Samsung's new 870 QVO SATA line includes a monster 8TB SSD

Shawn Knight

Posts: 12,316   +120
Staff member
Editor's take: Samsung does have some competition in the large-capacity SSD segment. Sabrent, for example, has an 8TB NVMe PCIe M.2 drive on the market that’s much faster that Samsung’s at up to 3,300 MB/s sequential read and 2,900 MB/s sequential write, but it’s also $1,500 and not SATA. How Samsung decides to price its new 8TB drive will be crucial.

Samsung on Tuesday officially introduced its second-generation quad-level cell (QLC) drive, further pushing the boundaries of what is possible in terms of high-capacity consumer flash storage with a capacity of up to 8TB.

The South Korean electronics giant said consumers have traditionally had to choose between the superior performance afforded by solid state drives or the capacity advantage that you get when going with a conventional mechanical hard drive. The 870 QVO SSD, however “is able to reliably offer the best of both worlds” which Samsung claims makes it the “optimal choice for mainstream PC users who prioritize performance and value.”

The Samsung 870 QVO SATA SSD offers sequential read and write speeds of up to 560 MB/s and 530 MB/s, respectively. Random read / write speeds, meanwhile, are rated at up to 98K IOPS and 88K IOPS, respectively. The drives utilize the new MKX controller alongside Samsung’s 4-bit MLC V-NAND flash memory.

Drives will be offered in capacities of 1TB, 2TB, 4TB and 8TB. All will be backed by a three-year limited warranty with total bytes written rated at up to 2,880TB (for the 8TB model).

Pricing starts at $129.99 for the 1TB model and scales up to $249.99 for the 2TB version and $499.99 for the 4TB model. The top-end 8TB unit won’t arrive until later this summer at an undisclosed price. One leak suggests it could cost around $900.

Permalink to story.

 

brucek

Posts: 398   +440
Re: performance vs. capacity

Here capacity = price, and at $900 this would still be 5-6x the cost of mechanical drives. So no, not close to the "best of both worlds."

 
  • Like
Reactions: Homerlovesbeer

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 2,901   +2,642
Re: performance vs. capacity

Here capacity = price, and at $900 this would still be 5-6x the cost of mechanical drives. So no, not close to the "best of both worlds."


I personally focus on capacity over performance. As long as the drive is "reliable" I will absolutely buy it. #1 I trust Samsung. #2 I'm using Crucial MX 500 drives which as far as I know are slightly inferior to the Samsung QVO. #3 I've never heard bad news about Samsung's QVO line and review after review paints them as great.

 
  • Like
Reactions: AudoBell

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 2,901   +2,642
I'm surprised that SSD's haven't dropped in cost over the past two years. Sooner or later they will go the same route as RAM and other components .... we can only hope it will be sooner rather than later.

I'm definitely buying this. It's a choice between buying the Samsung 4TB EVO on the market for around $700 after tax or buying this which is double the capacity for around $1000 after tax.

Finally a single drive that can fit Call of Duty!
 
  • Like
Reactions: madboyv1

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,838   +1,067

brucek

Posts: 398   +440
I personally focus on capacity over performance. As long as the drive is "reliable" I will absolutely buy it. #1 I trust Samsung. #2 I'm using Crucial MX 500 drives which as far as I know are slightly inferior to the Samsung QVO. #3 I've never heard bad news about Samsung's QVO line and review after review paints them as great.
Yes, there are plenty of applications where capacity/price matters more. But what I'm still not hearing how this solution beats a system with a fast limited size SSD for active set content with a second tier of mechanical drives for streaming media and archive content. Especially taking reliability into account, where the huge price difference will allow you to put the mechanical drives into RAID, and even have a completely separate mirrored second backup set on top of that if you wish.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 2,901   +2,642
Yes, there are plenty of applications where capacity/price matters more. But what I'm still not hearing how this solution beats a system with a fast limited size SSD for active set content with a second tier of mechanical drives for streaming media and archive content. Especially taking reliability into account, where the huge price difference will allow you to put the mechanical drives into RAID, and even have a completely separate mirrored second backup set on top of that if you wish.

Well here's my thing. I currently have Crucial MX 500 as my desktop's SSD storage. As far as I know, Samsung QVO is superior to Crucial MX500. But I've been nothing but happy with Crucial since I've moved from HDD to SSD. I really don't see the need for cutting edge performance when I'm just using SSD to run DCS World, Counterstrike Go and other games designed to run on mainstream HDD or SSD.

The transfer speed benefits you get on virtually any SSD are already so good to me that the performance differences are irrelevant.

I would say that I don't need more than 4TB for my laptop so nvme m.2 is fine there.
But my desktop is the bulk of my storage so I use SSD for games and music and a HDD for big video files.

