Lardman wrote:
I have a mix of evo and MX500 here -I can't tell any difference in normal usage.
Not sure I'd use a commercial grade SSD for drive images (if that's what you're planning) depending on your through-put you may see considerably reduce drive life - that might not matter, all depends on what you're planning on doing with them.
Not sure I'd use a commercial grade SSD for drive images (if that's what you're planning) depending on your through-put you may see considerably reduce drive life - that might not matter, all depends on what you're planning on doing with them.
Thanks Lardman
Yes for normal usage difference may not be visible. But following information about endurance , type of nand and other technical factors provoked me for this query.
I will be using this ssd towards internal data storage ( crucial data for long time) , I want to buy drives of different sizes - 250 GB for live winpe USB boot.
larger drives for disk cloning etc. So I am looking for highly reliable , well built drive.
This is from Anandtech ---
The industry put a lot of effort into preparing for the arrival of QLC NAND: beefing up error correction to
compensate for lower write endurance, and tuning cache algorithms on consumer drives to forestall dealing
with lower performance after SLC caches run out. But in spite of all the work it took to make QLC SSDs
viable, they haven't made much of a splash and definitely aren't displacing TLC from the market yet.
The 870 QVO does bring a controller update, replacing the MJX with the MKX in
Samsung's long line of SATA SSD controllers. Samsung hasn't disclosed any particular enhancements to
their controller or firmware architecture, and we suspect this iteration is a more minor update than the last
one.
almost any drive can saturate the 6Gbps interface under ideal conditions, with random or sequential reads
or writes at a high enough queue depth. Samsung goes the extra mile to provide specs for performance at
queue depth 1, and performance after the SLC cache runs out. Some of those numbers look pretty brutal:
sequential write speeds dropping to a mere 80MB/s for the 1TB model, and even random reads are
considerably slower when accessing QLC data rather than the SLC cache. But overall, these specs are very
similar to the 860 QVO. Random write performance at QD1 appears to have taken a bit of a hit, but
everywhere else performance for the 870 QVO is rated to be equal or slightly better than its predecessor.
In a way, that's good for this review, because the 870 QVO doesn't have much direct competition in the form
of other large QLC SATA drives. Most of the SSDs that are considerably cheaper than the 860/870 QVOs
are DRAMless SSDs, usually TLC but occasionally QLC. The cheapest entry-level NVMe SSDs are all either
DRAMless with TLC, or use QLC with a more mainstream controller.
| Attachments: |
|
QLC performance drop.png [ 99.8 KiB | Viewed 24499 times ] |
.