Samsung 870 EVO - Beware, certain batches prone to failure!

[80251]

Stick with WD or Solidigm (formerly Intel).

You couldn't pay me to buy a Samsung after the BS they pulled with the 870 EVO/QVO drives.

Aside from the QVO drives being slow they don't have the unreliability issues of the EVO drives.

 

[tavosoft]

That used to be the case with the previous SSD generations, as the PRO versions (eg: 860 PRO, 970 PRO) were MLC drives and the EVO versions (eg: 860 EVO, 970 EVO) were TLC, so the PROs were generally considered more reliable (but very expensive).
The PRO moniker lost a lot of its meaning now that Samsung is shipping the 980 Pro and the 990 Pro with TLC (though realistically, no one is selling MLC drives anymore). Going away with the Pro brand would have made more sense...
Both the 870 Evo and the 980 Pro use the same flash, and they both have been having reliability issues...


The 970 Evo Plus and the 980 Pro are very similar drives. They both use the same controller (Samsung Elpis) and the same flash (V-NAND V6, which is Samsung 128-layer 3D TLC flash), the difference being that the 970 Evo Plus is limited to PCIe 3.0.
You would expect them to be pretty similar, reliability-wise. The 970 Evo Plus seems to suffer from the same issues as the 980 Pro, but apparently we have seen a higher number of failed 980 Pros (maybe because this drive sells more).

Do the Samsung 980 pro and 990 pro continue to fail after the firmware update?

I think the 970 evo plus did not have degradation problems like the 980 pro and 990 pro.

 

[goms]

do you trust a premium vendor or just my word of mouth from people who are professionals that do this for a living doing data recovery?

I don't know what point you are trying to make, because my comment above did not contradict or negate any of the information presented in the video. In fact, I said that the Samsung Pro SSDs used to be considered more reliable, but now are having issues. Maybe you should read my post more carefully again...

Do the Samsung 980 pro and 990 pro continue to fail after the firmware update?

I think the 970 evo plus did not have degradation problems like the 980 pro and 990 pro.

What do you mean by "degradation"?

If you're talking about the rapid decline in health percentage, which affected mostly the 990 Pro, I think Samsung has issued a firmware update that seems to have fixed it.

If you're talking about drives developing uncorrectable errors that could lead to loss of data ("Uncorrectable Error Count" and "ECC Error Rate" in the 870 Evo or "0E - Media and Data Integrity Errors" in the 980 Pro), I'm not so sure...

 

[Sora]

The 980PRO is more reliable... That's why it is a PRO version. EVO is the low cost versions of SSD.

Rubbish.

 

[SPDIF]

The Samsung EVO is a low cost version of the PRO series. The main difference between them is the type of NAND flash they use. The PRO series uses MLC (Multi-Level Cell), which means that each memory cell can store 2 bits of data. The EVO series uses TLC (Triple-Level Cell), which means that each memory cell can store 3 bits of data.

The advantage of TLC over MLC is that it can increase the capacity of the SSD without increasing the number of NAND flash chips, which reduces the cost. However, the disadvantage is that it also reduces the performance and lifespan of the SSD, because more bits per cell means more voltage levels to distinguish and more wear and tear on the cells.

Therefore, the PRO series is more suitable for users who need high performance and reliability, while the EVO series is more suitable for users who need large capacity and affordability. The PRO series also has a longer warranty period than the EVO series.

Even more; The SLC cache is way slower and smaller then the PRO series.

Generally speaking, EVO SSDs also have lower TBW than PRO SSDs, because they use different types of flash memory.
TBW stands for Terabytes Written, which is a measure of how much data can be written to an SSD before it wears out.

For most regular users, TBW is not a major concern, because they are unlikely to reach the TBW limit during the normal lifetime of the SSD. However, for power users who write hundreds of GBs of data per day, TBW is a crucial factor to consider. In that case, it may be worth investing in a PRO SSD or a high-capacity EVO SSD with a high TBW rating

 

[Belfaborac]

Actually I believe Samsung Pro drives changed to using TLC with the release of the 980. It was something of a disappointment at the time and widely reported.

Otherwise you what write quite correct, but MLC drives are few, far between and very costly these days. Mostly they're "industrial" drives slated for datacenters and the like.

 

[80251]

Why is it such a problem manufacturing MLC drives? For SATA SSD's at least there's plenty of room in the cases to add more NAND, so why not just use MLC?

 

[Shrek]

Price

 

[SPDIF]

Manufacturing MLC drives is not a problem per se, but it has some trade-offs compared to for example SLC drives.
MLC drives are generally slower and less durable than SLC drives, because they have higher latency, lower write speed, and lower endurance. MLC drives also have higher error rates and lower data retention than SLC drives, because they are more susceptible to noise, interference, and degradation

However, MLC drives have improved a lot in recent years, thanks to various techniques and technologies that enhance their performance and reliability.

