The GB/$ ratio is pretty insane compared to nvme drives. 1TB MX500 is about the same price as 500GB nvme and in real world use you barely see any difference. Still, I'm a bit worried about the durability, I want it to last a lot more than 5 years. I expect more than 5 years even from a cheap ass HDD. Will this SSD handle +10 years and possibly twice or three times as much data as it's rated for ? We know MLC will.
How much data do you write to your SSDs every day? Why would anyone do a full drive write on a daily or even weekly or monthly basis?
Obviously the endurance rating is a minimum, guaranteed rating, not an average. Even so, for most people, there's very little to worry about imho, especially at higher capacity.
What I would be worried about is everyone who sits on an old 120-128GB drive that's a few years old now, especially cheaper drives with second grade flash.
We've seen a tremendous improvement in quality of SSDs over the past couple of years. Is anyone here longing back to the SandForce and OCZ days?
Yeah, NVMe is overpriced to the point I haven't given it a thought when I bought (yet another) SSD last year. I mean, the price may be justified, but the gains just aren't there.
Also, I wish reviews will make painfully obvious the fact that 4k random reads at QD1 make about 90% of the performance of a drive. You can literally order the performance of a drive going just by that metric. Yet TPU chooses to publish IOPS instead (something directly related to the read speed, yet completelty unfamiliar to most users) while other sites (Anandtech included) choose to publish an arcane "combined QD1..4" measurement.
Because QD1 makes for really boring graphs?
NVMe can make a difference, it's noticeable when you work with large files, especially for photo and video editing.
