Samsung Launches The New 860 QVO SSD Starting At $149.99 For The 1 TB Model

[Vayra86]

I agree that it could not be their use case, but it's still a pro, and that's something to keep in mind anyway, even if you reach not even half TBW in 100 years, it's still better to have more than less especially when the specs are not that precise. Anyway be it 3 be it 5 or be it 10€ i'd still go for the samsung no doubt for all the reasons i talked about earlier, and because it's samsung, and not crucial.
Oh and don't you think i'm mad with crucial or something (i'm not the kind of guy who has affection towards brands, actually the opposite, the good words i have for samsung are only based on my personal, and not, experience with it), i've suggested their SSDs in all the builds i recently made for people i know, just because the price was not this close, and even because i never went checking properly prices or performance differences with EVO series from samsung.

10 eur on a 250 GB drive, but for larger capacities the gap increases of course. Your preferences are your own, Im just saying base them on the right data, and TBW is not a good indicator of quality in that sense. Just as little as MTBF. Fact remains both drives have TLC and solid controllers and Crucial offers a cheaper drive. The rest is whatever you want to make of it. My techspot link earlier shows that these drives ALL far exceed their specced life time. We are debating a non issue versus a very real price gap.

If you have actual data and sources that prove Sammys superior quality I am all ears...

 

[oxidized]

If you have actual data and sources that prove Sammys superior quality I am all ears...

Again, speeds and TBW, and there's nothing more to add.

 

[bug]

Make no mistake, it's not based on my personal preference, it's based on proven superior quality, in different things, the thing that's in question here is whether you want or not to pay that premium to get that higher quality, but it's there, and there's a reason why crucial doesn't price their stuff higher or in line with samsung's (except where i live)

I'm not sure where that "proven superior quality" comes from. I've read tons of review, none have hinted at that.
As for why Crucial is usually cheaper is two-fold. They don't have a line to rival Samsung's PRO drives (until very recently they didn't have any NVMe drives). And their business is more focused on selling to third parties. If anything, you could argue Samsung has better controllers. But quality of the flash memory? No review site has the means to look into that.

Again, speeds and TBW, and there's nothing more to add.

Oh, now I see. Speed is nothing, you get that from tuning the controller one way or another.
The only speed that matters is 4k random reads. And would you look at that: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12263/the-crucial-mx500-500gb-review/5 Crucial does better than some of Samsung's drives.
As for TBW, you said yourself the metric doesn't carry much weight because it's not standardized.
Now stop acting like a brat and try to be more mature.

 

[oxidized]

I'm not sure where that "proven superior quality" comes from. I've read tons of review, none have hinted at that.
As for why Crucial is usually cheaper is two-fold. They don't have a line to rival Samsung's PRO drives (until very recently they didn't have any NVMe drives). And their business is more focused on selling to third parties. If anything, you could argue Samsung has better controllers. But quality of the flash memory? No review site has the means to look into that.


Oh, now I see. Speed is nothing, you get that from tuning the controller one way or another.
The only speed that matters is 4k random reads. And would you look at that: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12263/the-crucial-mx500-500gb-review/5 Crucial does better than some of Samsung's drives.
As for TBW, you said yourself the metric doesn't carry much weight because it's not standardized.
Now stop acting like a brat and try to be more mature.

Just go look at several reviews, and no, there's no such thing as "the only speed that matters is 4k" not at all, they all matter, because when you write and read, you do with all sizes of loads. It seems ridiculous to me being here discussing how samsung is better than crucial, lol, it's like saying dacia is as good as renault, because they use renault's engines, rofl.

 

[bug]

Just go look at several reviews, and no, there's no such thing as "the only speed that matters is 4k" not at all, they all matter, because when you write and read, you do with all sizes of loads. It seems ridiculous to me being here discussing how samsung is better than crucial, lol, it's like saying dacia is as good as renault, because they use renault's engines, rofl.

That's just the thing, nothing seems ridiculous off the bat to me. I'm open to discussion. Unfortunately, parroting thing like you do, is not a discussion. So you'll have to excuse me.

 

[ZeDestructor]

10 eur on a 250 GB drive, but for larger capacities the gap increases of course. Your preferences are your own, Im just saying base them on the right data, and TBW is not a good indicator of quality in that sense. Just as little as MTBF. Fact remains both drives have TLC and solid controllers and Crucial offers a cheaper drive. The rest is whatever you want to make of it. My techspot link earlier shows that these drives ALL far exceed their specced life time. We are debating a non issue versus a very real price gap.

If you have actual data and sources that prove Sammys superior quality I am all ears...

You're missing the point of QLC (and to a lesser extent TLC) drives by comparing small drives. QLC is about making very large drives, very cheap, so really, you should be looking at the 1TB and larger sizes.

In which case, I bought a 1TB 860 EVO in M.2 shape last Saturday for 128USD (if you were fast, you could even get the 2.5" version for 110USD), while the 1TB Crucial MX500 was 139USD for the M.2 variant (128 for the 2.5"). Really, 860 EVO was cheaper, so I got it rather than the MX500.

