What's the purpose of those? I mean I recently bought MP600 1 TB for the price of MP600 Core same capacity. I didn't bought it for it's speed but it's TBW endurance which is by the way twice as MP600 Core 4GB. This doesn't have any market place in my opinion when you can buy a drive with same controller and same 96 layer but TCL NAND for a same price or just a little bit more money.
Absolutely, enough with this anti-consumer QLC junk. There needs to be a better tech solution that doesn't trade performance for density's sake, a better balance would be more ideal.
A pig with lipstick on is still a pig. QLC is currently a pig. It ->still<- has huge leaps and bounds to go for before it becomes a viable SSD storage medium.
With enough channels QLC and 4TB+ drives could work.
SLC cache, QLC long term storage and 8-16 channels, that could work.
Honestly for longevity and performance I'm not sure QLC is going to beat out TLC unless they get QLC up to TLC's endurance and speed, which is likely not financially viable even if technically possible.
Unfortunately, the market isn't driven by consumers who can tell the difference between QLC and TLC. Most of the time, consumers just want to have larger capacity with lower prices. If it is the garbage they want, it is what they get. That's the sad story of capitalism.
The endurance rating of the standard MP600 is exactly why I bought it as well. It blows most other SSDs out of the water in that regard. And it's more than fast enough for my needs.
All I get from any SSD review lately is that SK Hynix needs to release a Gen4 drive, since their Gen3 drive leads by a good margin in many tests already. Unless you need more than 1TB on a single drive, there's not much reason to go with anything but the P31 (or the 980 Pro if money is no object). Very high efficiency (less power is less heat), high performance, high consistency (empty vs full) and competitively low price. The only thing preventing me from getting a P31 myself is that I'm sure they'll put out a Gen4 version before long, and unless they screw something up it should be among the best drives available.
We can get the 1TB regularly for (MSRP?) $130-$135 at retail and online in the USA, but as you and ozzuneoj said, not having a 2TB variety is a missed opportunity for Hynix because this has been my go-to drive for nearly a year in just about every upgrade I do (I use nothing else in laptops or SFF\ITX systems where the power efficiency and low heat are most beneficial)
On top of that, I have installed dozens and zero have failed. An amazing accomplishment from Hynix. I've used the S31 in legacy systems with SATA ports and it's equally excellent especially for the price, though the MX500 is still my go-to drive for legacy systems because it is often slightly cheaper, and again, I have seen zero failures from those drives over the years.
that's not the point for data retention . Having data on a SSD (nand flash, type slc, mlc, tlc, qlc) it would be necessary specification for customers (beside TBW) how to store SSDs or power cycle for long term data security? While having been impressed with performance (compared to non-raid HDD) since first time SSD experience, few information about long term data security is minor customer support on that item?
I'm pleasantly surprised by the very good performance metrics for these drives. The combination of 1/4 drive SLC cache with the "housekeeping" in the background makes for a fast, yet economical drive. I have a feeling prices on these will drop pretty quickly and they'll be a great buy in 6 months to a year. I don't think I'd use them in a laptop and I think I'd go 2TB or larger for the sake of performance and endurance though.
I'm not so sure about that. 225GB day written for 5 years for the 2TB drive. If you aren't in a server situation I don't know how you'd ever get near that number.
Actually 5.6 years but compared to same MP600 TLC 8x that much or 44.8 years and for just a little more money. But seriously buying a 1 TB mp600 which will be enough regarding capacity and which will last 22.4 years under same explanation (vs 2.8 for Core) then that makes a hell of a difference.
In far less than 22 years your entire system will have been replaced...;) IE, for the use-life of the drive you will never wear it out. The importance some people place on "endurance" is really weird. I have a 960 EVO NVMe with endurance estimates of 75TB: the drive is three years old this month and served as my boot drive for two of those three years, and I've used 19.6TB of write as of today. Rounding off, I have 55TB of write endurance remaining. That makes for an average of 6.5 TBs written per year--but the drive is no longer my boot/Win10-build install drive, so an average of 5TBs per year as strictly a data drive is probably overestimating, but just for fun, let's call it 5 TBs write per year. That means I have *at least* 11 years of write endurance remaining for this drive--which would mean the drive would have lasted at least 14 years in daily use before wearing out. Anyone think that 11 years from now I'll still be using that drive on a daily basis? I don't...;) The fact is that people worry needlessly about write endurance unless they are using these drives in some kind of mega heavy-use commercial setting. Write endurance estimates of 20-30 years are absurd and when choosing a drive for your personal system such estimates should be ignored as they have no meaning--they will be obsolete long before they wear out. So, buy the drive performance at the price you want to pay and don't worry about write endurance as even 75TB is plenty for personal systems.
