- Joined
- Jan 27, 2015
- Messages
- 454 (0.13/day)
System Name | Marmo / Kanon |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Core i7 9700K / AMD Ryzen 7 5800X |
Motherboard | Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro WiFi / X570S Aorus Pro AX |
Cooling | Noctua NH-U12S x 2 |
Memory | Corsair Vengeance 32GB 2666-C16 / 32GB 3200-C16 |
Video Card(s) | KFA2 RTX3070 Ti / Asus TUF RX 6800XT OC |
Storage | Samsung 970 EVO+ 1TB, 860 EVO 1TB / Samsung 970 Pro 1TB, 970 EVO+ 1TB |
Display(s) | Dell AW2521HFA / U2715H |
Case | Fractal Design Focus G / Pop Air RGB |
Audio Device(s) | Onboard / Creative SB ZxR |
Power Supply | SeaSonic Focus GX 650W / PX 750W |
Mouse | Logitech MX310 / G1 |
Keyboard | Logitech G413 / G513 |
Software | Win 11 Ent |
Depends on your definition of performance. For normal usage, performance is dictated by QD1 4k random reads. Going by that, nearly everyone comes close.
That said, if you need a SSD for more server-type oriented workloads, performance for QD>1 may be more relevant to you. If you edit a lot of video, then sequential performance numbers come into play. But for basically everyone else, these just command an almost twice the cost per GB over other drives that will do the job just as well.
Or to put it another way: what I want to see from SSDs, is better QD1 4k random reads and lower cost per GB. Year after year Samsung manages to improve in every other aspect, but competition has managed to lower the cost per GB.
I'm more interested in QD1 4k performance also. All these QD64 figures posted are pretty much meaningless for consumers. In fact they give you unrealistic high expectations for normal daily usage.