This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
I get your point, and I agree with you. But a serious answer to your question: astrophotographers. After 4 nights of shooting the Orion Nebula, the processed files (files required for processing are in addition to files captured) are 486GB. But the program kept failing. I ran it a half a dozen times. During the height of winter (height of nebula season) I easily write over a 1 TB per week. These numbers are also only for the files stored. I have no insight into how much is written as cache during processing.
And even then this thing would last me for 9 years.
Think how often you actually completely overwrite the entire drive. I know half of my drive has been static since I installed windows. I've never seen an SSD below 90% life.
Think how often you actually completely overwrite the entire drive. I know half of my drive has been static since I installed windows. I've never seen an SSD below 90% life.
LOL, nobody does that and that's not how they typically fail. A more realistic scenario is when the drive is kept at near capacity and windows continuously writes to the same sectors over and over. Then wear issues start to present themselves. I don't like the wear #s they throw out there for SSDs and are about as useless as synthetic benchmarks.
Similar things were discussed before, and some people apparently don't care, but still... TBW: 450 TB?! Compared to various other 2TB models: WD Blue SN580, WD SN5000: 900 TB Crucial P5+, Samsung 870 EVO, Samsung 990 EVO+, WD SN770: 1200 TB
240TB since 2018 with my 960 EVO. Backblaze was a huge part of that, since I was backing up terabytes worth of media. I'd probably be under 100TB if it weren't for Backblaze. And again, since 2018. I've thrown a little bit of everything at it.
Just for kicks, I also have a 840 Pro from 2013 working as a boot drive in a torrent box. Has 138TB of writes on it.
Instead of buying based endurance ratings, I'd look more into real customer reviews. Some drives really are flops. Everything else will probably outlast you.
Both are storage devices. I value my data, and this one isn't cheap enough to be worth it.
FWIW, Samsung 870 QVO 2TB is 720 TB.
If the manufacturer doesn't trust its product much, neither would I.
Though it might just be a warranty limitation of sorts, I don't know if that's really the case.
It could just as well be correlated with data retention. The more you write, the more likely you are to get data corrupted somewhere.
Are you following the 3-2-1 backup principle? If not, you're not valuing your data as much as you think you are. QLC vs TLC is the least if your concerns if data retention is a priority.
I will agree that a 2tb QLC drive should be $80 or less, but in the current market it's a decently good price. The price of storage has gone up in general in the last few months.
Quote
from HilariousCaribou423
:
Same question, however I know a heatsink would be required.. but the downvotes suggest it won't?
It'll work, it just won't be very fast at downloading/writing due to lack of HMB and DRAM, on top of being QLC. Read speeds should be generally okay, unnoticeable unless comparing side-by-side.
AFAIK that's not something reported by the drive, but rather an arbitrary calculation by each specific SMART app. So I don't consider it a very informative piece of info.
Quote
from RyanL
:
A more realistic scenario is when the drive is kept at near capacity and windows continuously writes to the same sectors over and over. Then wear issues start to present themselves.
SSDs do wear leveling. So regardless of which logical sector you write, the actual writes are spread over the whole drive.
Quote
from EfficientGalley297
:
Instead of buying based endurance ratings, I'd look more into real customer reviews.
I consider multiple factors, including specs.
Quote
from Tsumi
:
QLC vs TLC is the least if your concerns if data retention is a priority.
I was focusing on TBW rather than QLC/TLC. But also not all QLCs are the same, like the mentioned Samsung one with 60% more TBW at the same 2TB size.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank snydertalon
Quote
from dmbase
:
TBW is such a silly thing to get hung up on when choosing an SSD. At 450 TBW, you could write 150 GB per week for over 57 years before it would reach that warranty. How many people can say that they seriously write 150 GB per week on a regular basis? You are far more likely to have a controller fail than you will have a write failure.
I get your point, and I agree with you. But a serious answer to your question: astrophotographers. After 4 nights of shooting the Orion Nebula, the processed files (files required for processing are in addition to files captured) are 486GB. But the program kept failing. I ran it a half a dozen times. During the height of winter (height of nebula season) I easily write over a 1 TB per week. These numbers are also only for the files stored. I have no insight into how much is written as cache during processing.
And even then this thing would last me for 9 years.
AFAIK that's not something reported by the drive, but rather an arbitrary calculation by each specific SMART app. So I don't consider it a very informative piece of info.
SSDs do wear leveling. So regardless of which logical sector you write, the actual writes are spread over the whole drive.
I consider multiple factors, including specs.
I was focusing on TBW rather than QLC/TLC. But also not all QLCs are the same, like the mentioned Samsung one with 60% more TBW at the same 2TB size.
TBW is also low on the list of concerns if data retention is truly a priority.
AFAIK that's not something reported by the drive, but rather an arbitrary calculation by each specific SMART app. So I don't consider it a very informative piece of info.
SSDs do wear leveling. So regardless of which logical sector you write, the actual writes are spread over the whole drive.
I consider multiple factors, including specs.
I was focusing on TBW rather than QLC/TLC. But also not all QLCs are the same, like the mentioned Samsung one with 60% more TBW at the same 2TB size.
Yea the wear leveling is much worse when full so you get write amplification.
I get your point, and I agree with you. But a serious answer to your question: astrophotographers. After 4 nights of shooting the Orion Nebula, the processed files (files required for processing are in addition to files captured) are 486GB. But the program kept failing. I ran it a half a dozen times. During the height of winter (height of nebula season) I easily write over a 1 TB per week. These numbers are also only for the files stored. I have no insight into how much is written as cache during processing.