I have 2 TB writes per month, using PC for productivity, gaming and transcoding and still not to much. If I used it professionally for video that number would be much higher (high bandwidth mastering codes). To hell transcoding a single Blu-ray movie quickly (with GPU for sakes of making it HLG10+) will eat up to 150GB of writes and that's not a rocket science task to perform. By the way its not that PCIe interface will go anywhere and you can mont old NVMe to a new machine.
Well, soon QLS can be seen only in highend top models, when middle range and low end go to PLS or what ever... for SSD manufacturers it makes a lot of Sense because they save money in that way. Profit!
When you consider how well perfected TLC is now that it has gone full 3D and the SLC cache + overprovisioning eliminate most of the performance\endurance issues, it makes you wonder if MLC will ever come back. It's almost completely disappeared even in enterprise.
well... the same bullet, ver. 2, might work. that would require two steps: - moving 'back' to an even larger node, assuming that there's sufficient machinery at such node available at scale - getting two or three times the layers as TLC currently uses
I've no idea whether either is feasible, but willing to bet both gonads that both, at least, are required.
Great write up, unfortunate endurance regression (Went from 260 down to 225 cycles), seems only Intel is pushing QLC higher on endurance (200 to 300 to 370 cycles). Impressive random performance though, odd that only Intel appears to be extracting higher endurance with each new gen of QLC though.
I noticed that in the 670p review and I'm glad someone pointed it out. I'd like to know if it's a programming\firmware logic thing that extracts better endurance through creative block wear leveling, reduced write amplification (perhaps delayed garbage collection and stuff) or they have more spare area? It's hard to believe they have superior manufacturing compared to "everyone" but maybe they do...
With PLC on the horizon, QLC is going to look incredible by comparison :) I wonder what the internal goal is to make PLC viable, 70Cycles, 100 cycles? @ 32 Threshold charge states will be an engineering feat all on its own, Impressive QLC is able to function to nearly 400 cycles with 16 separate states(How much are they overprovisioned?). From what I see in drive warranties based on underlying nand cells, we see around a 1/4 reduction in endurance/cycles each time they increase the bits per cell (10k,2k,400-1.2K,100-375,20-100). QLC is about 4 years old now with mass market release 3 years ago. PLC is definitely on the near horizon.
Thank you for actually posting a table with each of the controllers for the drives instead of assuming we've memorized them all. It's helpful Billy. You guys should explicitly state this in all of your reviews (even if you just say the controller in brackets beside the sdd name).
'But as more SSD vendors adopt QLC NAND in a wider range of products, some are starting to challenge the assumption that QLC is only for low-quality bargain products.'
30% density gain for twice as many voltage states is diminished returns, not an assumption.
QLC working against consumer value by inflating the price of TLC (due to reduction in its economy of scale) is not an assumption either.
I think the folk pushing QLC are trying to sweep its identity under the carpet, in order to sell it at TLC prices. That's their goal. They aren't willing to accept that this is a weaker technology and must be sold at a cheaper price. Sadly, it looks as if TLC will end up being "Pro" and QLC the standard. Their itching, greedy fingers will make sure.
It's as if they're trying to sell margarine at the price of butter and working tirelessly to make people forget there even was any difference between the two. "This *is* butter. Go for it. Your heart will thank you."
What's the difficulties, if one bit or even one sector is not readable anymore, because of drift inside on cell delivers wrong bit value? What are nowadays updates to data retention? https://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-abou...
This whining about QLC is an amazing mix of comedy and incompetence. Who cares about the storage medium? If your data is written to petrified goose excrement, what does it matter if the delivered performance meets your needs?
Faceless corporations screw us over in plenty of legitimate ways. Why make up new things to get pissed off about?
