Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Colorful iGame GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Advanced OC review
ASRock Z390 Steel Legend review
Corsair M55 RGB PRO gaming mouse review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
Lexar NM600 NVMe M.2. SSD (480GB) review
Tech preview: Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT
Tech preview: AMD Ryzen 3000 - 7nm ZEN2
Patriot Viper VPN100 M2 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
Samsung 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe M.2. SSD review
Samsung 860 QVO 2TB SSD review
Posted by: on: 11/27/2018 05:00 PM [
24 comment(s) ]
Samsung releases their all-new 860 QVO series SATA 6 Gb/s SSDs. As the Q in the name indicates, this is all new QLC based NAND. Don't worry, we'll explain it all but the bottom line is that you will see a new value product series that offer more bang for your bucks and an increase in volume sizes.
Read article
Advertisement
Tagged as:
samsung
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35318
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35318
Posted on: 11/27/2018 06:09 PM
Correct, I have noticed that myself as well and have been noticing it ever since a recent Windows 10 update. I am still investigating but it looks like some sort of file-cache is kicking in and hindering that result set. I might need to remove that test completely in the future, but felt I should add it as I always present numbers as they are measured.
(Game load time performance@page 6) - did I miss something?
Correct, I have noticed that myself as well and have been noticing it ever since a recent Windows 10 update. I am still investigating but it looks like some sort of file-cache is kicking in and hindering that result set. I might need to remove that test completely in the future, but felt I should add it as I always present numbers as they are measured.
tunejunky
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Posted on: 11/27/2018 06:15 PM
great job, as usual HH.
hopefully this will drop in price as 2tb (or more) has been prohibitively expensive for home use (i.e. not a business expense).
great job, as usual HH.
hopefully this will drop in price as 2tb (or more) has been prohibitively expensive for home use (i.e. not a business expense).
JonasBeckman
Senior Member
Posts: 15268
Senior Member
Posts: 15268
Posted on: 11/27/2018 06:42 PM
Part of Redstone 4 and the cache to RAM I guess, for a larger game you can see superfetch kicking in via the task manager after you exit and it begins filling up RAM to it should be around 80% or so depending on how much data it can fit and then leaving a little bit of entirely free space left.
Successive runs will then be much faster using the cache data but it's possible to empty out the "stand-by" memory now cached via for example this.
https://wj32.org/wp/software/empty-standby-list/
And I think there's a few apps on this forum for this very feature too since before the recent cumulative updates for both Redstone 4 and Redstone 5 there was a issue with slowdowns as the cached memory took all the RAM and it had to swap data around instead of leaving a part of it free plus it didn't want to unload unless you ran out of memory but I believe this if not entirely fixed has at least improved now.
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/fix-game-stutter-on-win-10-1703-1809.420251/
There should be a Windows blog announcement on the feature too but essentially superfetch and into RAM to speed things up, not too complex but quite effective considering the speed of modern RAM kits.
(Even compared to a high-end SSD.)
Correct, I have noticed that myself as well and have been noticing it ever since a recent Windows 10 update. I am still investigating but it looks like some sort of file-cache is kicking in and hindering that result set. I might need to remove that test completely in the future, but felt I should add it as I always present numbers as they are measured.
Part of Redstone 4 and the cache to RAM I guess, for a larger game you can see superfetch kicking in via the task manager after you exit and it begins filling up RAM to it should be around 80% or so depending on how much data it can fit and then leaving a little bit of entirely free space left.
Successive runs will then be much faster using the cache data but it's possible to empty out the "stand-by" memory now cached via for example this.
https://wj32.org/wp/software/empty-standby-list/
And I think there's a few apps on this forum for this very feature too since before the recent cumulative updates for both Redstone 4 and Redstone 5 there was a issue with slowdowns as the cached memory took all the RAM and it had to swap data around instead of leaving a part of it free plus it didn't want to unload unless you ran out of memory but I believe this if not entirely fixed has at least improved now.
