This thread might have needed a cleanup, but any perceived grumpiness got sorted out via PM's
Let's keep things nice, we all seem to have different views on SSD's but seriously - there are garbage drives out there, and a lot of garbage information too. Things change in the SSD world, common knowledge from the SLC days means nothing on a QLC drive.
This thread has changed topic, because we got the answer to the OP's question (no) - but we're still discussing the actual concern of SSD wear
I'll summarise the entire mess below into: You can buy 1TB drives right now, that range from 1,200TBW to 80TBW.
I've only spent 15 minutes looking into this, i'm sure worse drives exist out there.
Smaller SSD's are at the highest risk of more TBW, because the simple fact of running out of room means you need to delete things and likely re-create them later. Even automated windows tasks like the page file behave this way, with greater storage space helping alleviate re-writes.
I wrote some big annoyed rant a while back about samsungs naming scheme and how a 980 pro has half the TLC of a 970 pro - and every new release (evo, evo plus, evo plus plus, whatever - was it the SD cards that did that?) was fairly consistent, until now when it smashed backwards.
Modern SSD's went backwards in TBW, fast. Theres a lot of 250GB and under drives with low TBW's and some brands that refuse to even advertise them, and give you "hours" instead.
Lower capacity drives often have more writes, not less - a PC gamer is going to delete games to install a new one far more times than a user who installs and leaves it there.
Deleting to free up space, only to re-create is the worst case scenario here.
From here on i'm only comparing NVME drives that are for sale today.
Ranked in order of samsung as reference, then best to worst.
Keep in mind, these are considered the top tier premium drives by manu
View attachment 257639
Sticking to just the 1TB models since every series has them:
980 Pro: 600
980: 600
970 pro: 1200
970 Evo plus: 600
970 evo: 600
980 (regular)
View attachment 257643
Evo plus range:
View attachment 257640
970 evo range
View attachment 257641
What about their QLC range, well known for being cheap, at the reduction of lifespan?
360TBW. Honestly, it's low but it's not terrible - and they get much more reasonable on the bigger models.
View attachment 257642
So if samsung, the king of consumer gaming SSD's are going backwards (the 980 series) what about other brands?
Team MP34:
Huh. That's actually impressive.
View attachment 257647
XPG's SX8200 Pro?
Not so bad, on par with samsung.
View attachment 257648
Crucial P2 series:
Basically, halve samsungs. Except for the 970 pro, quarter that.
View attachment 257644
Kingston's NV1 range:
Oh, making crucial look good here.
View attachment 257646
WD green? Oh no. Oh fuck no. 80 TBW for the TLC 960GB and 100TBW for 1TB and 2TB QLC
From 1200TBW to 80TBW.
View attachment 257645
In Sata SSD's, things are just depressing.
These are generally on par with small NVME drives, but you can imagine these drives would end up with data deleted and created far more often than bigger drives that can retain data easier
These 40TBW drives wouldn't last me as an OS drive for a year.
Kingston A400:
View attachment 257649
Crucial BX500:
View attachment 257650
WD dont even list the TBW for their WD green SATA drives, they know its so bad. They state "upto 1 million hours" instead for all drives