Do the math or look at your actual usage data. Very few individuals are generating enough write traffic for endurance to be a concern. As others have stated here.
Bugs and bad software developers can cause significant degradation of SSD endurance. There was a bug in the Spotify desktop app a couple of years ago that caused massive writes, way beyond normal use, which affected SSD owners the most.
And there are apparently issues with Apple's M1 Macbooks, though I haven't kept up. It might have been related to their stingy RAM allotment (8 GB), causing excessive SSD swap.
Endurance will matter when it's as bad as these drives, which is the worst I've ever seen.
Sure take an example of guy who likes to watch the movies on it's new TV. He whatches 50 movie a month. He takes 4K Blue-ray discs but wants to convert them to 4K HDR + HLG (H265 10 Bit HLG+) format to match the display capabilities as good as possible. In order to do that in real time he uses GPU conversion and as it sucks regarding quality he puts 2x higher bit rate doing so. Of course he first copy them to SSD. That's (50x50) GB x3 = 7.32 TB per month or almost 88 TB per year for one or two muvies every day. When you add rest it comes to at least 100 TB a year. Example is realistic with not to much or extensive usage and illustration of how QLC endurance simply is concerning.
They should sell a single SSD that can be user configured as a 4TB QLC, 2TB TLC, 1TB MLC, or 512GB SLC SSD. That way the end user has the ability to decide the tradeoff for space vs performance!
Your math is off, possibly because of the common misunderstanding of the difference between the number of bits stored per memory cell and the number of possible voltage states required to represent those bits.
It would be 4TB as QLC, 3TB as TLC, 2TB as MLC or 1TB as SLC. See the Whole-Drive Fill test which illustrates that the 4TB drive has up to 1TB of SLC cache.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
Back to Article
ZolaIII - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
What's the purpose of those? I mean I recently bought MP600 1 TB for the price of MP600 Core same capacity. I didn't bought it for it's speed but it's TBW endurance which is by the way twice as MP600 Core 4GB.This doesn't have any market place in my opinion when you can buy a drive with same controller and same 96 layer but TCL NAND for a same price or just a little bit more money.
SarahKerrigan - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
Yeah, right now really the only sweet spot for QLC is at 4TB.powerarmour - Saturday, April 10, 2021 - link
Absolutely, enough with this anti-consumer QLC junk. There needs to be a better tech solution that doesn't trade performance for density's sake, a better balance would be more ideal.Oxford Guy - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
'that doesn't trade performance for density's sake'Performance, value (by harming TLC's economy of scale), and longevity.
30% density increase for twice as many voltage states is not a great bargain.
ballsystemlord - Saturday, April 10, 2021 - link
A pig with lipstick on is still a pig. QLC is currently a pig.It ->still<- has huge leaps and bounds to go for before it becomes a viable SSD storage medium.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
There are no leaps and bounds for it.The one thing that made TLC good enough was the transition from planar to 3D manufacturing.
QLC has no such saving grace in store – that's my bet.
arashi - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
4D manufacturing /s0ldman79 - Saturday, April 17, 2021 - link
With enough channels QLC and 4TB+ drives could work.SLC cache, QLC long term storage and 8-16 channels, that could work.
Honestly for longevity and performance I'm not sure QLC is going to beat out TLC unless they get QLC up to TLC's endurance and speed, which is likely not financially viable even if technically possible.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
They're trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and sell margarine at the price of butter, hoping nobody notices.dickeywang - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
Unfortunately, the market isn't driven by consumers who can tell the difference between QLC and TLC. Most of the time, consumers just want to have larger capacity with lower prices. If it is the garbage they want, it is what they get. That's the sad story of capitalism.pdegan2814 - Wednesday, April 14, 2021 - link
The endurance rating of the standard MP600 is exactly why I bought it as well. It blows most other SSDs out of the water in that regard. And it's more than fast enough for my needs.ozzuneoj86 - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
All I get from any SSD review lately is that SK Hynix needs to release a Gen4 drive, since their Gen3 drive leads by a good margin in many tests already. Unless you need more than 1TB on a single drive, there's not much reason to go with anything but the P31 (or the 980 Pro if money is no object). Very high efficiency (less power is less heat), high performance, high consistency (empty vs full) and competitively low price. The only thing preventing me from getting a P31 myself is that I'm sure they'll put out a Gen4 version before long, and unless they screw something up it should be among the best drives available.ozzuneoj86 - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
Sorry, I forgot about the SN850 and 970 Pro... those are also competitive, but much more expensive.bernstein - Saturday, April 10, 2021 - link
The problem with the p31 is that it was never available. at least in europe. And there is no 2tb model...ozzuneoj86 - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
Sorry to hear they are hard to get in Europe. The P31 is very easy to get in the US for $135 and often goes on sale for less at Amazon.But I agree, not having a 2TB option is unfortunate.
