"4.9 more errors than usual" does not mean anything…

dont understand why everyone still talks about write cycles,when almost all info (data center etc) shows that ssd drives are mainly dying of "age" (not amount of written data). +25% of chips start failing after 2-3y. @Raplapla as i read it, its 4.9x times more, and THAT is significant.

dont understand why everyone still talks about write cycles,when almost all info (data center etc) shows that ssd drives are mainly dying of "age" (not amount of written data). +25% of chips start failing after 2-3y. @Raplapla as i read it, its 4.9x times more, and THAT is significant.

How intensive would typical Data Center usage be then compared to an enthusiast's? Hate to quote experiential evidence because personal experience means squat statistically... But should I feel lucky to still have my original Crucial c300 256 chugging away with an OS on it? Or would an 8 year old SSD be normally viable compared to the sad long legacy of bricked mechanical hard drives I suffered for nearly 30 years? ( which I gotta believe is a higher fail rate... at least in the 90's scsi/ide than early SSD adoption suffers percentage wise for "enthusiast use". Which is probably harsher than typical consumer non usage use? )