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/fix-game-stutter-on-win-10-1703-1809.420251/
There should be a Windows blog announcement on the feature too but essentially superfetch and into RAM to speed things up, not too complex but quite effective considering the speed of modern RAM kits.
(Even compared to a high-end SSD.)
Robbo9999
Senior Member
Posts: 1246
Senior Member
Posts: 1246
Posted on: 11/27/2018 08:45 PM
I noticed that after recently updating to the latest version of Windows 10 v1809 (previously I was on v1803), that virus scan run times are nearly half of what they were prior to the update. I've got a full SSD system (no HDD), Sandisk Ultra II and Crucial MX300, I was surprised to see those decreased virus scan run times in both Avira Free Antivirus and Malwarebytes. So, don't know if that's related to what you saw there, but figured I'd mention it.
Correct, I have noticed that myself as well and have been noticing it ever since a recent Windows 10 update. I am still investigating but it looks like some sort of file-cache is kicking in and hindering that result set. I might need to remove that test completely in the future, but felt I should add it as I always present numbers as they are measured.
I noticed that after recently updating to the latest version of Windows 10 v1809 (previously I was on v1803), that virus scan run times are nearly half of what they were prior to the update. I've got a full SSD system (no HDD), Sandisk Ultra II and Crucial MX300, I was surprised to see those decreased virus scan run times in both Avira Free Antivirus and Malwarebytes. So, don't know if that's related to what you saw there, but figured I'd mention it.
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 930
Senior Member
Posts: 930
Posted on: 11/27/2018 10:12 PM
Part of Redstone 4 and the cache to RAM I guess, for a larger game you can see superfetch kicking in via the task manager after you exit and it begins filling up RAM to it should be around 80% or so depending on how much data it can fit and then leaving a little bit of entirely free space left.
Successive runs will then be much faster using the cache data but it's possible to empty out the "stand-by" memory now cached via for example this.
https://wj32.org/wp/software/empty-standby-list/
Superfetch is deprecated--can't remember when the superfetch service was removed, but it was a while ago. The newer caching scheme (I'm on 1809, build 17763.134) seems to handle things a bit differently. I think I even posted to these forums about it when I noticed it Superfetch was no more.
Part of Redstone 4 and the cache to RAM I guess, for a larger game you can see superfetch kicking in via the task manager after you exit and it begins filling up RAM to it should be around 80% or so depending on how much data it can fit and then leaving a little bit of entirely free space left.
Successive runs will then be much faster using the cache data but it's possible to empty out the "stand-by" memory now cached via for example this.
https://wj32.org/wp/software/empty-standby-list/
Superfetch is deprecated--can't remember when the superfetch service was removed, but it was a while ago. The newer caching scheme (I'm on 1809, build 17763.134) seems to handle things a bit differently. I think I even posted to these forums about it when I noticed it Superfetch was no more.
JonasBeckman
Senior Member
Posts: 15268
Senior Member
Posts: 15268
Posted on: 11/28/2018 01:54 AM
Redstone 5 was when it got changed but it's still used although instead of calling it Superfetch it's back to being named the same as the service itself so it's called "SysMain" now both under Services and the Task Manager.
You can see it spin up every so often so it's pretty easy to spot and with the cache function from Redstone 4 (Creators Update.) it'll also run every time you exit a program as it works it into the cache which under the task manager and memory you should see it divided between "In use" "Modified" "Standby" and "Free" with standby being the cached data.
There's tools for more thorough viewing of exactly what is cached in the standby memory but when it's required the OS can dump this data or you can empty the data yourself such as with the earlier listed utility or other programs though super fetch should start up immediately to re-optimize the cache memory for any current running software.
