Samsung 870 QVO 1 TB

[Deleted member 215115]

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.

There are no cost savings whatsoever and people who defend QVO have no idea what they're talking about, but will still defend their shitty purchases no matter what, as usual. The QVO drives are bad, it is 100% noticeable, they were always too expensive and there is no reason at all to buy one. Those are all facts. This argument is pointless.

 

[R0H1T]

Thanks for bringing this to our notice, we'll forward your suggestions to the potential buyers who're looking to replace their sh!tty spinners (4/8 TB?) with something that doesn't force them to rob a bank

QVO on sale is a good choice for anyone who wants semi decent SSD, with Samsung backed warranty & generally highly reliable components, from the house of Sammy.

 

[bug]

Thanks for bringing this to our notice, we'll forward your suggestions to the potential buyers who're looking to replace their sh!tty spinners (4/8 TB?) with something that doesn't force them to rob a bank

QVO on sale is a good choice for anyone who wants semi decent SSD, with Samsung backed warranty & generally highly reliable components, from the house of Sammy.

TPU: Samsung 870 QVO 1 TB Review - Terrible, Do Not Buy
Anandtech: At 1TB and 2TB, there's usually a mainstream TLC drive to be found for less than the 870 QVO or 860 QVO.

It's passable if you look at it at the right angle. But "good choice" it is not.

 

[ViperXTR]

necro thread but something that aligned to might current dilemna of getting a QVO or another MX500 or BX500 to replace my ancient 1TB spinner

 

[bug]

necro thread but something that aligned to might current dilemna of getting a QVO or another MX500 or BX500 to replace my ancient 1TB spinner

BX is still too bad and not significantly cheaper than MX. But there are other options, like the WD Blue or some Sandisk models. Possibly Adata, too, but I haven't been following them lately.
Imho, the MX500 is the obvious choice, but depending on discounts and availability, it's worth to keep an eye on the others.

 

[ViperXTR]

BX is still too bad and not significantly cheaper than MX. But there are other options, like the WD Blue or some Sandisk models. Possibly Adata, too, but I haven't been following them lately.
Imho, the MX500 is the obvious choice, but depending on discounts and availability, it's worth to keep an eye on the others.

Yeah, ive had good experience with crucial starting with the MX100 (which still works fine and dandy today on another pc) and an MX500 1TB, id look at WD as well, i guess its just a matter of warranty on my region

 

[R0H1T]

TPU: Samsung 870 QVO 1 TB Review - Terrible, Do Not Buy
Anandtech: At 1TB and 2TB, there's usually a mainstream TLC drive to be found for less than the 870 QVO or 860 QVO.

It's passable if you look at it at the right angle. But "good choice" it is not.

Depends a lot on where you are, on sale I haven't seen anything much cheaper than QVO maybe 5-10% lower at best. I'm willing to pay 10% more for Samsung backed support. This may differ perhaps in the EU but even then the QVO is priced competitively.

 

[Deleted member 215115]

This may differ perhaps in the EU but even then the QVO is priced competitively.

Prices in the US at the top of the page. Prices in Germany down below. Use your eyes and stop posting nonsense.

 

[bug]

Depends a lot on where you are, on sale I haven't seen anything much cheaper than QVO maybe 5-10% lower at best. I'm willing to pay 10% more for Samsung backed support. This may differ perhaps in the EU but even then the QVO is priced competitively.

Fair enough. But my point wasn't that you could find something cheaper than QVO, it was that any TLC drive at the same price point is a better buy.

 

[Chrispy_]

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.

So something like COD Warzone would be copied from the OS temp folder, likely NVMe storage reading at 3000MB/s or more?

Ouch. Even the 2TB QVO doesn't have enough SLC cache to cover for that. 84GB and then you're at 120MB/s or some embarrassing nonsense that makes the last 16GB take twice as long to transfer as the first 84GB did.

I'm willing to pay 10% more for Samsung backed support

Uh, Samsung support is absolutely abysmal.

Their defective 840-series was never recalled. After data loss for thousands of people they finally issued a firmware fix nine months late, but only for the EVO. The OEM drives and vanilla 840 owners were left to suffer (or use a third-party workaround like DiskFresh to offset the data-loss-causing voltage drift that occured if data wasn't continually re-written every couple of months).

