Sounds all nice and good but i i wou like to hear the endurance cycles on that one

Venix:

Sounds all nice and good but i i wou like to hear the endurance cycles on that one

It's TLC, the endurance should be good. Not as good as MLC, of course, but still miles better than the crap QLC.

At one TB drive, even QLC could be acceptable. But sadly QLC prices are too close to TLC. Therefore TLC is better investment.

Fox2232:

At one TB drive, even QLC could be acceptable. But sadly QLC prices are too close to TLC. Therefore TLC is better investment.

Yup - it is worth pointing out that for typical at-home workloads, the larger your drive is, the less you have to worry about endurance. I have a 1TB TLC SSD that I use solely for storing games, and despite being around 80% full, I think its life cycle is still around 98%. If QLC drives were available at the time, I'd have got one because at this rate, the drive's SATA interface is going to become an obscurity before it starts to noticeably degrade. Slightly off-topic, if endurance really is enough of a concern, there are ways to go about improving it to the point of irrelevance, such as: * Disable hibernation * Don't have a paging file or swap partition * Disable caches in programs like web browsers * Disable pre/super fetching * Run updates for everything manually once a month * Use another hard drive or RAM drive as a "scratch disk" for temporary files * Don't buy a crappy cheap SSD

Silva:

It's TLC, the endurance should be good. Not as good as MLC, of course, but still miles better than the crap QLC.

i thought the cycles drop also with the addition to layers my bad ...well if that's the case bigger cheaper mlc nand chips are great !

When MLC came out, people debated why anyone would to buy it over SLC because MLC was 'shitty' When TLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over MLC because TLC was 'shitty' When QLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over TLC because QLC was 'shitty' At a certain point, the endurance and performance drops you see at each bit-level become irrelevant in most use cases, but the lower cost and bigger size drives do not. also I think people are way too paranoid about endurance. I still have a 60GB drive from like 2009 working well and a 120GB drive from 2011 at 1% wear level. Never seen a drive fail due to endurance in my life because most people do not write THAT much data to their drive. Drive failure because the controller randomly died or corrupt data because flash NANDs powered off for too long are much more common.

Mundosold:

When MLC came out, people debated why anyone would to buy it over SLC because MLC was 'shitty' When TLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over MLC because TLC was 'shitty' When QLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over TLC because QLC was 'shitty' At a certain point, the endurance and performance drops you see at each bit-level become irrelevant in most use cases, but the lower cost and bigger size drives do not. also I think people are way too paranoid about endurance. I still have a 60GB drive from like 2009 working well and a 120GB drive from 2011 at 1% wear level. Never seen a drive fail due to endurance in my life because most people do not write THAT much data to their drive. Drive failure because the controller randomly died or corrupt data because flash NANDs powered off for too long are much more common.

I've been using my Crucial MX100 for 4 years and 6 months now. It's an MLC SSD with 256Gb rated for 72TB of endurance. So far, I've used 7%. At this rate I'll kill the SSD in 14 years, it will probably die or be rendered not usable when enough cells stop working. It all depends on what you do with the SSD, being big doesn't save them from the endurance problem. People who edit video (like me) and install big games on the drive, will eventually wear them out faster than casual users. TLC is great, you gain allot of storage space at an affordable price, sacrificing some endurance. I'd say that for me, it's a well worth trade off. As for QLC, you trade too much endurance for just a little bit of more storage, not worth it. And companies have taken notice of this, by investing more in layers and sticking with TLC for longer.