Samsung 870 QVO 1 TB

[phill]

I saw the review as great as always, the problem is with the setup of the SSD 'guts' itself. Basically whilst looking I figured, don't buy it. Buy anything else but...

I was wondering @W1zzard have Samsung sent any of the bigger models? I'd be curious to see if the same bad performance hindered those or if they had slightly changed the internals a little and the 1TB was just pants....

 

[W1zzard]

that most users in general use of Windows 10 won't feel the difference between SATA vs NVME based SSD's?

For light desktop use? Will be hard to notice a difference

I read some users experience that a SATA based SSD feels more snap and all-around more smooth when tested in a line up.

No idea how that could happen. Maybe if you pit the worst QLC NVMe against the best TLC SATA. Or it's just placebo/confirmation bias

or if they had slightly changed the internals a little and the 1TB was just pants....

Not sure, but it's likely they are using more than just one flash chip, which could change the performance. By how much? Don't know. But given the pricing alone I doubt it'll be worth it. Maybe if you absolutely need a 8 TB drive

 

[bug]

Nice I cannot wait for this, I was thinking you have tested a lot of SSD's is it true that most users in general use of Windows 10 won't feel the difference between SATA vs NVME based SSD's?

I read some users experience that a SATA based SSD feels more snap and all-around more smooth when tested in a line up.

I own both SATA and NVMe and I can't tell the difference. I'm sure there is one and I could see if if I timed compilation times or something. But just firing up the OS and surfing the web is just as smooth on either drive.

I saw the review as great as always, the problem is with the setup of the SSD 'guts' itself. Basically whilst looking I figured, don't buy it. Buy anything else but...

I was wondering @W1zzard have Samsung sent any of the bigger models? I'd be curious to see if the same bad performance hindered those or if they had slightly changed the internals a little and the 1TB was just pants....

Performance tanks because QLC is slow to write onto. Higher capacities won't help, it's not a matter of using the right number of chips.

 

[ebivan]

The 1tb should be selling for 45 Bucks. So that the 8tb variant could sell for about 400 Bucks which would be an ok price considering thats about 2x the price of a magnetic 8tb drive.
Actually that is exactly the price point at which I would consider buying ssds instead of hdds for simple storage reasons.

 

[phill]

Not sure, but it's likely they are using more than just one flash chip, which could change the performance. By how much? Don't know. But given the pricing alone I doubt it'll be worth it. Maybe if you absolutely need a 8 TB drive

Performance tanks because QLC is slow to write onto. Higher capacities won't help, it's not a matter of using the right number of chips.

It was just a thought if I'm honest, sometimes the higher capcitys tend to have better performance so I just wondered if that might be the case here. If I need 8TB of SSD storage, I think I'm doing something wrong!

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

Meanwhile, Seagate's Barracuda 120 1TB SSD is $15 cheaper than this model while having 2 extra years on warranty. Sure it's not an apples-apples comparison, but at this point it's pretty clear that TLCs are still the better pick over QLC.

 

[bug]

It was just a thought if I'm honest, sometimes the higher capcitys tend to have better performance so I just wondered if that might be the case here.

Fair enough, that was the case with several models before. But QLC's problem is different. And we haven't touched on endurance yet

If I need 8TB of SSD storage, I think I'm doing something wrong!

Tbh, I wouldn't mind getting rid of the last HDD in my case. I figure I might need a NAS though. But that's still very expensive.

 

[BSim500]

I was thinking you have tested a lot of SSD's is it true that most users in general use of Windows 10 won't feel the difference between SATA vs NVME based SSD's?

Relative to the big HDD to SSD jump, NVMe vs SATA is barely perceptible for simple everyday OS stuff and even most game-load times (example 1, example 2). NVMe does have a big advantage outside of benchmarks in sequential read based stuff like 4K video editing. Being not interested in that, personally I have zero regrets getting a 2TB MX500 over a 1TB 970 EVO PLUS for the same money. I don't notice SATA's typical 3-5% slower vs NVMe on boot or typical game level load times. I 100% notice when I run out of space though.

