Samsung 870 QVO 1 TB

[bug]

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.)

You're also getting about half the endurance. And with lower charge per cell, it's even more susceptible to data corruption if left unpowered.
I don\t know about you, but I would never buy that while I can get TLC at the same price.

 

[Selaya]

Neither would I, or anyone sane for that matter.
The argument is that QLC and in this specific case the (8TB) QVO are viable options because they're either significantly cheaper and/or the only option available for a specific use case.
And for that, despite its sometimes-awful characteristics is still a useful product and miles ahead of a HDD.

 

[newtekie1]

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.

You can not claim there are no good value QLC drives unless you can show me a 8TB TLC drive for under $700. Period.

And you're right, I don't put my games and videos on the 8TB QVO, because they won't fit. I still have to put the media on an external. Not that that is a big issue, since I videos don't need an SSD.

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.

And an 8TB Ironwolf won't fill all the needs a 2.5" SSD does.

Sequential data rates aren't even really a true measure of a drives performance, we've all known this for years and it's why drive benchmarks have move away from it. You keep harping on how the sequential write performance dropping to HDD speeds after the SLC cache is used up. But that argument is like measuring how good a car is by how fast it is in a drag race...in reverse. It's a metric that doesn't matter in the real world.

You want some real world results? Fire up CrystalDiskMark and set it to Real World + Mix. Cause you know what people do a lot of? Reading from their drive while background processes write to it. You know what makes a HDD absolutely fall flat on its face? Trying to have it do two things at once.

Obviously paying as much for a QVO as a TLC drive is dumb, but saying the QVO is just as bad as a HDD or even comparing it to a HDD is also just as dumb.

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.

Exactly, the number of times someone writes more than 80GB at a time from a fast enough source to their SSD is insanely small.

I don\t know about you, but I would never buy that while I can get TLC at the same price.

You people keep saying this but can't back it up. So me an 8TB TLC drive for the same price. I'll wait.

 

[bug]

You can not claim there are no good value QLC drives unless you can show me a 8TB TLC drive for under $700. Period.

I understand that $700 SSDs is what it's all about, but try to understand that I'm in the improbable minority that doesn't give a rat's ass about that.

 

[chrcoluk]

The problem is I try to think of a use case for a 8TB SSD that "also" requires fast random i/o, "and" also not heavy on writes due to endurance issues. The closest i can think of would be VM hosting, but VM's have massive write amplification, especially on a decent file system like ZFS, which I wouldn't put QLC anywhere near unless I massively overprovisioned to compensate which then loses the capacity advantage. Not to mention you could easily exceed SLC size on VM imports which would then hit the slow sequential problem.

Large files don't tend to need random i/o., archive of data, media etc, hdd is fast enough, gaming SSD I expect for vast majority of people 4tb is plenty, for most 2tb is enough.

QLC isn't something that's unlocked 8TB as a possibility, we have to bear in mind this is a deliberate restriction by SSD manufacturers to try and gain QLC sales, most SATA SSD's e.g. have a casing that's only 1/4 or so used up, there is plenty of room for extra chips, or of course 3d nand extra stacking to increase capacity on TLC, its just a choice made by manufacturers to try and push QLC, there "will" be 8TB TLC at some point.. At least HDD manufacturer's only started considering SMR when they hit physical spacing issues.

Finally I cannot shake off what happened with first gen TLC products, the 840 and 840 EVO drives (EVO was never patched), these QVO are first gen QLC and simply not enough time has passed to see the long term effects of the nand type.

Maybe in 5 years QLC will perform as TLC does today, they have managed to get TLC as fast (and endurant) as older MLC, but that will be then, not now.

 

[bug]

Neither would I, or anyone sane for that matter.
The argument is that QLC and in this specific case the (8TB) QVO are viable options because they're either significantly cheaper and/or the only option available for a specific use case.
And for that, despite its sometimes-awful characteristics is still a useful product and miles ahead of a HDD.

No argument there. But "viable option" or "useful product" is not the same as "good value". That's all I'm saying.

