Samsung 860 QVO 1TB. It's very cheap for the size and brand

Samsung 860 QVO 1TB. It's very cheap for the size and brand.

I don't need a super fast drive, just a very fast one. Should I get this drive?

Attached: IMGP3769.jpg (3039x2115, 1.47M)

Other urls found in this thread:

ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-MX500-500GB-vs-WD-Blue-3D-500GB/m418385vsm337874
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Not OP, but would also want to know if this is better choice than MX500? They both got atleast same the same TBW rating and are priced almost equally.

Save a few bux by going with the Crucial and buy beer.

>QLC

For a quarter of the price you can get a chink shit ssd that will do the job as good as this one

This is why people think SSDs are bad. Kys

anyway go for the MX500 not the QVO

>1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes

Attached: 435.jpg (208x243, 8K)

1GiB = 1073741824

Lol

QLC is literally environmental waste. Do not buy anything with QLC.

based QLC hopefully gets 1TB down to like 50.

I want to replace all my storage with SSDs soon.

it's very slow, check anandtech for details

It's a good drive. I have two of them. One 1TB and one 500GB. Here are the speed results of the 500GB one.

Attached: Untitled.png (402x375, 32K)

I'm looking to pick up a 2.5" 7mm SATA SSD and I'm wondering if it's worth picking up a cheaper disk or if I should pay extra for a brand name.

The Samsung drives are over $25 more, which is too much relative to the price of the unit, so that's off of my list. Yeah, they're 10 Mbps faster reading and writing sequentially, but I'm not going to notice the difference when the slowest units are 480 Mbps.

Kingston and some brand I've never head of (power std or something) are selling drives for $50. Sandisk has one for $58 and WD has (a blue) one for $60. Crucial wants $65. The specs are all comparable.

IDK if Kingston is really known for their drives, but they're a reputable firm. I don't see why I should pay $8 more for a Sandisk drive and I can't imagine paying $15 more for a crucial.

So what about it? Is it just branding and hype or should I shell out the extra $15 bucks for name brand drive that's on every top 10 drives listicle?

Get the crucial, it's regularly found for $55 on sale

dont get 1tb
2tb is faster

QLC means the more drive is fuller then write speeds drop signicantly since it has less and less free quad cells and have to rearange others to write.

>based QLC hopefully gets 1TB down to like 50.
>I want to replace all my storage with SSDs soon.
QLCs will drop like flies with heavier write scenarios

Are you trying to tell me the crucial drive is appreciably better than the Kingston, Sandisk. and WD drives?

How are the sandisk in aliexpress? I want to buy one

If your PC is older like from 2010-2015 an SSD will fucking speed up everything. I got this 500gb Samsung and its great.

$58 on Amazon

A quick search on aliexpress didn't turn a sandisk one up. I found some Kingspec and no name drives. The no name drive looked cheap, but I'm not risking it. The "King spec" drives weren't even cheap.

Just like every other time I've asked a simple question on here I've received nothing, but meme answers and ended up looking it up myself.

The reason the Kingston and Silicon Power drivers are cheaper is that they have garbage TBW values. like 80 to 120 for 500 GB drives. That's compared to 400-500 for the Crucial and WD drives and 2400-4800 for the Samsung drives. Sandisk doesn't seem to list a TBW, so I'm going to assume it's shit.

I'm not interested in saving $10 by risking frequently used sectors dying in three years. That ruled out the Kingston and Silcon Power drives. The Samsung drives are clearly overkill, so that's still off the table.

I was going to go with the WD over the Crucial to keep my $7, but I wanted to double check first, so I went over to userbenchmark:

ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-MX500-500GB-vs-WD-Blue-3D-500GB/m418385vsm337874

Turns out the Crucial drive has a substantially better mixed IO than the WD drive. 45% sequential and 21% random on average. That's a huge difference for $7.

Attached: wLwwed7.jpg (931x931, 232K)

No, get the EVO instead of QVO.

