Thursday, August 26th 2021

Et tu, Samsung? Samsung Too Changes Components for their 970 EVO Plus SSD

A number of manufacturers have been caught red-handed, so to speak, by changing components on their SSD products without as much as a product specifications change. This has happened in the past with ADATA, Patriot, and more recently with Western Digital and its WD Blue SN550; now, it's Samsung that's being on the receiving end of a more attentive look at their recent batches of the 970 EVO SSD - particularly its 1 TB configuration.

According to Computerbase, a YouTube channel in Asia seems to have first noticed the difference. They've tested the older version of Samsung's 970 Evo Plus 1 TB (product number MZVLB1T0HBLR, April 2021 production date, a Phoenix controller [S4LR020] and 96-layer 3D TLC NAND) against the newer (product number MZVL21T0HBLU and is equipped with an Elpis controller [S4LV003] and 3D-NAND with the identifier K9DUGY8J5B-CCK0), which likely features different packaging and density for the same 96-layer 3D TLC NAND.
It seems that the new version of the SSD is faster in workloads up to 115 GB - the size of its revised SLC cache, meant to absorb burst of write activity at faster speeds than the remainder NAND working in TLC mode. The original SLC cache provision stood at 42 GB, which is what the original version shipped with, and whose behavior is confirmed in testing - the original release of the Samsung 970 Evo Plus exhausts its SLC cache (with the appropriate performance drop from overflowing into TLC) at around 40 GB. This performance change is a welcome one, even if it too should be updated on the drives' official specifications. The drive does however deliver lower performance once its SLC cache is exhausted - the original version kept chugging along with data writing speeds of around 1,500 MB/s after the first 40 GB were written, while the new revision drops that performance to 800 MB/s after 115 GB of writes. So users can be faced with either improved performance, or worsened performance, in this same product compared to the original. Check the results in the gallery below, where the original revision is on the left side (BIOS 2B2QEXM7), and the new revision is on the right (3B2QEXM7).
Component changes in electronics are not uncommon themselves; there are a number of products and chips that can employ several alternatives in the supply chain. this has become especially more important a safety mechanism for manufacturers with the still straining electronics supply chains, which are still reeling from Covid-19. However, sometimes changes are enacted not because manufacturers are forced to do it on account of component shortages; sometimes, they do it to save some extra dollars here and there. The problem arises when a products' performance characteristics suffers from the component change, which has been the case, every single time, for these changes in SSD components. The Samsung case is a different one - there are specific performance improvement and degradation according to workload.

Samsung differs in its peers by actually introducing a new serial number - as well as a new BIOS version - for this particular 970 EVO Plus rendition. However, would it be so hard to do this the right way again? Samsung had already done it with their 850 EVO V2 - which clearly demonstrated that two different revisions were available for the same product, with differing specifications listings as well. this is the way to not confuse customers. However, maybe Samsung felt they had no good way of doing this change: the drive isn't clearly better or clearly worse than the original revision it replaces. That said, slightly more information - or a press release from Samsung - could have mitigated these issues. Users should be able to know exactly what their money is purchasing. Check the original video below.

Sources: via YouTube, via Computerbase
Add your own comment

48 Comments on Et tu, Samsung? Samsung Too Changes Components for their 970 EVO Plus SSD

#26
Zareek
I'm disappointed that Samsung did not change the product name. They did at the very least release a new spec sheet and gave it a different part number. Still, I just don't understand why it couldn't be called something different. The possibilities are endless, 970 EVO Plus V2, 980 Plus, 975 EVO Plus. It can have a bigger number, no one cares! Just give it a new name if it has different parts.
Posted on Reply
#27
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
Seen this news all over the place, WD samsung and Adata have all been caught doing it

like seriously, i cant boycott EVERY brand
Posted on Reply
#28
bug
MusselsSeen this news all over the place, WD samsung and Adata have all been caught doing it