Edit: The problem with benchmarks is in the real world disk accesses are never continuous. Eg, the OS or game requests a chunk of data from a disk, then unpacks it into memory, then initializes a lot of stuff, then requests the next chunk. The end "time taken to complete task" result ends up looking nothing remotely like CrystalDiskMark sequential speed tests. These days I just completely skip all synthetics and jump straight to real world OS Boot / game load time tests.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

For real world use, they're pretty much perform the same unless you are doing specific work like rendering or editing. That's where NVMe PCIe SSD comes in.

 

[phill]

Fair enough, that was the case with several models before. But QLC's problem is different. And we haven't touched on endurance yet

Tbh, I wouldn't mind getting rid of the last HDD in my case. I figure I might need a NAS though. But that's still very expensive.

I have one, best thing ever I would just like to add more storage to it and whilst I could put in 8TB SSDs, they'd be wasted considering the network speeds will hold it back. However that said, the current WD Red 4TB's I have in there are held back with the network performance, so.... I personally am not sure the stability for the SSDs long term compared to hard drives, which is a little worry (I think it's about time disconnected rather than them being online....) but still.

I'll hand on till the EVOs or Pro drives release with that size and then see what the costs are. I guess it's kinda like the 100TB SSD that's out currently but I think they are actually built for it, well, apparently.

 

[bug]

I have one, best thing ever I would just like to add more storage to it and whilst I could put in 8TB SSDs, they'd be wasted considering the network speeds will hold it back. However that said, the current WD Red 4TB's I have in there are held back with the network performance, so.... I personally am not sure the stability for the SSDs long term compared to hard drives, which is a little worry (I think it's about time disconnected rather than them being online....) but still.

I'll hand on till the EVOs or Pro drives release with that size and then see what the costs are. I guess it's kinda like the 100TB SSD that's out currently but I think they are actually built for it, well, apparently.

Even without SSD, it would be nice if we could get some proper 2.5" HDDs for NAS so that we can build smaller boxes. Building a NAS around NVMe drives would yield a really tiny solution. Only good luck finding a board that can mount 4+ NVMe drives.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

@bug you can get ASUS boards that comes with the M.2 DIMM kit to expand the number of M.2 slots but not a cheap solution too. Most high end boards I see has 3 M.2 slots of varying sizes.

 

[bug]

@bug you can get ASUS boards that comes with the M.2 DIMM kit to expand the number of M.2 slots but not a cheap solution too. Most high end boards I see has 3 M.2 slots of varying sizes.

I know, but if you add extension cards, the resulting solution is not that small anymore, is it?

 

[W1zzard]

that TLCs are still the better pick over QLC.

If Samsung would stop wanting to make 100% profit on this, then things would be different.

870 QVO is only in-house components, so if others can sell a 1 TB TLC for $80, using 3rd party components, then Samsung could definitely price theirs at $60 ($80 * 3 [TLC] / 4 [QLC]) or below

 

[bug]

If Samsung would stop wanting to make 100% profit on this, then things would be different.

870 QVO is only in-house components, so if others can sell a 1 TB TLC for $80, using 3rd party components, then Samsung could definitely price theirs at $60 ($80 * 3 [TLC] / 4 [QLC]) or below

Maybe they will, given enough market pressure? Or maybe they'll just get OEMs to buy these and not worry about pricing at all.

 

[Shou Miko]

For light desktop use? Will be hard to notice a difference


No idea how that could happen. Maybe if you pit the worst QLC NVMe against the best TLC SATA. Or it's just placebo/confirmation bias

For desktop work, games because in general the jump from HDD to SSD is a massive improvement, but and I know doing file transfers and more the higher speed as shown in your review takes less time.

But I was thinking as a general and gaming perspective.

Personally I use a Samsung 850 EVO 1TB for my games library and it's during great fast load, installation times. I don't complain I am happy but for a cost perspective going SATA SSD for 1TB storage instead of NVME for less storage because you might want the speed.

 

[bug]

For desktop work, games because in general the jump from HDD to SSD is a massive improvement, but and I know doing file transfers and more the higher speed as shown in your review takes less time.

But I was thinking as a general and gaming perspective.

Personally I use a Samsung 850 EVO 1TB for my games library and it's during great fast load, installation times. I don't complain I am happy but for a cost perspective going SATA SSD for 1TB storage instead of NVME for less storage because you might want the speed.