Now, to bring it back to relevance to the article: the 860QVO is launching at $150/TB MSRP. While this looks high given the recent $110-150 860 EVOs flying out of warehouses, you have to remember that the 860 EVO was a $300/TB MSRP drive when it launched almost a year ago.. using NAND that has been pretty much unchanged since December 2014 (850 EVO). Personally, I reckon $75/TB for the QVO is easily gonna happen over the course of next year, with a decent change at hitting $50/TB, while the 860 EVO won't go under $90/TB.

Again, speeds and TBW, and there's nothing more to add.

Have some thoughts then.

TBW of endurance: well-known to be a super-conservative number, particularly with consumer products, with a workload that doesn't write much. For example, I have had a pair of 800GB S3500s in my desktop since july 2015. the worst hit drive got a 50GB (25GB for the other) of writes put onto it's super low 300TBW/0.3DWPD endurance rating in the 3 and a half years I've owned it.
MTBF: the time in MTBF refers to the time accumulated on all your devices summed together. so if you have a 1 million hour MTBF and a fleet of a literal million drives, you should expect 1 drive to fail every hour on average. It gives pretty much zero information on when our small time 2-3 ... or even 24 SSDs setups will actually fail.. if they fail at all.
Performance: for consumer SATA drives, sequential and QD32 4K IO is pretty much constant across the industry. The real magic all happens in the QD1-4 tier, and over there, the Samsung 850/860 Pro, Intel 730/DC S3xxx are the kings, followed by the 850/860 EVO and Crucial MX500. The fact that Samsung is straight up telling us the QD1 numbers for the QVO is seriously ballsy, cause it looks seriously weaksauce compared to basically everything else on the market.

Just go look at several reviews, and no, there's no such thing as "the only speed that matters is 4k" not at all, they all matter, because when you write and read, you do with all sizes of loads. It seems ridiculous to me being here discussing how samsung is better than crucial, lol, it's like saying dacia is as good as renault, because they use renault's engines, rofl.

Yes and no . Consumer workloads are so poorly designed and optimized that according to Anandtech, their worst test ("The Destroyer") is about 60% QD1, with their light test hitting close to 90% QD1. Things that actually hit high QDs: databases, big datasets, hyper-dense VM/container deployments, SAN/NAS caches between the bulk storage HDDs and the RAM cache. None of those are mainstream desktop/laptop.

So really, if you want the best desktop experience, you go out there and buy the drive with the highest QD1-4 performance and lowest access latency possible, which right now looks something like this (best to worst): Optane, 970 Pro, 970 EVO, 960 Pro, 960 EVO, 850/860 Pro, 850/860 EVO/MX500.

PS: if the QVO line hits $50/TB or lower, I'm buying 8x4TB for my NAS, where it will be just perfect at being a WORM workhorse.

 

[oxidized]

Have some thoughts then.

TBW of endurance: well-known to be a super-conservative number, particularly with consumer products, with a workload that doesn't write much. For example, I have had a pair of 800GB S3500s in my desktop since july 2015. the worst hit drive got a 50GB (25GB for the other) of writes put onto it's super low 300TBW/0.3DWPD endurance rating in the 3 and a half years I've owned it.
MTBF: the time in MTBF refers to the time accumulated on all your devices summed together. so if you have a 1 million hour MTBF and a fleet of a literal million drives, you should expect 1 drive to fail every hour on average. It gives pretty much zero information on when our small time 2-3 ... or even 24 SSDs setups will actually fail.. if they fail at all.
Performance: for consumer SATA drives, sequential and QD32 4K IO is pretty much constant across the industry. The real magic all happens in the QD1-4 tier, and over there, the Samsung 850/860 Pro, Intel 730/DC S3xxx are the kings, followed by the 850/860 EVO and Crucial MX500. The fact that Samsung is straight up telling us the QD1 numbers for the QVO is seriously ballsy, cause it looks seriously weaksauce compared to basically everything else on the market.



Yes and no . Consumer workloads are so poorly designed and optimized that according to Anandtech, their worst test ("The Destroyer") is about 60% QD1, with their light test hitting close to 90% QD1. Things that actually hit high QDs: databases, big datasets, hyper-dense VM/container deployments, SAN/NAS caches between the bulk storage HDDs and the RAM cache. None of those are mainstream desktop/laptop.

So really, if you want the best desktop experience, you go out there and buy the drive with the highest QD1-4 performance and lowest access latency possible, which right now looks something like this (best to worst): Optane, 970 Pro, 970 EVO, 960 Pro, 960 EVO, 850/860 Pro, 850/860 EVO/MX500.

PS: if the QVO line hits $50/TB or lower, I'm buying 8x4TB for my NAS, where it will be just perfect at being a WORM workhorse.

I don't understand the utility of your post, i mean don't take this wrong, but you're saying stuff me and probably the others know too, and i don't understand if that's meant to correct me, or agree with me.