And yes... Price

Cost: MLC SSDs are more costly to produce than TLC SSDs, because they require more flash chips to achieve the same capacity. For example, a 1TB MLC SSD would need twice as many flash chips as a 1TB TLC SSD. This makes MLC SSDs less affordable for consumers and less profitable for manufacturers.

Demand: TLC SSDs are sufficient for most consumer and commercial applications, such as laptops, desktops, and servers. They offer adequate performance, endurance, and reliability for most users, especially with the help of advanced technologies such as wear leveling, error correction, over-provisioning, and caching. Therefore, there is not much demand for MLC SSDs in the mass market.

Innovation: TLC SSDs have improved a lot in recent years, thanks to the development of new flash technologies and architectures. For example, 3D NAND flash stacks multiple layers of flash cells vertically, increasing the density and reducing the cost of TLC SSDs. NVMe (Non-Volatile Memory Express) is a new interface standard that allows TLC SSDs to communicate directly with the CPU via PCIe (Peripheral Component Interconnect Express), increasing the speed and efficiency of TLC SSD's. These innovations have narrowed the gap between MLC and TLC SSDs in terms of performance and reliability.

 

[Assimilator]

Manufacturing MLC drives is not a problem per se, but it has some trade-offs compared to for example SLC drives.
MLC drives are generally slower and less durable than SLC drives, because they have higher latency, lower write speed, and lower endurance. MLC drives also have higher error rates and lower data retention than SLC drives, because they are more susceptible to noise, interference, and degradation

However, MLC drives have improved a lot in recent years, thanks to various techniques and technologies that enhance their performance and reliability.

And yes... Price

Cost: MLC SSDs are more costly to produce than TLC SSDs, because they require more flash chips to achieve the same capacity. For example, a 1TB MLC SSD would need twice as many flash chips as a 1TB TLC SSD. This makes MLC SSDs less affordable for consumers and less profitable for manufacturers.

Demand: TLC SSDs are sufficient for most consumer and commercial applications, such as laptops, desktops, and servers. They offer adequate performance, endurance, and reliability for most users, especially with the help of advanced technologies such as wear leveling, error correction, over-provisioning, and caching. Therefore, there is not much demand for MLC SSDs in the mass market.

Innovation: TLC SSDs have improved a lot in recent years, thanks to the development of new flash technologies and architectures. For example, 3D NAND flash stacks multiple layers of flash cells vertically, increasing the density and reducing the cost of TLC SSDs. NVMe (Non-Volatile Memory Express) is a new interface standard that allows TLC SSDs to communicate directly with the CPU via PCIe (Peripheral Component Interconnect Express), increasing the speed and efficiency of TLC SSD's. These innovations have narrowed the gap between MLC and TLC SSDs in terms of performance and reliability.

Is it just me, or do most of this user's posts feel like they're written by ChatGPT? A whole lot of irrelevant and often outdated info with a few human-seeming smilies thrown in here and there?

 

[SPDIF]

Never used before, maybe because i also do school here for young people.

 

[Sora]

The Samsung EVO is a low cost version of the PRO series. The main difference between them is the type of NAND flash they use. The PRO series uses MLC (Multi-Level Cell), which means that each memory cell can store 2 bits of data. The EVO series uses TLC (Triple-Level Cell), which means that each memory cell can store 3 bits of data.

Your post is nonsense, the components have the same origin materials and only slightly differ in configuration with the controller, majority of the price they charge is brand and sku markup, the actual production cost is usually a fraction.

Samsung has lied about what they constitute as MLC, and there is no such thing as a 4TB ssd that is on MLC coming in under 2000 dollars.

 

[chrcoluk]

So I hate to be that guy, but given this is a 33-page thread, can someone give me a tl;dr as to:

• Which capacities of the 870 EVO are affected? OP had a 4TB model but the later pages of the thread seem to suggest only the 1TB and 2TB models are affected?
• Is there a date of manufacture after which the issue is confirmed to no longer exist?
• Is there a specific firmware update that is known to prevent the issue?

Baiscally, if I drop money on an 870 EVO today, can I expect its failure rate to be comparable to other SSDs? Or is this still a don't-buy situation?

Samsung have never acknowledged issues on the 870 EVO, without that there is never a confirmation of a fix. But there is notes on their website they have made changes to manufacturing process.

Many are likely working fine (mine is still ok 512 gig model), some not, just seems to be a higher than average failure rate based on reports on the internet.

All products will have a failure rate, my issue with Samsung is them shying away from this, I think its horrible behaviour, if they acknowledged it and worked on a fix I probably wouldnt have shifted my purchases away from them to WD.

 

[Belfaborac]

Not really something I manage to get my panties in a twist over. I fully expect every large manufacturer of today to lie and do their absolute damndest to avoid responsibility for anything. Integrity and pride in the quality of ones products is something of the past and generally only for shiny advertisments for the gullible and established fanbois.

