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

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,171   +758
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."
IMO anything below say a WD Red Pro is just a trash drive. The unrecoverable read error rates on the lower model drives is usually junk. I'm seeing the 8TB on NewEgg for $280 so you're looking about 3x.

Then factor in the spiny drive reliability even then is poor compared to a SSD and the performance is also not remotely comparable. 3x is pretty reasonable to me. Would I rather have 1x 8TB SSD than 3x spiny 8TB? That's now a tough question to me.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 4,899   +5,447
Bottom line... for less than $1000, this 8TB Samsung is my next drive upgrade.

then I can retask my current 2TB Crucial MX500 drives.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,814   +1,967
TechSpot Elite
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.

This is most certainly not for content creation, the performance and endurance is simply not there. However if you go back to QP's posts, you see he wants this drive for game storage, for which it is a perfect fit. It's also a decent fit for an average office PC but really, how many office PCs need 1TB?

FYI I have a SATA QLC SSD for just this use. Game storage and light office use. And it's an even crappier brand than Samsung, an Adata, I think. But at 1TB for $80 I figure it's a great test case to see how well the tech works, especially at the low end. $115-140 for the TLC equivalent is notably higher and we'll see how this goes.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,464   +6,148
This is most certainly not for content creation, the performance and endurance is simply not there. However if you go back to QP's posts, you see he wants this drive for game storage, for which it is a perfect fit. It's also a decent fit for an average office PC but really, how many office PCs need 1TB?

FYI I have a SATA QLC SSD for just this use. Game storage and light office use. And it's an even crappier brand than Samsung, an Adata, I think. But at 1TB for $80 I figure it's a great test case to see how well the tech works, especially at the low end. $115-140 for the TLC equivalent is notably higher and we'll see how this goes.

$900 for a game storage drive? Why when you can buy a 500 GB SSD as cache with an 8TB HDD? You'd be looking at spending $900 vs $170 for the cache drive setup, both with equal performance. 500GB is more then enough cache as well, most games will only take up 1GB of the cache. A majority of game files are not frequently used to the point where they benefit from being on an SSD. The actual file footprint that benefits from being on an SSD is pretty small and thus why a cache is so effective.

Makes zero sense. People are just looking to blow their money.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,814   +1,967
TechSpot Elite
$900 for a game storage drive? Why when you can buy a 500 GB SSD as cache with an 8TB HDD? You'd be looking at spending $900 vs $170 for the cache drive setup, both with equal performance. 500GB is more then enough cache as well, most games will only take up 1GB of the cache. A majority of game files are not frequently used to the point where they benefit from being on an SSD. The actual file footprint that benefits from being on an SSD is pretty small and thus why a cache is so effective.

Makes zero sense. People are just looking to blow their money.

That's a good point, it's pretty nutty to put that kind of $€£ towards game storage. However when/if the price comes down, it is a reasonable way to use QLC.
 

orondf

Posts: 105   +5
$250 for 2TB of QLC? The Micron 1100 2TB can be had now for $250 and it uses TLC. So far, I'm not seeing any price benefit (for consumers) with QLC