Earlier the standby memory tended to consume almost all available RAM but after the recent updates it seems to be capped to always leave a part of free memory and it also unloads earlier allowing other running programs to use RAM as needed although I don't know if that's specific to Redstone 5 or if it's been included in the newer cumulative updates for Redstone 4 too by this point so the various software for emptying out this data might still give a performance increase if there's still any issues with how this is cached or how the cache is handled.
Well bit of a longer post but even using a SSD Windows 10 should still retain super fetch and with the stand-by memory and using RAM as a cache it should still allow for a speed-up for any subsequent starts of a software as long as the data is still retained in RAM and hasn't been unloaded though I can see this also skewing testing and benchmarking unless the data is emptied out first.
As for QLC and SSD's I'm glad to see alternatives for storage space and affordability even if QLC brings additional restrictions over TLC though for regular usage it's probably not going to wear out or slow down notably and should still have a edge over a traditional HDD in most cases though I have to do more reading about this so I'm not particularly well versed in how this all works myself so it's something to look up for the next major system build I suppose.
Hmm wonder if PCIE 4.0 and something like Optane would be able to compete with DDR but then we also have high-speed DDR4 now and triple and quad channel memory so probably not, only problem here is between AMD and Intel and getting the kits stable on respective hardware but it sounds like AMD has made several improvements already. Well that's not hitting consumer grade hardware just yet I suppose and then devices that could really benefit from PCIE 4.0 and current devices are already capable of hitting Gigabyte speeds.
(And improvements on a OS level and software in general taking advantage of high-speed storage devices like SSD's more thoroughly, guess that's also going to be a thing but with time it should improve further.)
Redstone 5 was when it got changed but it's still used although instead of calling it Superfetch it's back to being named the same as the service itself so it's called "SysMain" now both under Services and the Task Manager.
You can see it spin up every so often so it's pretty easy to spot and with the cache function from Redstone 4 (Creators Update.) it'll also run every time you exit a program as it works it into the cache which under the task manager and memory you should see it divided between "In use" "Modified" "Standby" and "Free" with standby being the cached data.
There's tools for more thorough viewing of exactly what is cached in the standby memory but when it's required the OS can dump this data or you can empty the data yourself such as with the earlier listed utility or other programs though super fetch should start up immediately to re-optimize the cache memory for any current running software.
Earlier the standby memory tended to consume almost all available RAM but after the recent updates it seems to be capped to always leave a part of free memory and it also unloads earlier allowing other running programs to use RAM as needed although I don't know if that's specific to Redstone 5 or if it's been included in the newer cumulative updates for Redstone 4 too by this point so the various software for emptying out this data might still give a performance increase if there's still any issues with how this is cached or how the cache is handled.
Well bit of a longer post but even using a SSD Windows 10 should still retain super fetch and with the stand-by memory and using RAM as a cache it should still allow for a speed-up for any subsequent starts of a software as long as the data is still retained in RAM and hasn't been unloaded though I can see this also skewing testing and benchmarking unless the data is emptied out first.
As for QLC and SSD's I'm glad to see alternatives for storage space and affordability even if QLC brings additional restrictions over TLC though for regular usage it's probably not going to wear out or slow down notably and should still have a edge over a traditional HDD in most cases though I have to do more reading about this so I'm not particularly well versed in how this all works myself so it's something to look up for the next major system build I suppose.
Hmm wonder if PCIE 4.0 and something like Optane would be able to compete with DDR but then we also have high-speed DDR4 now and triple and quad channel memory so probably not, only problem here is between AMD and Intel and getting the kits stable on respective hardware but it sounds like AMD has made several improvements already. Well that's not hitting consumer grade hardware just yet I suppose and then devices that could really benefit from PCIE 4.0 and current devices are already capable of hitting Gigabyte speeds.
(And improvements on a OS level and software in general taking advantage of high-speed storage devices like SSD's more thoroughly, guess that's also going to be a thing but with time it should improve further.)
quantum hacker
Member
Posts: 71
Member
Posts: 71
Posted on: 11/28/2018 02:03 AM
Well it looks like my WD "Green" 2TB drives have their spiritual successor...