Base your purchases on reviews, specs and price, nothing else.

 

[SuperConker]

Base your purchases on reviews, specs and price, nothing else.

And threads like this one here.

I personally think people should stay clear off the 870 EVO if they value their data.

 

[Belfaborac]

Up to you. For my part I'm quite sure they're just as reliable as any similar drives, or more so, if purchased relatively recently or their firmware updated. Just because there was a scare at some point in time does not mean that said state of affairs persists forever and ever into the heat death of the universe. If that was true there would be no large or old manufacturers of anything whatsoever, since every single one has fucked up at some or many points.

 

[goms]

The Samsung EVO is a low cost version of the PRO series. The main difference between them is the type of NAND flash they use. The PRO series uses MLC (Multi-Level Cell), which means that each memory cell can store 2 bits of data. The EVO series uses TLC (Triple-Level Cell), which means that each memory cell can store 3 bits of data.

Samsung no longer makes MLC drives. All the latest Pro drives (980 Pro and 990 Pro) are TLC, just like the Evo series. And the newer models have lower TBW ratings (600 TBW for the 1TB model), compared to the older 970 Pro models.

 

[P4-630]

Samsung no longer makes MLC drives. All the latest Pro drives (980 Pro and 990 Pro) are TLC, just like the Evo series. And the newer models have lower TBW ratings (600 TBW for the 1TB model), compared to the older 970 Pro models.

Usually the quality gets better over time with electronics... Unfortunately not with SSD's it seems.

 

[goms]

Samsung has lied about what they constitute as MLC, and there is no such thing as a 4TB ssd that is on MLC coming in under 2000 dollars.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that Samsung's marketing uses the term "3 -bit MLC" to describe the flash used in their TLC drives.
Make no mistake, "3-bit MLC" is actually TLC.

 

[Belfaborac]

Usually the quality gets better over time with electronics... Unfortunately not with SSD's it seems.

Capacity is king and lots and lots of people swap out their drives with every new build and never gets within several stone throws of their TBW rating.

 

[goms]

Usually the quality gets better over time with electronics... Unfortunately not with SSD's it seems.

Realistically, no one makes consumer MLC drives nowadays. Samsung was actually the last brand to throw the towel.

 

[SuperConker]

Up to you. For my part I'm quite sure they're just as reliable as any similar drives, or more so, if purchased relatively recently or their firmware updated. Just because there was a scare at some point in time does not mean that said state of affairs persists forever and ever into the heat death of the universe. If that was true there would be no large or old manufacturers of anything whatsoever, since every single one has fucked up at some or many points.

Samsung refuses to acknowledge the issues on the 870 and just sweeps it under the rug,
even the newest revision/version of the 870 has seen failures in this forum thread.

They did acknowledge the issues on the 980/990 PRO (and were able to fix those models)
but they have done no such thing for the 870 EVO.

Furthermore, i had 3 of the 4TB model die myself (with little to no use on them) before i saw this thread.

The 870 EVO also destroys your data when it goes bad (if a 980/990 PRO goes bad, your data is still safe).

I don't really think it's safe to buy this model, not until Samsung acknowledges the issues (and fixes them).

 

[Belfaborac]

Samsung refuses to acknowledge the issues on the 870 and just sweeps it under the rug,

Not sure exactly how this is qualitatively different from the behaviour of any large company of today.

even the newest revision/version of the 870 has seen failures in this forum thread.

Not really indicative of anything. Drives from all manufacturers fail now and again. I've had a really old Samsung die (can't remember the model) and two Crucial drives within a week of each other and within a year after purchase and very little use. Poof, dead as Dodos from one boot to the next. Would I buy Crucial again? Of course I would; these things just happen.

 

[SuperConker]

Not sure exactly how this is qualitatively different from the behaviour of any large company of today.

The difference is that Samsung aknowledge the issue on their other models but not the 870 issues
(the one with the biggest issues none the less).

 

[SPDIF]

Crucial had also bad drives and Adata to, they changed components without letting this know to anyone. Anyway the bad drives all came mostly at the same moment, during and shortly after the pandemic. I think in that time there was so much problems with finding good NAND, that they just used what they could find.

I think everyone know the chip shortage? Even now there are still problems on some suppliers.

But no one opened their mouth, not only Samsung. I'm not an Samsung fanboy, but their drives are still the best one can get, specially in the Sata segment and PCIe4.0
You like it or not, look around in various test on websites. In any case Samsung is absolute winner in Power Use and speed.

In terms off reliability there are no real winners, any brand have their problems. None of them is free from bad drives.

I can only say one very important thing to anyone; ANY brand or type you buy, always make sure you have the latest firmware installed on your SSD!!!

WD, Samsung, Crucial, Adata, SK Hynix, etc...they all have an tool available to do that for you. And as always if you do dat while in use, always have an backup ready in case off.
They ALL have issues that are fixed with firmware updates!