 

[newtekie1]

I understand that $700 SSDs is what it's all about, but try to understand that I'm in the improbable minority that doesn't give a rat's ass about that.

Then you shouldn't make statements that are wrong.

The problem is I try to think of a use case for a 8TB SSD that "also" requires fast random i/o, "and" also not heavy on writes due to endurance issues. The closest i can think of would be VM hosting, but VM's have massive write amplification, especially on a decent file system like ZFS, which I wouldn't put QLC anywhere near unless I massively overprovisioned to compensate which then loses the capacity advantage. Not to mention you could easily exceed SLC size on VM imports which would then hit the slow sequential problem.

Large files don't tend to need random i/o., archive of data, media etc, hdd is fast enough, gaming SSD I expect for vast majority of people 4tb is plenty, for most 2tb is enough.

My games library is over 4TB. An 8TB SSD is perfect for a games library and it definitely benefits from fast random I/O. And the endurance issues are blown out of proportion. Even system drives don't write that much to the drive, people really overestimate how much data is actually written to their drives. My main computer's system drive has a whole 11TB written to it and it's 2 years old now.

 

[Selaya]

No argument there. But "viable option" or "useful product" is not the same as "good value". That's all I'm saying.

if you're in the market for a 8TB SATA (ex: laptop expansion drive as in newtekie's case) then yes, QVO's good value because your alternative's like, a D3-S4610.

 

[bug]

if you're in the market for a 8TB SATA (ex: laptop expansion drive as in newtekie's case) then yes, QVO's good value because your alternative's like, a D3-S4610.

If you're fixated on a SSD, maybe. But at $700 you have more options. Like building a NAS that will actually keep your files safe, possibly with enough $$$ left to add a roomy HDD to your laptop (there are models that will fit both M2 and a regular SATA drive) for the data you need on the road. Or, I don't know, paying for cloud storage for 10 years and use the difference to put the data you need on the road on a 2TB external SSD.

 

[Selaya]

The largest 2.5" HDD available is 2TB.
Good luck cramming a 3.5" into one. Your argument is invalid.

 

[W1zzard]

The largest 2.5" HDD available is 2TB.
Good luck cramming a 3.5" into one. Your argument is invalid.

5 TB, ST5000LM000, but still not 8 TB

 

[newtekie1]

If you're fixated on a SSD, maybe. But at $700 you have more options. Like building a NAS that will actually keep your files safe, possibly with enough $$$ left to add a roomy HDD to your laptop (there are models that will fit both M2 and a regular SATA drive) for the data you need on the road. Or, I don't know, paying for cloud storage for 10 years and use the difference to put the data you need on the road on a 2TB external SSD.

Cloud storage isn't a viable option for anyone that travels. The internet isn't reliable.

A NAS might work, but then again anything spinning in a vehicle that moves constantly is a really bad idea. Hard drives, it turns out, don't like vibration. I had 3 drives die in my camera system on the RV before finally just switching to an SSD. Even with the system off while traveling, the vibrations killed the spinners.

Then on top of that, you're offering solutions that can't be used for the tasks an SSD would be used for. Like loading games. I'm not going to be loading games from a NAS or cloud storage.

5 TB, ST5000LM000, but still not 8 TB

I have a couple of those. The 15mm height really limited their compatibility. Some desktops with 2.5" drive bays can't even use them.

 

[Selaya]

5 TB, ST5000LM000, but still not 8 TB

I was implying 7/9.5mm height (since the debate was about laptops; I am not aware of any laptops taking more than 9.5mm and even that is a stretch sometimes, there's a reason people make 7mms), but yeah xd

 

[chrcoluk]

I will give you a thumbs up for identifying a potential use case.

 

[BlackAle]

I will give you a thumbs up for identifying a potential use case.

Silence, shock protection, size, access times.

 

[newtekie1]

we have to bear in mind this is a deliberate restriction by SSD manufacturers to try and gain QLC sales, most SATA SSD's e.g. have a casing that's only 1/4 or so used up, there is plenty of room for extra chips, or of course 3d nand extra stacking to increase capacity on TLC, its just a choice made by manufacturers to try and push QLC, there "will" be 8TB TLC at some point.. At least HDD manufacturer's only started considering SMR when they hit physical spacing issues.