Their track record with phones is equally bad, remember they only started recalling the defective Note 7 when threatened by the US government! Does anyone remember the fiasco over refusing to accept liability for their exploding washing machines that actually injured people and blew up entire floors of buildings.

If you buy Samsung, you ARE a paying beta tester and you will be left to fend for yourself because they're too big to care. There's a decade of proof that's unchangeably written into history at this point.

 

[trparky]

Their track record with phones is equally bad

Yeah, not to take this thread off topic but they're not too great in wanting to keep software up to date for more than a year on their phones.

 

[seth1911]

I had 3 weeks ago a QLC SSD here.

Its pure garbage if u transfer a high amount of datas a 4TB HDD cost less than 25% of a 4TB QLC but it isnt much slower.
I transfered about 2 TB and the HDD took 2 min longer.


The QLC had a single cache buffer, but after that it was slower than a 7500rpm HDD, nearly on pair with a 5400rpm HDD:
7500rpm 120 MB/s
QLC without buffer 69 MB/s
5400rpm 68 MB/s


Eidt: Nah just for fun my BD Drive can write:
72 MB/s on Singlelayer
63 MB/s on Duallayer

 

[Chrispy_]

Yeah, not to take this thread off topic but they're not too great in wanting to keep software up to date for more than a year on their phones.

Oh yeah, I wasn't talking about the Samsung stuff that's annoying but legal, I was just listing things that warranted class-action lawsuits and government intervention.

 

[trparky]

TLC NAND is the absolute limit that I can take when it comes to SSDs, any less than that and you're going to have a bad time.

 

[newtekie1]

There are no cost savings whatsoever

So you'll easily be able to show me a 8TB TLC based SSD for under $700 then, right?

people who defend QVO have no idea what they're talking about, but will still defend their shitty purchases no matter what, as usual.

I fell that people basing QVO have no idea what they're talking about.

The QVO drives are bad, it is 100% noticeable, they were always too expensive and there is no reason at all to buy one.

They aren't bad in sizes 2TB and above, it is 99% not noticeable, and they aren't always expensive. And significant cost savings is a reason to buy one. These are all facts.

QLC without buffer 69 MB/s

I mean, you're posting in a professional review that directly proves you are wrong here. Why even post it? And not to mention there are plenty of other reviews that show the larger QVO drives are closer to 180MB/s.

So something like COD Warzone would be copied from the OS temp folder, likely NVMe storage reading at 3000MB/s or more?

Ouch. Even the 2TB QVO doesn't have enough SLC cache to cover for that. 84GB and then you're at 120MB/s or some embarrassing nonsense that makes the last 16GB take twice as long to transfer as the first 84GB did.

That isn't how it work, at least not with Steam. With Steam it is downloaded to the same folder it is being installed to. So it would download to the QVO, but the download itself doesn't use SLC cache, because it isn't fast enough. The download is going slower than the actual write speed directly to QLC, so no cache space is used. Then the files are decompressed on the drive, that is when the SLC cache would be used, and as long as the game is under 80GB, it will never see the slower write speeds.

 

[Selaya]

I mean, this is a classic case of there's no such thing as a bad product, only bad pricing (it suffers from bad performance, sometimes rather critically so, as the 1TB model wrt post-SLC sequentials, but fundamentally is not a broken product unlike lets say, gigafail power supplies).

As long as the savings for a QVO is significant enough compared to the next-best TLC they're viable options for cheap(-ish) secondary storage. Heck, in a pinch they'll even do as system drives, but I can see a point in wanting something better there. Also, I would stay away from the 1TB version but that's not too much of a ask since this is a product you'd buy to have lots of cheap storage, and for that the 8TB version's great (or the 4/2 ones too ...), since the price for QVOs been ticking down slowly but steadily. Fight me.

 

[seth1911]

I mean, you're posting in a professional review that directly proves you are wrong here. Why even post it? And not to mention there are plenty of other reviews that show the larger QVO drives are closer to 180MB/s.

Because 180 MB/s is totaly bullshit for QLC

 

[Deleted member 215115]

So you'll easily be able to show me a 8TB TLC based SSD for under $700 then, right?

You can just get two 4 TB.

I fell that people basing QVO have no idea what they're talking about.

We do actually. I've used many many SSDs over the years. That's one benefit of working in IT. The QVO is terrible and nothing you post will change that.