Well it looks like my WD "Green" 2TB drives have their spiritual successor...
coth
Senior Member
Posts: 376
Senior Member
Posts: 376
Posted on: 11/28/2018 08:53 AM
And how long will data last without power?
And how long will data last without power?
warlord
Senior Member
Posts: 2137
Senior Member
Posts: 2137
Posted on: 11/28/2018 09:38 AM
Meet the NAND storage future, Samsung today outs its first QLC based SATA3 SSD. Join us as we review the all new Samsung 860 QVO 2TB SSD. Don't worry, we'll explain what QLC is, but the bottom line ...
Review: Samsung 860 QVO 2TB SSD (QLC NAND)
Hey HH, do you think reliability of big SSDs is enough to assume we can ditch HDDs for gaming purposes (instantaneous textures streaming and blazing fast loading) and keep them for pure storage only?
Meet the NAND storage future, Samsung today outs its first QLC based SATA3 SSD. Join us as we review the all new Samsung 860 QVO 2TB SSD. Don't worry, we'll explain what QLC is, but the bottom line ...
Review: Samsung 860 QVO 2TB SSD (QLC NAND)
Hey HH, do you think reliability of big SSDs is enough to assume we can ditch HDDs for gaming purposes (instantaneous textures streaming and blazing fast loading) and keep them for pure storage only?
Alex13
Senior Member
Posts: 2244
Senior Member
Posts: 2244
Posted on: 11/28/2018 09:42 AM
Really don't trust this QLC memory enough for my data. Wouldn't wanna fill this up either (as you never should with SSD's)
Better off buying a 2 to 4 TB HDD for your storage needs where you can actually use the entire drive. Stick to pro's and maybe EVO's for the important stuff.
Not with QLC drives, i wouldn't.
Really don't trust this QLC memory enough for my data. Wouldn't wanna fill this up either (as you never should with SSD's)
Better off buying a 2 to 4 TB HDD for your storage needs where you can actually use the entire drive. Stick to pro's and maybe EVO's for the important stuff.
Hey HH, do you think reliability of big SSDs is enough to assume we can ditch HDDs for gaming purposes (instantaneous textures streaming and blazing fast loading) and keep them for pure storage only?
Not with QLC drives, i wouldn't.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35318
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35318
Posted on: 11/28/2018 09:53 AM
As I write in the article, I do not foresee any issues with reliability based on normal PC usage workloads. Samsungs problem is trust, they should have gone for 5-years warranty (and lower prices). We've seen exactly the same happen with TLC when it was released and at this stage, TLC has become a commonly accepted type of NAND.
Bigger is better though for TBW values, with 100 GB per day writes (!) the SSD would last almost 20 years before the last cells are depleted. 2TB SSD is rated at 720 TB
720TB writes / (100GB/day x365) = 19.73 Years.
Also if I may throw in an argument, there are plenty of tests on the web where say SSDs rated at 200TB lasted over a petabyte ... then again, 4 bits per cell is new technology, we do not know how it'll behave long term.
As I write in the article, I do not foresee any issues with reliability based on normal PC usage workloads. Samsungs problem is trust, they should have gone for 5-years warranty (and lower prices). We've seen exactly the same happen with TLC when it was released and at this stage, TLC has become a commonly accepted type of NAND.
Bigger is better though for TBW values, with 100 GB per day writes (!) the SSD would last almost 20 years before the last cells are depleted. 2TB SSD is rated at 720 TB
720TB writes / (100GB/day x365) = 19.73 Years.
Also if I may throw in an argument, there are plenty of tests on the web where say SSDs rated at 200TB lasted over a petabyte ... then again, 4 bits per cell is new technology, we do not know how it'll behave long term.
warlord
Senior Member
Posts: 2137
Senior Member
Posts: 2137
Posted on: 11/28/2018 10:11 AM
Interesting, my old rusty samsung 830 ssd, is almost 7 years alive and kicking. And it was also a 3-year warranty given disk.
