Samsung 870 QVO 1 TB

[AsRock]

He offered you a EVO in place of it and you turned it down ?, then again which EVO.

 

[aviasd]

He offered you a EVO in place of it and you turned it down ?, then again which EVO.

Whoops , Sorry - He offered me a new QVO, same Model (860 1TB) . He reached somehow the conclusion that specific disk was defective...

 

[BlackAle]

What a completely stupid review, you'd think those in the industry would understand the need the QLC drives.

Yes, initial QLC drives weren't greatly priced, but you can now get the Samsung 870 QVO 4TB for ~£300 and the prices will drop further is the coming months.

 

[AsRock]

Whoops , Sorry - He offered me a new QVO, same Model (860 1TB) . He reached somehow the conclusion that specific disk was defective...

At least he offered a good drive this time hehe, 130$ is about the going price in the US, don't know about were you are.

 

[W1zzard]

What a completely stupid review, you'd think those in the industry would understand the need the QLC drives.

Yes, initial QLC drives weren't greatly priced, but you can now get the Samsung 870 QVO 4TB for ~£300 and the prices will drop further is the coming months.

You mean GBP 400 ?

I never said you shouldn't buy QLC, it's fine for plenty of reasons. Just don't buy the Samsung 870 QVO. For example you can get the WD Blue (TLC) for the same price which is MUCH faster, also Sandisk and ADATA S40G are in a similar price range, much better perf, too

 

[FreedomEclipse]

You mean GBP 400 ?

I never said you shouldn't buy QLC, it's fine for plenty of reasons. Just don't buy the Samsung 870 QVO. For example you can get the WD Blue (TLC) for the same price which is MUCH faster, also Sandisk and ADATA S40G are in a similar price range, much better perf, too

Necro Thread (yes i know)

What would you say if there was a 2TB version for $168? price per GB is absolutely insane

 

[bug]

Necro Thread (yes i know)

What would you say if there was a 2TB version for $168? price per GB is absolutely insane

Not really. I just got a 2TB MX500 (TLC) for ~$180.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Not really. I just got a 2TB MX500 (TLC) for ~$180.

Im just going to use it as basic storage though.

I can get a 2TB BX500 for $182. a 2TB MX500 costs $225 here so its not on discount yet

 

[BlackAle]

You mean GBP 400 ?

I meant the price I said £300, it's now £295 on Amazon UK.

 

[W1zzard]

You can buy shit drives all day, but do yourself a favor and at least consider SanDisk Ultra 3D 4 TB and Crucial MX500 4 TB, not much price difference, but at least they offer somewhat decent write performance

 

[Chrispy_]

I meant the price I said £300, it's now £295 on Amazon UK.

That's the SATA model. Why buy a shitty QVO when the excellent MX500 is the same price?
Stop paying for shit, it encourages them to manufacture more shit.

 

[BlackAle]

That's the SATA model. Why buy a shitty QVO when the excellent MX500 is the same price?
Stop paying for shit, it encourages them to manufacture more shit.

Obviously it's the SATA model, hence why I said 870. The nvme models start with 9.

 

[Chrispy_]

Obviously it's the SATA model, hence why I said 870. The nvme models start with 9.

I just steer clear of QVO period, because it's objectively bad. Excuse me for not knowing the nuances of a shit product family.

Buy the crappy drive if you want, I'm not responsible for your decisions - but just know that you're not getting a good product and don't come back here crying that we didn't warn you.

 

[INSTG8R]

I just steer clear of QVO period, because it's objectively bad. Excuse me for not knowing the nuances of a shit product family.

Buy the crappy drive if you want, I'm not responsible for your decisions - but just know that you're not getting a good product and don't come back here crying that we didn't warn you.

The 860 QVO is a great budget SSD. I bought a 1TB one just for MS Games because if you format Windows won’t let you use the drive until it’s formatted again. I also put my CoDs there well because they’re HUGE and I’m not gonna waste my NVMEs space on them.
How is it objectively bad? It performs the same as any other SSD.

 

[BlackAle]

I just steer clear of QVO period, because it's objectively bad. Excuse me for not knowing the nuances of a shit product family.

Buy the crappy drive if you want, I'm not responsible for your decisions - but just know that you're not getting a good product and don't come back here crying that we didn't warn you.

I'm not buying it. I just stated the price of a drive. This thread is about the 870 QVO.

I personally use a 970 Evo & 970 Evo plus.

 

[Chrispy_]

The 860 QVO is a great budget SSD. I bought a 1TB one just for MS Games because if you format Windows won’t let you use the drive until it’s formatted again. I also put my CoDs there well because they’re HUGE and I’m not gonna waste my NVMEs space on them.
How is it objectively bad? It performs the same as any other SSD.