Samus - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
We can get the 1TB regularly for (MSRP?) $130-$135 at retail and online in the USA, but as you and ozzuneoj said, not having a 2TB variety is a missed opportunity for Hynix because this has been my go-to drive for nearly a year in just about every upgrade I do (I use nothing else in laptops or SFF\ITX systems where the power efficiency and low heat are most beneficial)On top of that, I have installed dozens and zero have failed. An amazing accomplishment from Hynix. I've used the S31 in legacy systems with SATA ports and it's equally excellent especially for the price, though the MX500 is still my go-to drive for legacy systems because it is often slightly cheaper, and again, I have seen zero failures from those drives over the years.
Come on Hynix make a 2TB model already...
back2future - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
that's not the point for data retention . Having data on a SSD (nand flash, type slc, mlc, tlc, qlc) it would be necessary specification for customers (beside TBW) how to store SSDs or power cycle for long term data security?While having been impressed with performance (compared to non-raid HDD) since first time SSD experience, few information about long term data security is minor customer support on that item?
Hulk - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
I'm pleasantly surprised by the very good performance metrics for these drives. The combination of 1/4 drive SLC cache with the "housekeeping" in the background makes for a fast, yet economical drive. I have a feeling prices on these will drop pretty quickly and they'll be a great buy in 6 months to a year. I don't think I'd use them in a laptop and I think I'd go 2TB or larger for the sake of performance and endurance though.shabby - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
Quality(endurance) , price, performance... choose two. With qlc you can only choose one 🙄Hulk - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
I'm not so sure about that. 225GB day written for 5 years for the 2TB drive. If you aren't in a server situation I don't know how you'd ever get near that number.ZolaIII - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
Actually 5.6 years but compared to same MP600 TLC 8x that much or 44.8 years and for just a little more money. But seriously buying a 1 TB mp600 which will be enough regarding capacity and which will last 22.4 years under same explanation (vs 2.8 for Core) then that makes a hell of a difference.WaltC - Saturday, April 10, 2021 - link
In far less than 22 years your entire system will have been replaced...;) IE, for the use-life of the drive you will never wear it out. The importance some people place on "endurance" is really weird. I have a 960 EVO NVMe with endurance estimates of 75TB: the drive is three years old this month and served as my boot drive for two of those three years, and I've used 19.6TB of write as of today. Rounding off, I have 55TB of write endurance remaining. That makes for an average of 6.5 TBs written per year--but the drive is no longer my boot/Win10-build install drive, so an average of 5TBs per year as strictly a data drive is probably overestimating, but just for fun, let's call it 5 TBs write per year. That means I have *at least* 11 years of write endurance remaining for this drive--which would mean the drive would have lasted at least 14 years in daily use before wearing out. Anyone think that 11 years from now I'll still be using that drive on a daily basis? I don't...;) The fact is that people worry needlessly about write endurance unless they are using these drives in some kind of mega heavy-use commercial setting. Write endurance estimates of 20-30 years are absurd and when choosing a drive for your personal system such estimates should be ignored as they have no meaning--they will be obsolete long before they wear out. So, buy the drive performance at the price you want to pay and don't worry about write endurance as even 75TB is plenty for personal systems.GeoffreyA - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
It would be interesting to put today's drives to an endurance experiment and see if their actual and advertised ratings square.ZolaIII - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
I have 2 TB writes per month, using PC for productivity, gaming and transcoding and still not to much. If I used it professionally for video that number would be much higher (high bandwidth mastering codes). To hell transcoding a single Blu-ray movie quickly (with GPU for sakes of making it HLG10+) will eat up to 150GB of writes and that's not a rocket science task to perform. By the way its not that PCIe interface will go anywhere and you can mont old NVMe to a new machine.Oxford Guy - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
One can't choose performance with QLC. It's inherently slower.It's also inherently reduced in longevity.