The original advice for buying a SSD still holds true: get the biggest drive that fits in your budget.
Unless your usage pattern really benefits from NVMe's higher sequential speeds, do not sacrifice capacity to go NVMe. I only got my NVMe drive because it was ~$10 more than the SATA equivalent at the time (sale or whatnot, I don't remember exactly). Still, I went 970 EVO, a 970 EVO Plus was much more expensive.

 

[Berfs1]

The drive comes in at 13 cents per GB, which is a low price price per GB if you consider nothing but "price per GB". But if you take into account performance offered etc, the whole package, then it's a terrible deal and virtually every SSD on the market is either much faster, or substantially cheaper per GB


No idea, don't have any data for 860 QVO. Just buy the MX500 or Seagate 120 for the same price, you even get +2 years warranty

Yeah, I would if i hadn't already bought mine haha (I bought it about a year ago), I got it for about 94$, a few bucks off.

 

[Th3pwn3r]

In my opinion the only reason to get an NVME ssd is the size , less cables and slightly improved air flow in some cases. The price difference makes them not worth it for any other reason.

 

[bug]

In my opinion the only reason to get an NVME ssd is the size , less cables and slightly improved air flow in some cases. The price difference makes them not worth it for any other reason.

If you compile large projects NVMe's faster random access is nice. There are reasons to go NVMe, but SATA remains the jack of all trades.

 

[phill]

Even without SSD, it would be nice if we could get some proper 2.5" HDDs for NAS so that we can build smaller boxes. Building a NAS around NVMe drives would yield a really tiny solution. Only good luck finding a board that can mount 4+ NVMe drives.

Mines stuck in a Fractal 810 case I believe it's called. Fits 10 drives and uses MATX board It's not massive by any means but it works really well

I'm not sure NVMe drives would give me the space I'd like at a price I could afford....

 

[bug]

Mines stuck in a Fractal 810 case I believe it's called. Fits 10 drives and uses MATX board It's not massive by any means but it works really well

I'm not sure NVMe drives would give me the space I'd like at a price I could afford....

Absolutely. I was just talking about an alternate universe where 4TB+ NVMe drives were affordable. You could have a NAS box that's only 20x10x5 cm in size (that's ~8x4x2 in). And that's only because you'd need to cool those drives.

 

[Caring1]

Even without SSD, it would be nice if we could get some proper 2.5" HDDs for NAS so that we can build smaller boxes. Building a NAS around NVMe drives would yield a really tiny solution. Only good luck finding a board that can mount 4+ NVMe drives.

This type of thing?

Netstor NA622TB3 4x NVMe Thunderbolt 3 SSD Enclosure

New 4-Bay NVMe SSD Thunderbolt 3 Enclosure from Netstor Netstor NA622TB3 storage is created to support up to four M.2 PCIe NVMe SSDs. With the present-day largest single M.2 NVMe SSD of 2TB in the market, the maximum storage reaches up to 8TB capacity totally by way of four M.2 NVMe SSDs installed

nascompares.com

Seagate announced their Ironwolf NVMe range which would be suitable, although not cheap.

 

[bug]

This type of thing?

Netstor NA622TB3 4x NVMe Thunderbolt 3 SSD Enclosure

New 4-Bay NVMe SSD Thunderbolt 3 Enclosure from Netstor Netstor NA622TB3 storage is created to support up to four M.2 PCIe NVMe SSDs. With the present-day largest single M.2 NVMe SSD of 2TB in the market, the maximum storage reaches up to 8TB capacity totally by way of four M.2 NVMe SSDs installed

nascompares.com

Seagate announced their Ironwolf NVMe range which would be suitable, although not cheap.

Yeah, something like that. But with NAS capabilities.

 

[phill]

Absolutely. I was just talking about an alternate universe where 4TB+ NVMe drives were affordable. You could have a NAS box that's only 20x10x5 cm in size (that's ~8x4x2 in). And that's only because you'd need to cool those drives.

Well we could all dream, but then we'd need a 1Tb network to cope with the speed of the drives I'm not sure we are quite there yet....

I'll stick with HD's for the moment, they seem a little more down to earth and possible!