>Scamsung

i got two 1tbs for 120 on amazon due to a shipping error so it was worth for me. the drives are fine unless you have a specific tolling task where you know these wouldnt work

Weird. In my third world country Sandisk is actually cheaper than Kingston

Still, nothing beats adata. It's the cheapest brand that I know that isn't full on aliexpress chink scam brand

I made a thread earlier but since we're already talking about SSD I might as well as asking here;

I'm planning on doing a ghetto upgrade to my laptop that I had for close to 8 years (Acer 5560G, A8 with radeon APU). New upgrades include more, higher clock DDR3 RAM (currently it's on 5GB of mix-mathed RAM) and an SSD

Question is, should I just straight swap the HDD with SSD or use the tried and true method of replacing the DVD drive with SSD? I know some laptop has SATA 3 on HDD and SATA 2 on DVD drive but I don't know if that applies to my laptop and I recall reading something about SSD on SATA2 is still faster than regular HDD on SATA3, compatibility issues on some laptop when SSD is placed on SATA3, and HDD on SATA2 being almost unusable, especially when opening big files

Speeds last after 30 min of intence using
Limeted relability
Just toy for "ssd for system disk" retards
Useless for serious using

But if (You) retard, buy it when price become lowest on marcked

Thank you user for doing a real contribution (no ofence or bulling)

Sata standard is all about transfer speeds. Sata III tops around 600MB/sec (this is theoretical and rarely achieved, the best SSD get around 500-550MB/sec. SATA II max speeds are 300MB/sec. In my opinion you are better of replacing the HDD with the SSD and buy a quality SSD like the Samsung Evo 860/860 pro or Crucial MX500 because you will use all your SATA III max speed.

QLC was a mistake

Attached: EVO vs QVO.png (1366x768, 297K)

760p is decent tho.

I mean SSD on DVD drive is the most hassle free configuration.

I guess I just have to straight swap the HDD with SSD first and go from there

I went for a 860 Evo not too long ago. It's TLC I think.

Is the QVO actually a thing? I thought op made a typo

What are these chinkshit drives Jow Forums talks about? I only ever see intel or samsung drives in stores here.

Attached: 1562358930524.jpg (674x425, 63K)

yeah get it

Heres me hoping >2tb drives come down in price, where the fuck are the cheap 4tb ssds at?

I have an 850 EVO and MX500.
Pretty similar overall, just the MX500 runs 2-8 degrees hotter depending on ambient (strange I know, it's my secondary drive as well).

crucial tends to be hotter
i have both 970 evo and a mx500 on m.2

Ok Jow Forums this thread reminded me of one thing. Ever since half a year ago I've been noticing a few problems like a random slowdown that affects most of the system (video/audio/mouse responsiveness). From what I can tell the only change I made before then was replacing my old SSD with a Samsung EVO 750 I got for free. Health is at 91% after 3 years. I'm not sure about anything else that I changed because I experience the same problem with a different psu, sound card, graphics card and motherboard, and now it's basically down to that, the CPU or the memory which I didn't replace in 4 years.

So my question is, can these SSDs cause stuff like that? Random distorted audio/ video and high latency? Or am I going crazy? I don't use that Intel RST thing.

> very fast one
> QVO
Lolnope.
It is, luckily Samsung made a different lineup for "4-bit MLC".

Check your ram with memtest. I had similar stuff occur and my ram was throwing errors

I have a QVO for our email server. it's great
QVO loses write performance but retains about the same read performance. If you're not writing data constantly and mostly reading it (most people) the QLC and QVO is fine for it's price. It'll probably last long past when you upgrade it anyway.

yes but storage drives are 99% READ Not write.
Once shit is written to it once, most stuff never moves.

>4-bit MLC

Actually renaming your QLC to MLC with caevats to trick people, I hate marketing folks who do stuff like this even if it is techically correct. Although what we know as MLC should just be renamed to DLC or dual/double layer cell.

But yeah, I'm just waiting for a non-destructive read memory type to save us from NAND durability hell.

Yep, writes are slightly slower than TLC but not that bad
you'll notice if you write a fuckload of data, several GBs at a time, then it'll be much slower but massive write speed doesn't really matter that much for most people.

it has it's uses. write isn't one of them.
For storage drives QLC is great, for drives you initially write stuff to and just read from it from then on.

I've heard that the mx500 is much less reliable than the QVO, is that true?

Would a QVO be suitable for a drive you only put games on?

If all I want to do is store my weebshit, is a 2TB QLC drive the best value choice? Trying to go small form factor so thinking all NVMe SSDs to save some cable clutter.

Shit, meant M.2. SATA interface is enough for my weebshit

At writing it suck in same way

Sure, just one for the OS and programs though, stick to large HDD for storage unless you literally find an SSD for less $/TB

MX500 is TLC, 860 is QLC.