Remember, it has twice as many voltage states (causing a much bigger issue with drift) for just a 30% density increase.
That's diminished returns.
haukionkannel - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
Well, soon QLS can be seen only in highend top models, when middle range and low end go to PLS or what ever...for SSD manufacturers it makes a lot of Sense because they save money in that way. Profit!
nandnandnand - Saturday, April 10, 2021 - link
5/6/8 bits per cell might be ok if NAND manufacturers found some magic sauce to increase endurance. There was research to that effect going on a decade ago: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6479...TLC is not going away just yet, and they can just increase drive capacities to make it unlikely an average user will hit the limits.
Samus - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
When you consider how well perfected TLC is now that it has gone full 3D and the SLC cache + overprovisioning eliminate most of the performance\endurance issues, it makes you wonder if MLC will ever come back. It's almost completely disappeared even in enterprise.Oxford Guy - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
3D manufacturing killed MLC. It made TLC viable.There is no such magic bullet for QLC.
FunBunny2 - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
"There is no such magic bullet for QLC."well... the same bullet, ver. 2, might work. that would require two steps:
- moving 'back' to an even larger node, assuming that there's sufficient machinery at such node available at scale
- getting two or three times the layers as TLC currently uses
I've no idea whether either is feasible, but willing to bet both gonads that both, at least, are required.
cyrusfox - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
Great write up, unfortunate endurance regression (Went from 260 down to 225 cycles), seems only Intel is pushing QLC higher on endurance (200 to 300 to 370 cycles). Impressive random performance though, odd that only Intel appears to be extracting higher endurance with each new gen of QLC though.Samus - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
I noticed that in the 670p review and I'm glad someone pointed it out. I'd like to know if it's a programming\firmware logic thing that extracts better endurance through creative block wear leveling, reduced write amplification (perhaps delayed garbage collection and stuff) or they have more spare area? It's hard to believe they have superior manufacturing compared to "everyone" but maybe they do...Oxford Guy - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
Creativity isn't going to change the fact that there are twice as many voltage states in QLC vs. TLC.cyrusfox - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
With PLC on the horizon, QLC is going to look incredible by comparison :)I wonder what the internal goal is to make PLC viable, 70Cycles, 100 cycles? @ 32 Threshold charge states will be an engineering feat all on its own, Impressive QLC is able to function to nearly 400 cycles with 16 separate states(How much are they overprovisioned?).
From what I see in drive warranties based on underlying nand cells, we see around a 1/4 reduction in endurance/cycles each time they increase the bits per cell (10k,2k,400-1.2K,100-375,20-100). QLC is about 4 years old now with mass market release 3 years ago. PLC is definitely on the near horizon.
James5mith - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
For the minimal price increase, get the E18 based Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus 4TB model. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08VF99PV8/HideOut - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
Thats still a big price increase. More than $150 even on sale.TheinsanegamerN - Saturday, April 10, 2021 - link
With far better long term write endurance, write speed, ece. QLC has a nasty habit of slowing WAY down once filled up.Oxford Guy - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
It shows its true performance.Once the 'SLC' disguise is gone...
wr3zzz - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
I don't know why SN550 was used in the performance benchmarks when these QLC drives are priced at premium to SN750.[email protected] - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
For QLC write endurance I look at 600 x size. The numbers here are rather poor. Maybe its a mistake?phillyry - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
Thank you for actually posting a table with each of the controllers for the drives instead of assuming we've memorized them all. It's helpful Billy. You guys should explicitly state this in all of your reviews (even if you just say the controller in brackets beside the sdd name).JoeDuarte - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link
Billy, what is this part supposed to say?"competing against drives the cheaper TLC NAND SSD vendors that cut corners."
(On the first page.)
Oxford Guy - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
QLC itself is cut corners.You're getting only a 30% density increase for double the voltage states. Diminished returns.
StrangerGuy - Saturday, April 10, 2021 - link
2TB QLC for $300.*yawn*
Oxford Guy - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
That kind of pricing should be a scandal.Two years ago Black Friday had NVME PCI-e 3 TLC drives for $200.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
'But as more SSD vendors adopt QLC NAND in a wider range of products, some are starting to challenge the assumption that QLC is only for low-quality bargain products.'30% density gain for twice as many voltage states is diminished returns, not an assumption.