In total, all of my personal data, minus games on STEAM is less than 2TB. I only need 4TB, but 8TB would give me the future proofing I typically covet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: madboyv1

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,838   +1,067
For game loads there's one dominant metric, sequential reads. The 4TB QVO is the same speed as the other SATA EVOs:

I believe 4/16/32kb Sequential Reads are more important for games than 128kb reads.




This review while older speaks to this.
 
Last edited:

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,404   +1,375
TechSpot Elite
I believe 4/16/32kb Sequential Reads are more important for games than 128kb reads.



This review while older speaks to this.
From your link:

"A Disclaimer: Don't Take This too Seriously

Before we get to the results, I want to demystify a few concepts regarding SSD performance. Here's the thing: In gaming, it's really going to be almost entirely irrelevant which SSD you opt for in terms of speed"

So QLC will of course be just as fast as TLC for game loads. Did you look at the actual total amount of data loaded in those tests? 70-390 MB and most of that was large reads, well in excess of your 4K read numbers. All R&W performed in a few seconds at most.

Have you looked at game load times which Toms Hardware does? All SSDs are practically identical and even HDDs are only 2-2.5x the load times of the best NVMe SSDs.



STR matters most and the QVOs are as good as TLC for that.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,404   +1,375
TechSpot Elite
If 4k reads were actually important for game loading then there's no way an HDD could load games only 2.5x slower than an SSD while it's 4k read speed was 83x slower.

 

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,838   +1,067
From your link:

"A Disclaimer: Don't Take This too Seriously

Before we get to the results, I want to demystify a few concepts regarding SSD performance. Here's the thing: In gaming, it's really going to be almost entirely irrelevant which SSD you opt for in terms of speed"

So QLC will of course be just as fast as TLC for game loads. Did you look at the actual total amount of data loaded in those tests? 70-390 MB and most of that was large reads, well in excess of your 4K read numbers. All R&W performed in a few seconds at most.

Have you looked at game load times which Toms Hardware does? All SSDs are practically identical and even HDDs are only 2-2.5x the load times of the best NVMe SSDs.



STR matters most and the QVOs are as good as TLC for that.
lol and don't worry about me taking it seriously I'm not I use faster drives in my system as I said I wouldn't be purchasing one of these so all good.

I looked at toms review but that is 1 game that sample isn't big enough.

And yes I looked at the numbers from gamer nexus but it still shows 4k/16k/32k being more important than >64k numbers.

" but it would seem that games are trending toward 16K and 32K packages for more efficient loading. Almost no operations are above 64K in size. "
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,404   +1,375
TechSpot Elite
Tom's has been doing game load tests for years and yes with more than just one game. I gave one example but if you are interested, you can look up others for yourself.

The load times of all SSDs were within ~5% variation, there is no difference, as Steve said in your link. It's perfectly fine not to like QLC drives but they are simply not slower for game load times.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 2,901   +2,642
For game loads there's one dominant metric, sequential reads. The 4TB QVO is the same speed as the other SATA EVOs:


Intel 660p 2TB M.2 is also on my radar for my gaming laptop which I haven't been using lately since I didn't travel internationally this year due to Covid.

The 2TB intel 660p is relatively cheap at under $230. I could go for that one, the Samsung model or the Crucial.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,838   +1,067
Tom's has been doing game load tests for years and yes with more than just one game. I gave one example but if you are interested, you can look up others for yourself.

The load times of all SSDs were within ~5% variation, there is no difference, as Steve said in your link. It's perfectly fine not to like QLC drives but they are simply not slower for game load times.
That I know but I mean game loading for this specific drive QVO and their review only has 1 game listed.

And yes the drives are fine if you don't mind the slower performance. If you are only going to load stuff on it once every couple months its not an issue. And yes it is faster than a Standard HD. However for ME not good enough!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lew Zealand

Evernessince

Posts: 5,103   +5,346
QLC is the future.

People need to make peace with that.
Sure and I'm sure more people will be willing to hop ship once those endurance numbers get up.

That's the funny part about it. Frankly if Samsung is putting their name and reputation on the line to the tune of an 8TB QLC unit, they clearly think it's ready for widespread use. Though I do love their description of the NAND: 4-bit MLC. MLC, lol!
Hmm, samsung galaxy fold and battery issues say hello!

The fact is, QLC doesn't have great endurance. Can you really blame people for not wanting a drive with poor endurance? Just as an example the Intel 660p has 1/3rd the endurance that 970 Evo has (comparing 1TB models). Over a 5 year period (the average lifespan of a HDD), you are looking at being able to write at most 110 GB per day if you want that drive to last the full 5 year period. This should be ok for most people but there is certainly a chunk of PC users where they would definitely exceed this amount. There's no way I'd be creating any content on any current gen QLC drive. I get an average of 10 years of life out of my enterprise class HDDs and the writes speeds are around 230 MB/s.

QLC tech has a ways to go before it's impressing anyone.