I believe playing some games during the day aren't so tiring for the disk after all. Only when installing and patching you could slightly reduce faster that lifespan in the end. Thanks. I'll keep an eye on the news if something happens after some usage worldwide.
Interesting, my old rusty samsung 830 ssd, is almost 7 years alive and kicking. And it was also a 3-year warranty given disk.
I believe playing some games during the day aren't so tiring for the disk after all. Only when installing and patching you could slightly reduce faster that lifespan in the end. Thanks. I'll keep an eye on the news if something happens after some usage worldwide.
tunejunky
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Posted on: 11/28/2018 05:16 PM
it's non-volatile memory. it will last longer than a hdd
And how long will data last without power?
it's non-volatile memory. it will last longer than a hdd
coth
Senior Member
Posts: 376
Senior Member
Posts: 376
Posted on: 11/28/2018 05:56 PM
Non-volatile memory easily leaks without sustained power through the time. A month would be enough to get few bad blocks (leaked cells) with non-fresh MLC.
it's non-volatile memory. it will last longer than a hdd
Non-volatile memory easily leaks without sustained power through the time. A month would be enough to get few bad blocks (leaked cells) with non-fresh MLC.
slyphnier
Senior Member
Posts: 598
Senior Member
Posts: 598
Posted on: 11/28/2018 09:18 PM
for active storage (like game-storage) this looks good value
but for passive storage (archival purpose) i guess i need to wait abit, to see how reliability goes
i personally still prever HDD simply because it been tested/proved until now
for active storage (like game-storage) this looks good value
but for passive storage (archival purpose) i guess i need to wait abit, to see how reliability goes
i personally still prever HDD simply because it been tested/proved until now
Astyanax
Senior Member
Posts: 1833
Senior Member
Posts: 1833
Posted on: 11/29/2018 03:28 AM
You could use Rammap and cacheset to purge the caches between tests
Correct, I have noticed that myself as well and have been noticing it ever since a recent Windows 10 update. I am still investigating but it looks like some sort of file-cache is kicking in and hindering that result set. I might need to remove that test completely in the future, but felt I should add it as I always present numbers as they are measured.
You could use Rammap and cacheset to purge the caches between tests
tunejunky
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Posted on: 11/29/2018 04:46 PM
i'm sure you have a reason to say that. and i know it's anecdotal, but i've never had that problem. i keep several (full) ssd's and use a hot swap drive often. many times it's over 6 months between drive swaps.
Non-volatile memory easily leaks without sustained power through the time. A month would be enough to get few bad blocks (leaked cells) with non-fresh MLC.
i'm sure you have a reason to say that. and i know it's anecdotal, but i've never had that problem. i keep several (full) ssd's and use a hot swap drive often. many times it's over 6 months between drive swaps.
ST19AG_WGreymon
Senior Member
Posts: 4701
Senior Member
Posts: 4701
Posted on: 11/29/2018 08:20 PM
I got a 1TB 840 EVO a little over 4 years ago, $476 back than lol. It has something like 12+TB of writes and still kicking. I replaced it with a 2TB 860 EVO last month, $311. My game saves and important docs are in the cloud so I'm not too worried. At one point my main PC with the 1TB 840 EVO was powered off and unplugged for a full year in storage.
I got a 1TB 840 EVO a little over 4 years ago, $476 back than lol. It has something like 12+TB of writes and still kicking. I replaced it with a 2TB 860 EVO last month, $311. My game saves and important docs are in the cloud so I'm not too worried. At one point my main PC with the 1TB 840 EVO was powered off and unplugged for a full year in storage.