like seriously, i cant boycott EVERY brand
Tbh, both Samsung and WD apologized and pledged to use model names when this happens going forward. Other might have done the same, I haven't been paying attention.
Btw, you can add Crucial to that list :(
Posted on Reply
#29
GabrielLP14
SSD DB Maintainer
bugTbh, both Samsung and WD apologized and pledged to use model names when this happens going forward. Other might have done the same, I haven't been paying attention.
Btw, you can add Crucial to that list :(
Crucial and also SK Hynix
Posted on Reply
#30
bug
GabrielLP14Crucial and also SK Hynix
Hynix makes SSDs? I had no idea.
Posted on Reply
#31
5 o'clock Charlie
ThrashZoneHi,
980's have had lots of read/. write issues hitting spec's so this might not be a good thing.

Would of been nice to call it 970 evo minus lol
Yep, had. The latest firmware, 3B2QGXA7, for my 500G 980 pro restored my write speeds back to spec. Though I had to wait 6 months for a proper firmware fix. Hopefully, this won't be the case with this new 970 Evo plus.
Posted on Reply
#32
maxfly
My assumption is they didn't/aren't making a name change because they may have to change the controller, NAND, memory again (shortages might roll about again). Possibly back to the original or something altogether new.
Posted on Reply
#33
bobmeix
qlumSeems Samsung made the best out of their nand downgrade. However, because of the quite different characteristics, I still think it's pretty bad that they gave it the same name.

Sure, most writes will be faster considering roughly 150gb is the break-even point however, for people who regularly write above that it can be quite significant:
118 vs 147 seconds for 200gb
246 vs 384 at 400gb
roughly 30 seconds slower at 200gb
more than 138 seconds at 400gb
Where the maximum time saving the new drive this way would be just be 18 seconds

These are just my numbers plotted in google sheets, I have skimped over details / possibly contains errors,
In case anyone cares: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pGIGu38fhuUbchcOKSaccEU7AMIbXHyoOSGqgJevDyw/edit?usp=sharing

Another thing is temperatures, the new drive runs hotter, possibly consumes more power? not something you want in a laptop which is quite a common usecase.

Either way, I think it's generally bad to keep the sku the same with such potential regressions, even if the vast majority of users will only benefit.
Just call it the 975 EVO Plus or if you want to go the intel route the 970 EVO Plus Plus.
I know keeping things in stock and continuity is an issue but a complete redesign warrants a new name at least.
I've looked at your spreadsheet and I would modify it a bit, because you have used the same cached write speed for both drives. If you look at the HD Tune graphs: the OLD unit seems to write with ~ 1750 MB/s for the first 42 GB, then drops to ~ 1500 MB/s; only the NEW one seems to start out at ~ 2500 MB/s for 115 GB, then drops to ~ 800 MB/s. If you want to be accurate you should modify your formulas.
If you've used the real world file copy speeds (from the video) as a reference, then your ~ 2500 MB cached speed for both drives is ok. Anyway, if you copy a lot of data to both drives, the cached speed doesn't really matter.

Still, the NEW drive is definitely a poor(er) choice for write intensive applications.
Posted on Reply
#34
trsttte
maxflyMy assumption is they didn't/aren't making a name change because they may have to change the controller, NAND, memory again (shortages might roll about again). Possibly back to the original or something altogether new.
I don't believe that applies to samsung, they are using their own fabs, they control the supply. I understand the initial change because they can streamline production (only need to make 1 controller isntead of 2) but they absolutely should have announced something since it might negatively affect performance depending on the workload.
Posted on Reply
#35
maxfly
trsttteI don't believe that applies to samsung, they are using their own fabs, they control the supply. I understand the initial change because they can streamline production (only need to make 1 controller isntead of 2) but they absolutely should have announced something since it might negatively affect performance depending on the workload.
And yet they ran out of the original controllers. Hence my comment. Check out the tomshardware article for more on the other components they have replaced.