I just now caught this. You are incorrect. A 4TB SSD currently uses up all the space in a 2.5" case. You can see a modern one taken apart here: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sandisk-ultra-3d-4-tb-ssd/2.html

The PCB is not using only 1/4 of the case. A TLC 4TB drive requires 8 flash chips, that takes up the whole 2.5" casing.

 

[Selaya]

Actually there's some truth to that since 8GB TLCs do exist, but they're all enterprise models and priced accordingly. (The 4TB SanDisk's single-sided too, so you could add another 8 chips on the reverse to make it double-sided.)

In any case its as I've said the QVO's literally the only consumer-grade 8TB SATA model that exists.

 

[newtekie1]

Actually there's some truth to that since 8GB TLCs do exist, but they're all enterprise models and priced accordingly. (The 4TB SanDisk's single-sided too, so you could add another 8 chips on the reverse to make it double-sided.)

In any case its as I've said the QVO's literally the only consumer-grade 8TB SATA model that exists.

They could make it a two sided PCB, but that just adds cost and complexity. Meaning it isn't just a artificial reason behind limiting TLC drive sizes. My point was that the 4TB SSDs do take up all the space in the 2.5" casing.

And there is a 8TB SATA from Team Group, but it also uses QLC. And there is a 8TB from PNY, but I can't find any info on what type of flash it uses. Knowing PNY, it's whatever they want since they are known for changing around flash to whatever is cheapest on the drives.

 

[Selaya]

Interesting. I guess these are both so bad/unpopular geizhals wasn't even listing them. All I got was QVO and a buncha enterprise ones.

 

[bug]

Interesting. I guess these are both so bad/unpopular geizhals wasn't even listing them. All I got was QVO and a buncha enterprise ones.

I have a terrible feeling that between QLC and 1x production nodes, SSD have hit a capacity wall that won't be easy to overcome. Both methods of increasing capacity mean smaller charge per cell and I think we went as low as it gets. Manufacturers sidestepped this one when they went from planar to 3D cells, but I have heard of n such "savior" again.

 

[chrcoluk]

I just now caught this. You are incorrect. A 4TB SSD currently uses up all the space in a 2.5" case. You can see a modern one taken apart here: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sandisk-ultra-3d-4-tb-ssd/2.html

The PCB is not using only 1/4 of the case. A TLC 4TB drive requires 8 flash chips, that takes up the whole 2.5" casing.

Fair point its not a 1/4 but there is enough room for the extra chips.

Bear in mind QLC does not double capacity over TLC (which would be needed if they did indeed max it out), so if QLC fits, TLC can as well, its only a 25% increase in capacity (the new capacity).

So I still maintain its artificial and we will some day see 8TB TLC SSD's.

They could make it a two sided PCB, but that just adds cost and complexity. Meaning it isn't just a artificial reason behind limiting TLC drive sizes. My point was that the 4TB SSDs do take up all the space in the 2.5" casing.

And there is a 8TB SATA from Team Group, but it also uses QLC. And there is a 8TB from PNY, but I can't find any info on what type of flash it uses. Knowing PNY, it's whatever they want since they are known for changing around flash to whatever is cheapest on the drives.

Well yes of course, the reason is profits, I dont think anyone has denied that. There is a difference between not doing something because it costs more and not doing it because its not technically possible.

Also the fact there is 8TB enterprise TLC SSD's makes it even more doable, as enterprise SSD's have huge factory overprovisioning so there is going to be much more than 8TB nand on those drives.

You only have to look how much nand fits on a m.2 stick to realise its possible on SATA SSD's.

 

[trparky]

You only have to look how much nand fits on a m.2 stick to realise its possible on SATA SSD's.

OK, so I guess the answer is... leave SATA drives (which have more space for circuity and NAND chips) to high-capacity SSDs while leaving NVMe SSDs to being smaller boot drives.