Samsung 860 QVO SSD Linux Benchmarks: 1TB SATA 3.0 SSD For $150 USD

[claytyler]

Too bad the WD VelociRaptor 150GB was what you had handy for testing [ https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...-860-qvo&num=2 ] given that storagereview says the 1TB Velociraptor is the fastest in the line [ "fastest SATA hard drive on the market" - https://www.storagereview.com/wester...tor_1tb_review ]

[Weasel]

The drive is absolutely rubbish from a longevity standpoint, hard load usage and continuous write usages.

Who the fuck writes continuously on SSDs? (READ: consumers, since it's not an enterprise drive)

[Weasel]

Write test benchmarks from other reviewers suggest that as soon as SLC-based write cache deplete QLC-based SSD have HDD-level performance.

Who cares about write performance.

[Brane215]

With M.2, who needs SSD ?

I'm waiting for a U.2:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2405-u2-vs-m2-vs-sata-express-best-for-ssds

[muncrief]

Well, it's good to see SSD prices are coming down, and I wouldn't expect top notch performance in the lowest tier price range.

However I don't see a lot of need for a 1TB drive that's higher priced than a magnetic drive because, even with a lot of compiling, CAD programs, music programs, etc., I only use a fraction of my 512GB SSD.

I'll happily switch my 16TB of data storage (that includes a massive multimedia collection), to SSD someday, but only when the price is equal to today's magnetic disks.

[Noname]

To me this is ideal drive for storage / backup / media purposes plus it's noise less (NOTE: dunno how it behave as "external" offline storage, but that's not my use case so, just saying).
Taking into consideration prices of 4TB SSD this line (at that capacity, and ideally 6-8TB) is nice offering.

IMHO for 1TB this is bad deal, 2TB is questionable, 4TB is good as long as this is media storage use case.

Of course there will be price shift in EVO/QVO drives at some point because I think QVO is priced to closely to EVO and for serious workload it's not good (but that's yet to be seen as there is very little data regarding endurance etc. for these drives, but I don't think there will be anything surprising here as mostly this is EVO controller with QLC).

[bug77]

Write test benchmarks from other reviewers suggest that as soon as SLC-based write cache deplete QLC-based SSD have HDD-level performance.

Only the transfer speeds slow down. HDDs could catch up to SSD's seek times if the SSD would stop for a coffee. And most of the time, it's the seek times you're after.

Also, yes, the tests don't care about the SLC cache, but you know what? Most tests are based on real workloads and real workloads don't care about SLC cache either.

At the same time, that Crucial drive looks suspiciously slow. It's as if it was tested while almost full (a known weakness in MX300). Or maybe it's a Linux thing?

[fuzz]

Would this be a good drive for read-oriented storage like large games?

[commiethebeastie]

Your's tests are bullshit. This test don't take into account SLC cache.

[milkylainen]

Write test benchmarks from other reviewers suggest that as soon as SLC-based write cache deplete QLC-based SSD have HDD-level performance.

You're absolutely right.
The drive is absolutely rubbish from a longevity standpoint, hard load usage and continuous write usages.
As a low load, desktop something drive... most normal users won't be able to tell the difference.
The small SLC-cache will paint a rosier picture than the QLC-backend if used lightly.