Samsung 860 QVO SSDs 1TB, 2TB and 4TB Spotted At Really Low Prices

#5609770 Posted on: 11/22/2018 03:14 PM

---

is this the drive were discussing?



seems like a good deal either way?

#5609824 Posted on: 11/22/2018 05:52 PM

---

The description seems a little off, but hey, 3 bit MLC should be a better option anyway. At that price it is a damn fine buy either way I think

#5609843 Posted on: 11/22/2018 06:48 PM

---

Some time ago I found a Russian site that is doing the most extensive SSD endurance test I have found anywhere - 3DNews.ru SSD Test. They have done one of those drives (near the top of the, google translated page, there is a grey "Content" bar, click it for table of contents for that page):

Western Digital Blue 3D NAND 250 GB
Claimed resource - 100 TB (TBW)

Endurance test scores - 82 TB

It started having errors after just 54 TB written! I'm sorry to say it was one of the worst results they have had.
Please bear in mind that the one they had "could" have been a bit of a lemon, but I'd keep back ups of your data if you do end up doing a lot of writes. Depending on use it would still take a long time to reach even 50TB of writes.

I always check that site before buying a new SSD and they are keeping it updated all the time too

Any test done with a sample size of one for something like hard drive or SSD endurance is pretty useless, I couldn't see anywhere from my quick look saying they tested with multiple drives, so... yeah while kinda interesting its not a very useful test set.

#5609848 Posted on: 11/22/2018 07:11 PM

---

Indeed.

Yet drives reaching market "should" be of avg quality as they go, so their tests are yet worth noting before making potential purchases.
They are a good 1st goto due to their range of drives tested, after which other endurance tests of a preferred drive can possibly be tracked down.

So far from drives I have seen multiple tests of they marry up pretty well.

Like I mentioned to Petr V that WD Blue 3D Nand, they tested could have been a bit of a lemon one off. Yet other prev gen WD Blue Nand drives (I was looking at buying as are great value) have also been pretty poor performers compared to more outstanding examples exceeding claimed max TBW from other manufacturers.

Samsung drives of various models often achieve many thousands of TB written over claimed limits. Really impressive, yet something almost no one will ever reach in a regular use environment lol

#5609883 Posted on: 11/22/2018 09:30 PM

---

depends on how you take those test result i guess
i would rather think it as estimation/average lifespan for the SSD... especially the NAND limit
so i can have better image/expectation from the SSD, rather than total blind and only know based the SSD specs which some market it with overly-hype endurance rate specs than it should
like MTBF bs... SSD is like 2million MTBF or 228years ...yea it will be in museum

#5609889 Posted on: 11/22/2018 09:46 PM

---

depends on how you take those test result i guess
i would rather think it as estimation/average lifespan for the SSD... especially the NAND limit
so i can have better image/expectation from the SSD, rather than total blind and only know based the SSD specs which some market it with overly-hype endurance rate specs than it should
like MTBF bs... SSD is like 2million MTBF or 228years ...yea it will be in museum

Well the thing is, if its a sample size of one, its not really giving you any real idea of the endurance of the drives or their lifespan, it could go both ways too, you could end up thinking a drive is way better than it is or way worse than it is, they could have gotten a dud and the results look really bad because of it, or they could have gotten lucky with a drive that lasts way longer than average which could lead you to purchase something that ends up lasting way less time for you.

The results are interesting, and with brands that they have done multiple different tests on new models as they come out its a little more reliable but only a bit, as things change between generations and just cause the last 3 generations did well and the 4th generation one they tested also did well doesn't mean that 4th gen one wasn't a fluke and there was a quality reduction in that generation that ends up making the one you buy last way less than expected.

If you look at their site, and then find 3 or 4 other sites that do just as in depth reviews and long term testing on SSD's then you can start having valid testing results to get an informed decision from, but a sample size of one is always dicey to base expectations off, and its why in anything that matters sample sizes of hundreds or thousands are normally used.

#5609928 Posted on: 11/23/2018 12:33 AM

---

Some time ago I found a Russian site that is doing the most extensive SSD endurance test I have found anywhere - 3DNews.ru SSD Test. They have done one of those drives (near the top of the, google translated page, there is a grey "Content" bar, click it for table of contents for that page):

Western Digital Blue 3D NAND 250 GB
Claimed resource - 100 TB (TBW)

Endurance test scores - 82 TB

It started having errors after just 54 TB written! I'm sorry to say it was one of the worst results they have had.
Please bear in mind that the one they had "could" have been a bit of a lemon, but I'd keep back ups of your data if you do end up doing a lot of writes. Depending on use it would still take a long time to reach even 50TB of writes.

I always check that site before buying a new SSD and they are keeping it updated all the time too

I can’t tell right now how long will it hold.
But 2tb shut be able to hold few years for sure

#5609943 Posted on: 11/23/2018 03:00 AM

---

I can’t tell right now how long will it hold.
But 2tb shut be able to hold few years for sure

The higher TB drives last a Lot longer write wise than smaller 250GB ones. It will probably be in a museum before you reach it's write limit in normal use ~_^



The 2TB one claims to take 500TB of writes, even half that at 40GB writes per day would take about 17 years. Sounds Pretty Safe to me.

#5609956 Posted on: 11/23/2018 06:52 AM

---

Everyone interested should do some research on MLC/TLC/QLC.
There's a reason this is cheaper and it has to do with the QLC technology being slower, with a smaller lifespan and the only benefit being 1 extra bit per cell (4 vs 3 on the TLC evo, and 2 on the MLC based pro). Cant say i know how samsungs implementation will work, but other QLC drives so far have shown the peformance mostly is good while the cache is doing all the work (aka quick bursts of data transfers are good but with large files/workloads performance tanks at sub HDD levels after a while). Also especially with QLC you should absolutely not get anywhere near close to maxing out the capacity.

#5610632 Posted on: 11/25/2018 08:36 PM

---

The higher TB drives last a Lot longer write wise than smaller 250GB ones. It will probably be in a museum before you reach it's write limit in normal use ~_^



The 2TB one claims to take 500TB of writes, even half that at 40GB writes per day would take about 17 years. Sounds Pretty Safe to me.

I will probably put The 2TB in new laptop when i get some.

#5610703 Posted on: 11/26/2018 06:06 AM

---

@Alex13
the SP drive i got (256gb, not sure what TLC chip) has dram and slc and is the worst drive performance wise since drives went tlc.
initial drop after about the 1st gb transferred, then another drop after additional 2-3gb down to 50-80MB/s.
a different SP drive (60gb MLC) thats 3y old performs better (never secure erased), as well as the 6y old vector (128gb mlc) with 75% life left (40TB written to nand).

not saying this is true for the samsung (expect it to be a bit better),
but im gonna stay with mlc drives for my "main" ones (safety)

still a good ssd for large storage (music/movies) or as work drive (video edit)
and get rid of slower/noisy hdds...

#5610715 Posted on: 11/26/2018 08:14 AM

---

I think eventually we might see some segmentation in the SSD space where we have larger capacities with less write endurance but are far cheaper for just storing the GB of game date that just needs several GB of burst read access. OS and program drives can be smaller but much faster and higher endurance drives. I don't think the needs have changed that much. Just the amount of data being shuffled around. How many thousands of diskettes would it take to load say...BF V?

#5610752 Posted on: 11/26/2018 11:20 AM

---

My Vertex 4 128GB (system) reported in smart something like 90% remaining life. That's pretty old drive with relatively small capacity. But it is not QLC, not TLC, but MLC. If it was QLC, remaining life value would be much worse. But then again, there should better not be 128GB QLC drives.

#5610779 Posted on: 11/26/2018 01:48 PM

---

Here the Russian list - look what to avoid. Impressive top: Btw, ordered the cheapest 2 TB, here it was Crucial MX500 for 360€ - not so cheap but my 840Pro 250 GB did cost the same 5 years ago.

#5611135 Posted on: 11/27/2018 02:29 PM

---

@
Problem is with NAND, it is not usually the amount of TBW that kills them, but rather age..
+1


i've been saying this for a while, as backblaze data was showing the same thing (after 2-3y roughly 25% of drives had chip failure from age, not writes).

i keep replacing them after about 2-3y with newer/bigger drives, but did have no issues with the "big names" i used (crucial/ocz/kingston/toshiba),
but had a "myssd" were the controller failed within a year. was the OS drive at the time, so no data loss as i use trueimage.

i will go back to drives with mlc chips, as the qlc drive i just got is terribly slow (even with slc/dram cache),
and i dont like them cranking up bits per cell every year and no real long term data showing the chips last.

A friend of mine and me bought the first generation of the Kingston HyperX SSD (the blue ones) when they came out, I sold mine 2 years later but my friend's is still rock solid after almost 7 years. The only problem is its capacity - 120 GB