I'm not going to do the job of countless independent reviews from multiple sources (including TPU) that paint the QVO series as bad. It's not up for debate, they are objectively bad and dozens of respected, independent reviewers have proved that with repeatable, documented, impartial tests up for public scrutiny.

If your requirements for an SSD are so low that even a bad drive works, then sure - it's usable; I still don't understand why you'd buy a bad drive at the exact same cost/GB as a good drive though.
Bad QLC products like the QVO series need to be 25% cheaper than the cheapest TLC drives IMO. You're not getting the performance or the endurance to warrant spending TLC money on a QLC drive, and Samsung's QLC drives are measurably worse than other QLC drives from the competition.

 

[bug]

I'm not going to do the job of countless independent reviews from multiple sources (including TPU) that paint the QVO series as bad. It's not up for debate, they are objectively bad and dozens of respected, independent reviewers have proved that with repeatable, documented, impartial tests up for public scrutiny.

If your requirements for an SSD are so low that even a bad drive works, then sure - it's usable; I still don't understand why you'd buy a bad drive at the exact same cost/GB as a good drive though.
Bad QLC products like the QVO series need to be 25% cheaper than the cheapest TLC drives IMO. You're not getting the performance or the endurance to warrant spending TLC money on a QLC drive, and Samsung's QLC drives are measurably worse than other QLC drives from the competition.

Objectively speaking, QLC can work as a game drive: rarely written, lots of reads. QLC's weaknesses are low endurance, slow access and abysmal writes if you write a lot at one time. Games manage to eschew most of these.

But I still won't touch QLC while TLC can be had for ~$10 more. I could consider it if it could be had for half price or so.

 

[INSTG8R]

Objectively speaking, QLC can work as a game drive: rarely written, lots of reads. QLC's weaknesses are low endurance, slow access and abysmal writes if you write a lot at one time. Games manage to eschew most of these.

But I still won't touch QLC while TLC can be had for ~$10 more. I could consider it if it could be had for half price or so.

And it does that well and I'm running large and new games like Vanguard and Forza 5 off it right now I would expect possibly Forza would show any kinda of weaknesses that would probably show up as stuttering in game. I bought it as a budget drive it for extra game space it fits that purpose. I mean for the most part that looks like regular SSD performance to me?

 

[newtekie1]

How is it objectively bad? It performs the same as any other SSD.

People like Chrispy_ like to harp on the poor write performance of the 1TB version of the 870 QVO as proof that the drives are bad. But the fact is the 1TB version of the 870 QVO has write performance that is less than half what the 2TB+ versions get. Not only is the SLC cache on the larger drives doubled, but so is the write speed when the cache is full. The reality of it is that if you sat someone down in front of a computer with a 870 QVO vs a computer with another TLC SATA drive in it in a blind test, they wouldn't be able to recognize which was a QLC drive.

I'm not saying I'd buy one for the prices they are at when there aren't cheap enough compared to better drives. The 8TB version is really the only one I'd consider because its only $680. The closest TLC drive is $1,000. That kind of savings makes it worth it. But the reasons people harp on QLC are just no accurate.

 

[bug]

And it does that well and I'm running large and new games like Vanguard and Forza 5 off it right now I would expect possibly Forza would show any kinda of weaknesses that would probably show up as stuttering in game. I bought it as a budget drive it for extra game space it fits that purpose. I mean for the most part that looks like regular SSD performance to me?
View attachment 225622

Performance is bad. 32MB/s random reads is as bad as it gets. But at least it won't die on you too soon (QLC is only good for few hundred p/e cycles).
Game installs will be slow *but you don't do them often) and luckily level loading is mostly a sequential affair.

Even those sequential speeds are not sustained for long. It can only sustain less then 200MB/s, which is HDD territory. Once again, luckily for you, games don't need to sustain reads for long. At 500MB/s, you've loaded 5GB in 10s.

 

[INSTG8R]

Performance is bad. 32MB/s random reads is as bad as it gets. But at least it won't die on you too soon (QLC is only good for few hundred p/e cycles).
Game installs will be slow *but you don't do them often) and luckily level loading is mostly a sequential affair.

Even those sequential speeds are not sustained for long. It can only sustain less then 200MB/s, which is HDD territory. Once again, luckily for you, games don't need to sustain reads for long. At 500MB/s, you've loaded 5GB in 10s.

Honestly it was an impulse buy I got tired of UWP games ruining an entire game drive. So it gets to be the "sacrificial drive" that I don't care about formatting. I Just needed "another drive" and my 2 850 EVOs in RAID0 have never let me down so I went Samsung. my OS is a 970 EVO Pro I did step out and grab a WD Black SN750 1TB as my "fast game drive"

 

[Chrispy_]

Even those sequential speeds are not sustained for long. It can only sustain less then 200MB/s, which is HDD territory. Once again, luckily for you, games don't need to sustain reads for long. At 500MB/s, you've loaded 5GB in 10s.