"A DigiTimes report confirmed that Samsung has been facing a SSD controller shortage due to the fact that its Texa factories, which produce SSD controllers, have been idle since February."
Quoted from the article.
Posted on Reply
#36
mechtech
So is this a case of trying to save a few pennies and increase profits??
or
supply issues and using whatever is available??
Posted on Reply
#37
Tardian
The issue is IHO, one of transparency.

Based on what I have read in the article and comments above, there are both pluses and minuses to the changes, and depending on your intended use of the drive the outcome could + or - or both.
Posted on Reply
#38
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
They should just stick a V 2.0 V 3.0 etc after the serial number on the box at least, if the expense of testing labelling marketing a new product etc is too much money
Posted on Reply
#39
trsttte
mechtechSo is this a case of trying to save a few pennies and increase profits??
or
supply issues and using whatever is available??
Streamlining production is due to increase profits but I think it's more likely they were managing supply (I wouldn't say supply issues because they use their own controller and nand, more of prioritizing supply between product lines).
TardianThe issue is In My Never Humber Opinion (IMNHO) one of transparency. Based on what I have read in the article and comments above, there are both pluses and minuses to the changes, and depending on your intended use of the drive the outcome could + or - or both.
I agree, I don't think it's a particular case of mischief like previous cases but they should still have been more transparent about it and handle this better. The ammount of money that it would cost to print a new box and do a simple press release is a rounding error on the product development to change the controller and nand
Posted on Reply
#40
maxfly
mechtechSo is this a case of trying to save a few pennies and increase profits??
or
supply issues and using whatever is available??
Being that they are using the elpis controller from the top tier 980pro, its not a cost saving maneuver.

They did in fact change the box and part number. They just didn't change the evo plus name (they will likely be changing back to the original parts once the Texas factories are back online and caught up). Read the tomshardware article. They explain all of the changes.

Edit-fixed typo.
Posted on Reply
#41
TheUn4seen
lynx29I love the ancient Rome Brutus reference in the title lol
I also like how Computerbase used a scene release of Ready Player One to showcase the difference.
Posted on Reply
#42
Darksword
These are some 1st-world problems right here. ;)
Posted on Reply
#43
Prima.Vera
DarkswordThese are some 1st-world problems right here. ;)
That's not the point.
Posted on Reply
#44
R-T-B
DarkswordThese are some 1st-world problems right here. ;)
We're on a latest stuff tech forum, so yeah, like duh.
Posted on Reply
#45
Tardian
These are some 1st-world problems right here.
As a white entitled (nearly titled) Australian who tries to be woke (but whose kids think I just woke from the dead: a zombie), I try to empathize with those who are less fortunate. It is easy for me because I spent 25 years living from pay to pay. To the Billionaires of the world, we here are all untouchables.:cool:
Posted on Reply
#46
bug
DarkswordThese are some 1st-world problems right here. ;)
Why? Does Samsung still sell the original drive in the rest of the world?
Posted on Reply
#47
Tardian
Why? Does Samsung still sell the original drive in the rest of the world?
Is meant to be funny? ... I am not sure? To state the bleeding obvious: Worrying about a minor change to the 970 EVO Plus SSD is something that does not matter to those who do not have access to clean water, food, paid work, shelter, healthcare, vaccines, security, absence of fear, the internet, a device of any kind ...

Posted on Reply
#48
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
TardianIs meant to be funny? ... I am not sure? To state the bleeding obvious: Worrying about a minor change to the 970 EVO Plus SSD is something that does not matter to those who do not have access to clean water, food, paid work, shelter, healthcare, vaccines, security, absence of fear, the internet, a device of any kind ...

Yeah... those people wouldn't be buying an SSD in the first place, so that's really irrelevant.
How dare you eat food, kids are starving in Africa!
How dare you drink water, Australia is in a drought!

It's pointless posturing, and really not a useful discussion.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 11th, 2025 10:05 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts