Humanoid_1:

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 😀

Petr V:

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.

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.

Humanoid_1:

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.

@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...

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?

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.

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. https://3dnews.ru/assets/external/illustrations/2016/09/01/938764/endurance-final.png

fry178:

@Humanoid_1 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 🙂