QLC working against consumer value by inflating the price of TLC (due to reduction in its economy of scale) is not an assumption either.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
I think the folk pushing QLC are trying to sweep its identity under the carpet, in order to sell it at TLC prices. That's their goal. They aren't willing to accept that this is a weaker technology and must be sold at a cheaper price. Sadly, it looks as if TLC will end up being "Pro" and QLC the standard. Their itching, greedy fingers will make sure.It's as if they're trying to sell margarine at the price of butter and working tirelessly to make people forget there even was any difference between the two. "This *is* butter. Go for it. Your heart will thank you."
[email protected] - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
As Usual QLC endurance sucks big time....Oxford Guy - Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - link
'I think the folk pushing QLC are trying to sweep its identity under the carpet'Samsung does that. It labels QLC drives '4-bit MLC' or something. Disgusting.
back2future - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
What's the difficulties, if one bit or even one sector is not readable anymore, because of drift inside on cell delivers wrong bit value?What are nowadays updates to data retention?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-abou...
allenb - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
This whining about QLC is an amazing mix of comedy and incompetence. Who cares about the storage medium? If your data is written to petrified goose excrement, what does it matter if the delivered performance meets your needs?Faceless corporations screw us over in plenty of legitimate ways. Why make up new things to get pissed off about?
Do the math or look at your actual usage data. Very few individuals are generating enough write traffic for endurance to be a concern. As others have stated here.
JoeDuarte - Sunday, April 11, 2021 - link
Bugs and bad software developers can cause significant degradation of SSD endurance. There was a bug in the Spotify desktop app a couple of years ago that caused massive writes, way beyond normal use, which affected SSD owners the most.And there are apparently issues with Apple's M1 Macbooks, though I haven't kept up. It might have been related to their stingy RAM allotment (8 GB), causing excessive SSD swap.
Endurance will matter when it's as bad as these drives, which is the worst I've ever seen.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - link
Probably nanosecond timestamps in APFS with various spyware running amok.edzieba - Monday, April 12, 2021 - link
Oh shush, next you'll be telling them that bus interface speed or heatsink presence/size is not an useful indicator of drive performance!ZolaIII - Friday, April 16, 2021 - link
Sure take an example of guy who likes to watch the movies on it's new TV. He whatches 50 movie a month. He takes 4K Blue-ray discs but wants to convert them to 4K HDR + HLG (H265 10 Bit HLG+) format to match the display capabilities as good as possible. In order to do that in real time he uses GPU conversion and as it sucks regarding quality he puts 2x higher bit rate doing so. Of course he first copy them to SSD. That's (50x50) GB x3 = 7.32 TB per month or almost 88 TB per year for one or two muvies every day. When you add rest it comes to at least 100 TB a year. Example is realistic with not to much or extensive usage and illustration of how QLC endurance simply is concerning.FunBunny2 - Saturday, April 17, 2021 - link
"almost 88 TB per year for one or two muvies every day. When you add rest it comes to at least 100 TB a year."well... such a knucklehead obviously doesn't have any time devoted to work, so s/he's either a rich real estate developer or a welfare queen/king. :)
ZolaIII - Sunday, April 18, 2021 - link
Why? If you work from 9 to 5 you don't have time to watch a movie or two (especially if you like watching movies)?DracoDan - Monday, April 19, 2021 - link
They should sell a single SSD that can be user configured as a 4TB QLC, 2TB TLC, 1TB MLC, or 512GB SLC SSD. That way the end user has the ability to decide the tradeoff for space vs performance!Billy Tallis - Tuesday, April 20, 2021 - link
Your math is off, possibly because of the common misunderstanding of the difference between the number of bits stored per memory cell and the number of possible voltage states required to represent those bits.It would be 4TB as QLC, 3TB as TLC, 2TB as MLC or 1TB as SLC. See the Whole-Drive Fill test which illustrates that the 4TB drive has up to 1TB of SLC cache.
xJumpManx - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
If you have a X570 Taichi do not buy sabrent ssd the mobo does not detect the drive.