Ricepudding
Senior Member
Posts: 471
Senior Member
Posts: 471
Posted on: 11/30/2018 01:15 PM
12TB isn't much, most of these drives are rated for 500TB+ depending on the make, Think my 850 2TB EVO is rated for 2000TB, most normal users will never hit this
I got a 1TB 840 EVO a little over 4 years ago, $476 back than lol. It has something like 12+TB of writes and still kicking. I replaced it with a 2TB 860 EVO last month, $311. My game saves and important docs are in the cloud so I'm not too worried. At one point my main PC with the 1TB 840 EVO was powered off and unplugged for a full year in storage.
12TB isn't much, most of these drives are rated for 500TB+ depending on the make, Think my 850 2TB EVO is rated for 2000TB, most normal users will never hit this
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 930
Senior Member
Posts: 930
Posted on: 11/30/2018 11:30 PM
Well, @ ~$299 for 2TB the price is coming down nicely! A few months back I bought a 2TB HD drive for ~$80...so there's still a lot of room to maneuver yet, on the pricing front. If and when Samsung can get a 2TB drive down to ~$149 (or maybe even a bit less), I'd say that the platter drives are marked for certain obsolescence. But that 1TB price is mighty nice--~$149! That's just $40 more than I paid for my EVO 850 256GB S3 drive (now booting the wife's machine) and later a 960 EVO 256GB NVMe booting mine...! Be interesting to see how this works for NVMe drives! You still cannot beat HDDs for cost per GB--SSD's are still multiples more expensive--and HDDs are completely unmatched for capacities--but the writing seems to be on the wall. Like everything, it's just a matter of time, eh?
Speaking of HDDs...anyone hear anything lately about those internal RAID 0 platter drives under development? But even @ 350-400MBs/s (for largish files) the HDD's will still not catch even rudimentary Sata 3 SSD's in performance! Should be fun to see what develops!
Well, @ ~$299 for 2TB the price is coming down nicely! A few months back I bought a 2TB HD drive for ~$80...so there's still a lot of room to maneuver yet, on the pricing front. If and when Samsung can get a 2TB drive down to ~$149 (or maybe even a bit less), I'd say that the platter drives are marked for certain obsolescence. But that 1TB price is mighty nice--~$149! That's just $40 more than I paid for my EVO 850 256GB S3 drive (now booting the wife's machine) and later a 960 EVO 256GB NVMe booting mine...! Be interesting to see how this works for NVMe drives! You still cannot beat HDDs for cost per GB--SSD's are still multiples more expensive--and HDDs are completely unmatched for capacities--but the writing seems to be on the wall. Like everything, it's just a matter of time, eh?
Speaking of HDDs...anyone hear anything lately about those internal RAID 0 platter drives under development? But even @ 350-400MBs/s (for largish files) the HDD's will still not catch even rudimentary Sata 3 SSD's in performance! Should be fun to see what develops!
NiColaoS
Senior Member
Posts: 559
Senior Member
Posts: 559
Posted on: 12/01/2018 06:15 AM
For some obnoxious reason I trust Samsung about their SSDs with closed eyes. Now I have 2 Samsung 850s but since I ordered a Z390 M/B I'll get one SATA 860 for the OS and one for one of the two M.2 NVMe slots.
For some obnoxious reason I trust Samsung about their SSDs with closed eyes. Now I have 2 Samsung 850s but since I ordered a Z390 M/B I'll get one SATA 860 for the OS and one for one of the two M.2 NVMe slots.
Evildead666
Senior Member
Posts: 973
Senior Member
Posts: 973
Posted on: 12/02/2018 07:25 PM
Well, @ ~$299 for 2TB the price is coming down nicely! A few months back I bought a 2TB HD drive for ~$80...so there's still a lot of room to maneuver yet, on the pricing front. If and when Samsung can get a 2TB drive down to ~$149 (or maybe even a bit less), I'd say that the platter drives are marked for certain obsolescence. But that 1TB price is mighty nice--~$149! That's just $40 more than I paid for my EVO 850 256GB S3 drive (now booting the wife's machine) and later a 960 EVO 256GB NVMe booting mine...! Be interesting to see how this works for NVMe drives! You still cannot beat HDDs for cost per GB--SSD's are still multiples more expensive--and HDDs are completely unmatched for capacities--but the writing seems to be on the wall. Like everything, it's just a matter of time, eh?
Speaking of HDDs...anyone hear anything lately about those internal RAID 0 platter drives under development? But even @ 350-400MBs/s (for largish files) the HDD's will still not catch even rudimentary Sata 3 SSD's in performance! Should be fun to see what develops!
I think those 'internal raid' drives were intended to be used in enterprise only, with a very short span of the heads.
So reduced storage as a lot of the fast enterprise drives, but double the R/W speed.
I think the average consumer would be better off doing his own raid 0 on the chipset for a lot cheaper.
At least giving it a try for a while.
As for data retention on SSD's, my main PC was off for a month, fully unplugged, and no problems (or leaks) so far.
I have some MLC m2 Sata SSD's i can test long term for data retention, but havent got any TLC or QLC ones.
Will have to look for a cheap one of each if possible (128/256GB).
edit : I have an old Intel SSD with windows 7 on it somewhere. that hasnt been booted up in two or more years, possibly 3 or 4. Have to find it first.
Well, @ ~$299 for 2TB the price is coming down nicely! A few months back I bought a 2TB HD drive for ~$80...so there's still a lot of room to maneuver yet, on the pricing front. If and when Samsung can get a 2TB drive down to ~$149 (or maybe even a bit less), I'd say that the platter drives are marked for certain obsolescence. But that 1TB price is mighty nice--~$149! That's just $40 more than I paid for my EVO 850 256GB S3 drive (now booting the wife's machine) and later a 960 EVO 256GB NVMe booting mine...! Be interesting to see how this works for NVMe drives! You still cannot beat HDDs for cost per GB--SSD's are still multiples more expensive--and HDDs are completely unmatched for capacities--but the writing seems to be on the wall. Like everything, it's just a matter of time, eh?
Speaking of HDDs...anyone hear anything lately about those internal RAID 0 platter drives under development? But even @ 350-400MBs/s (for largish files) the HDD's will still not catch even rudimentary Sata 3 SSD's in performance! Should be fun to see what develops!
I think those 'internal raid' drives were intended to be used in enterprise only, with a very short span of the heads.
So reduced storage as a lot of the fast enterprise drives, but double the R/W speed.
I think the average consumer would be better off doing his own raid 0 on the chipset for a lot cheaper.
At least giving it a try for a while.
As for data retention on SSD's, my main PC was off for a month, fully unplugged, and no problems (or leaks) so far.
I have some MLC m2 Sata SSD's i can test long term for data retention, but havent got any TLC or QLC ones.
Will have to look for a cheap one of each if possible (128/256GB).
edit : I have an old Intel SSD with windows 7 on it somewhere. that hasnt been booted up in two or more years, possibly 3 or 4. Have to find it first.
janoto
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Posted on: 05/29/2019 05:01 PM
Hey you all !
About the SSD Samsung QVO this SSD is slow 70mb/s when the cache is full (I think 45Gb) I would like to know if there is a way to flush and empty the SSD disk cache to get full average transfert speed (around 450Mb/s).. I tried the emptystandbylist.exe but no result... Any clue anyone ? Thx
Hey you all !
About the SSD Samsung QVO this SSD is slow 70mb/s when the cache is full (I think 45Gb) I would like to know if there is a way to flush and empty the SSD disk cache to get full average transfert speed (around 450Mb/s).. I tried the emptystandbylist.exe but no result... Any clue anyone ? Thx
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Member
Posts: 29
Boss, how can you get 702MB/s loading speed @SATAIII (Game load time performance@page 6) - did I miss something?
Thanx in advance,
DG21