And even then this thing would last me for 9 years.
And this is the thing right here, 1TB/week is an extreme use case, like upper 1% of users do this. And if a user is actually in this "professional" (even if you're an amateur) level of usage, you need to buy equipment that suits your usage case, and not poo-poo and stir everyone up in a frenzy to boycott it.
Honestly this is a good price for what you get compared to what's available currently. It is a low end product, yes, but even those sketchy Orico brand drives aren't this cheap for 2TB.
Both are storage devices. I value my data, and this one isn't cheap enough to be worth it.
Are you willing to use the drive past the 5 year warranty period? Because it's basically the same thing you're arguing if you value your data. And if you don't write more than 90TB a year you're not going to get to that TBW "limit" within that 5 year period. So if you're like the astrophotographer who'll reach that limit in 9 years, if you care that much about your data you're willing ot risk 4 years beyond the warranty? Sounds kind of short sighted to me for one who claims your data is precious.
FYI, the most likely case for hitting that TBW mark, is that it stops writing, i.e. you still can move your data as necessary, and as someone who had hard drives fail, there is no "wait let me get my stuff" moment. The reality is there's not a lot of information out on this, because no one ever gets to that point of failure for these drives.
Now if you are in fact a "power user" who does write that much data to drives, then I agree with you completely, that you need to look to other tools that fits your lifestyle.
I had a QLC NAND drive from Team Group (a moderately reputable brand) that was a scam. It was previously TLC that they swapped to QLC without telling anyone.
Write speed dropped to 5-10 MEGABYTES while I was setting up my PC, installing programs, and transferring files.
It was going to take multiple DAYS for all the data to transfer. Programs were stuck installing for HOURS.
QLC may be fine for grandma, but for any kind of a moderate power user, no. Its not worth the $20 savings to get a much much worse QLC drive. Pony up the few extra bucks for TLC or buy used.
1
1
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Not an expert, but I believe PS5 requires minimum 5,500MB/second. I'm looking for a 2TB drive to add to my system too.
That's Sony's recommendation. A slower drive still works according to posts I've read online from people who've used them. I'm going to hold out for the 482 which everyone recommends for the PS5. Hopefully it'll be in stock and discounted soon.
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Join The Conversation
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
Top Comments
TBW: 450 TB?!
Compared to various other 2TB models:
WD Blue SN580,
WD SN5000: 900 TB
Crucial P5+,
Samsung 870 EVO,
Samsung 990 EVO+,
WD SN770: 1200 TB
Different performance tiers.
QLC < TLC < MLC
MLC (Multi-Level Cell) → 2 bits per cell (best durability, expensive)
TLC (Triple-Level Cell) → 3 bits per cell (balance of cost, speed, and endurance)
QLC (Quad-Level Cell) → 4 bits per cell (cheapest, but slower and wears out faster)
And even then this thing would last me for 9 years.
Join The Conversation
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
72 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
TBW: 450 TB?!
Compared to various other 2TB models:
WD Blue SN580,
WD SN5000: 900 TB
Crucial P5+,
Samsung 870 EVO,
Samsung 990 EVO+,
WD SN770: 1200 TB
Just for kicks, I also have a 840 Pro from 2013 working as a boot drive in a torrent box. Has 138TB of writes on it.
Instead of buying based endurance ratings, I'd look more into real customer reviews. Some drives really are flops. Everything else will probably outlast you.
FWIW, Samsung 870 QVO 2TB is 720 TB.
If the manufacturer doesn't trust its product much, neither would I.
Though it might just be a warranty limitation of sorts, I don't know if that's really the case.
It could just as well be correlated with data retention. The more you write, the more likely you are to get data corrupted somewhere.
I will agree that a 2tb QLC drive should be $80 or less, but in the current market it's a decently good price. The price of storage has gone up in general in the last few months.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank snydertalon
And even then this thing would last me for 9 years.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
SSDs do wear leveling. So regardless of which logical sector you write, the actual writes are spread over the whole drive.
I consider multiple factors, including specs.
I was focusing on TBW rather than QLC/TLC. But also not all QLCs are the same, like the mentioned Samsung one with 60% more TBW at the same 2TB size.
SSDs do wear leveling. So regardless of which logical sector you write, the actual writes are spread over the whole drive.
I consider multiple factors, including specs.
I was focusing on TBW rather than QLC/TLC. But also not all QLCs are the same, like the mentioned Samsung one with 60% more TBW at the same 2TB size.
And even then this thing would last me for 9 years.
Honestly this is a good price for what you get compared to what's available currently. It is a low end product, yes, but even those sketchy Orico brand drives aren't this cheap for 2TB.
FYI, the most likely case for hitting that TBW mark, is that it stops writing, i.e. you still can move your data as necessary, and as someone who had hard drives fail, there is no "wait let me get my stuff" moment. The reality is there's not a lot of information out on this, because no one ever gets to that point of failure for these drives.
Now if you are in fact a "power user" who does write that much data to drives, then I agree with you completely, that you need to look to other tools that fits your lifestyle.
Write speed dropped to 5-10 MEGABYTES while I was setting up my PC, installing programs, and transferring files.
It was going to take multiple DAYS for all the data to transfer. Programs were stuck installing for HOURS.
QLC may be fine for grandma, but for any kind of a moderate power user, no. Its not worth the $20 savings to get a much much worse QLC drive. Pony up the few extra bucks for TLC or buy used.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Join The Conversation
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!