Actually, individual game installs will be fine because they'll be installed via the internet which is typically slower than the 870QVO's write speed and with 40GB of cache it'll operate in SLC mode for most of the typical game install anyway.

Where the QVO is a total disaster is if you're moving games from other drives using the Steam library functionality. I have NVMe/SATA/NAS and I move games between drives quite frequently based on what I'm playing a lot of at any one time. QVO would absolutely choke on this operation and it's something I do regularly.

So, even with the low, low requirements of "only used for a games library" it's already objectively worse than pretty much any other SSD you can get your hands on, period.

People like Chrispy_ like to harp on the poor write performance of the 1TB version of the 870 QVO as proof that the drives are bad. But the fact is the 1TB version of the 870 QVO has write performance that is less than half what the 2TB+ versions get.

You're literally writing this in the comments section of a 1TB version review. Yes, a larger cache will help mask the QVO's glaring deficiencies but once again, there's no reason to buy an inferior performance, inferior endurance product at the same price as an objectively superior TLC drive. *If* you get the QVO significantly cheaper than anything else on the market then that's a different issue but the arguments against the QVO are made at identical prices to objectively better drives.

 

[newtekie1]

Even those sequential speeds are not sustained for long.

80GB is almost always long enough. And the speeds only slow down for writes, not reads. It will read a full speed for as long as needed.

Where the QVO is a total disaster is if you're moving games from other drives using the Steam library functionality. I have NVMe/SATA/NAS and I move games between drives quite frequently based on what I'm playing a lot of at any one time. QVO would absolutely choke on this operation and it's something I do regularly.

Even if those games are huge, the larger QVO will be petty darn fast, faster than a hard drive. It won't absolutely choke, even on large games. It won't be insanely fast, but still faster than a 1Gbps network connection if you are moving data off your NAS, and while it might take a little longer moving a game from another local drive, most people aren't doing that often. Even if you do, it won't be unbearably slow, and still faster than a hard drive.

You're literally writing this in the comments section of a 1TB version review.

Yes, and it is perfectly fair to point out the issues with the 1TB version are not issues with the larger versions, which is what I'm doing.

Yes, a larger cache will help mask the QVO's glaring deficiencies but once again, there's no reason to buy an inferior performance, inferior endurance product at the same price as an objectively superior TLC drive.

Yeah, I believe I said that.

*If* you get the QVO significantly cheaper than anything else on the market then that's a different issue but the arguments against the QVO are made at identical prices to objectively better drives.

The decision if the cost savings is worth the negatives is up to the person buying the drive. The issue is you overexaggerate the negatives of QVO drives. The fact is most people would never even notice the slower write speed, or even if they did it happens so infrequently that it wouldn't bother them.

 

[bug]

Actually, individual game installs will be fine because they'll be installed via the internet which is typically slower than the 870QVO's write speed and with 40GB of cache it'll operate in SLC mode for most of the typical game install anyway.

Actually, they're downloaded to some temp location and then moved/unpacked to the install folder. At least that was my experience.
But I'm splitting hairs.

Honestly it was an impulse buy I got tired of UWP games ruining an entire game drive. So it gets to be the "sacrificial drive" that I don't care about formatting. I Just needed "another drive" and my 2 850 EVOs in RAID0 have never let me down so I went Samsung. my OS is a 970 EVO Pro I did step out and grab a WD Black SN750 1TB as my "fast game drive"

I wasn't judging. I was just saying, for about the same price, you can usually get a TLC drive that's just plain better. If at the moment you bought, that was your best bet, that's fine by me.

Fwiw, I also hold Samsung in high regard when it comes to SSDs. When I got my first large drive though, I went MX300, because Samsung was just too expensive. Later, when I needed a second OS drive, I thought I'd look at other options again, but lo and behold, I got a 970 EVO at a good price (the Plus was again too expensive). So yeah, Samsung's good, but about 50% of the time, to expensive for what you get. And they're certainly not the only game in town. Crucial, Sandisk/WD are also consistently solid.

 

[chrcoluk]

What a completely stupid review, you'd think those in the industry would understand the need the QLC drives.

Yes, initial QLC drives weren't greatly priced, but you can now get the Samsung 870 QVO 4TB for ~£300 and the prices will drop further is the coming months.

That price isnt great, for all the deficiencies of QLC I wouldnt pay more then about 50% the price of a TLC drive, and that price isnt close, of course QLC doesnt actually save much manufacturing cost so they wont go that low.

At launch I was seeing QVO drives costing the same or more as EVO drives.

You can buy shit drives all day, but do yourself a favor and at least consider SanDisk Ultra 3D 4 TB and Crucial MX500 4 TB, not much price difference, but at least they offer somewhat decent write performance

Ordered samsung to replace my MX500 a few hours ago

But still even with the firmware issues I would take a MX500 over a QVO.