They aren't bad in sizes 2TB and above, it is 99% not noticeable, and they aren't always expensive. And significant cost savings is a reason to buy one. These are all facts.

I just showed that there are no cost savings. Just look at screenshots I posted above. This is my final post on this topic. Enjoy being wrong.

 

[newtekie1]

You can just get two 4 TB.

That's not what I asked. Can I fit 2 2.5" SSDs in my laptop? Nope.

Again, show me a 8TB TLC SSD for under $700 or admit you are wrong.

We do actually. I've used many many SSDs over the years. That's one benefit of working in IT. The QVO is terrible and nothing you post will change that.

No, you don't. Not only am I in IT and used thousands of SSD including the QVO. It behaved exactly like any other SSD in normal use. To the point that I bet people wouldn't be able to pick it out from a TLC SSD in a blind test using it as a system drive on their computer. The 80GB of SLC cache is more than enough for even installing large Windows updates.

I just showed that there are no cost savings. Just look at screenshots I posted above. This is my final post on this topic. Enjoy being wrong.

No you didn't. If you can't post a 8TB TLC drive for under $700, you're wrong. There clearly is cost savings in some areas. Enjoy being wrong.

 

[chrcoluk]

I had 3 weeks ago a QLC SSD here.

Its pure garbage if u transfer a high amount of datas a 4TB HDD cost less than 25% of a 4TB QLC but it isnt much slower.
I transfered about 2 TB and the HDD took 2 min longer.


The QLC had a single cache buffer, but after that it was slower than a 7500rpm HDD, nearly on pair with a 5400rpm HDD:
7500rpm 120 MB/s
QLC without buffer 69 MB/s
5400rpm 68 MB/s


Eidt: Nah just for fun my BD Drive can write:
72 MB/s on Singlelayer
63 MB/s on Duallayer

How are you managing to get a 4TB QLC so cheap? The price difference is way bigger than 25%.

So its even worse than you said, the price difference is bigger, and 4TB hdd's typically run way faster than the speeds you quoted for sequential.

My 4TB 5400RPM's do over 120MB/sec.

 

[bug]

That's not what I asked. Can I fit 2 2.5" SSDs in my laptop? Nope.

Of course that's not what you asked, you're just making up impossible scenarios. Who the hell uses their laptop as their main storage device?

 

[newtekie1]

Of course that's not what you asked, you're just making up impossible scenarios. Who the hell uses their laptop as their main storage device?

1. People that only have a laptop use it as their only storage device.
2. I have an 8TB drive in my laptop because I travel and bring my media and Steam library with me. I do this so I can play games and watch movies even when I'm spending weeks in areas with no reliable internet connection.

Now, we can either find me an 8TB TLC drive for under $700, or admit that there are some good value QLC drives.

 

[bug]

1. People that only have a laptop use it as their only storage device.
2. I have an 8TB drive in my laptop because I travel and bring my media and Steam library with me. I do this so I can play games and watch movies even when I'm spending weeks in areas with no reliable internet connection.

Now, we can either find me an 8TB TLC drive for under $700, or admit that there are some good value QLC drives.

There are no good value QLC drives. There are just some select scenarios you can work around their limitations (i.e. somehow whatever you do with your laptop does not need frequent writing).

I also doubt very much you actually need 8TB of games and videos on a single trip, but since SSDs don't like being anywhere near full, I'll give you that one.

 

[Chrispy_]

The best QLC drives (Rocket Q, 660p) are debatably good value in specific circumstances. At the right price, and with buyers aware of the downsides they can make sense.
The QVO is just a bad product even when taking those caveats into consideration. If you're going to buy a QLC drive, buy one that doesn't suck from a company that doesn't suck.

When an 8TB Ironwolf drive can stream sequential data at 230MB/s for 1/3rd the price, you should either buy a good SSD or just save your money. Paying almost as much as a full-fat TLC SSD for a flawed QVO is just dumb.

 

[Selaya]

but you're getting more than that, you're getting all the SSD randoms (well, kinda, they're all slightly worse); the only 'crippling' flaw of the QVO are the post-SLC sequential writes, something that comes up maybe once every other blue moon for the average joe, if at all.

You're really blowing this way out of proportions.
(Also, last time I checked the QVO is the only non-enterprise 8TB SATA offering, so.)