual files, peak sequential speeds are hardly affected by whether or not a drive has dram. Prolonged write performance is much more heavily affected by the size of the drive's pseudo slc cache. Also, hmb doesn't tend to work when a drive is installed in an external enclosure, so you should generally make sure an external drive has dram. Having dram will increase a drives most important (for general workloads, such as use as a boot/os drive) random 4k performance, but the use of hmb in modern dramless drives means that the downsides are no longer nearly as severe for those who don't wish to spend the premium for a drive with dram.
Moving on to tbw, the nand flash of a ssd will become less and less reliable the more times it is written to. At it's most basic level, the tbw number represents how many terabytes of data can be written to a drive before reliability is affected to a sufficient degree that the manufacturer believes it is no longer worthwhile for their warranty to apply on the drive. Therefore, for any manufacturer that actually carries through with their warranties, you can reasonably assume that the drive is unlikely to become unreliable due to wear on the nand before ~tbw amount of data has been written to it. Hence, when dealing with reputable brands, you can get an approximate idea as to the drives endurance from the listed tbw.
Another factor infrequently emphasized is longevity as to frequent writes, versus reads. For productivity uses where speed is critical (e.g., 4K/8K video NLE), content creators may on average write big files to the SSD about once per quarter year, and the rest of the time, constantly read from them during NLE (mostly unrelated to TBW). This drive is an example of being totally suitable.
Moving on to tbw, the nand flash of a ssd will become less and less reliable the more times it is written to. At it's most basic level, the tbw number represents how many terabytes of data can be written to a drive before reliability is affected to a sufficient degree that the manufacturer believes it is no longer worthwhile for their warranty to apply on the drive. Therefore, for any manufacturer that actually carries through with their warranties, you can reasonably assume that the drive is unlikely to become unreliable due to wear on the nand before ~tbw amount of data has been written to it. Hence, when dealing with reputable brands, you can get an approximate idea as to the drives endurance from the listed tbw.
Again no, the real write lifetime is based on the nand technology itself, and the chips are often made by suppliers, simply based on firmware and controller combination you should expect TBW equivalence between products using the same components.
Wear is based on not just amount of writes by the pattern/size so its impossible to really give a real TBW, so as I said its just a warranty period as when torture tested drives tend to last far beyond the TBW.
Just one example( use google translate)
https://www.pceva.com.c
There are others but they stopped because it was a waste of time.
https://techreport.com/review/the...-all-dead/
Based on what I've seen its more likely the controller burns out than the nand unless you are doing something really crazy to it.
As for HMB, windows allocates something like 64MB, it does not compare to the 1GB per TB on many drives.
Leave a Comment