Obviously he implies recent price trends in a market where some older products are clearly better then new ones not only in performance/$ but also in absolute performance.
But sure please keep up your disingenuous trollish comparisons. Maybe you would also want to elaborate how current GPUs aren't overpriced because they are a million times faster than the 1998 TNT?
Take a chill pill dude. You still get way more bang for your buck on sSDs now then you did 3-4 years ago. 4-8TB m.2 drives wern't even an option back then, and PCIe gen 4 is expensive to implement compared to gen 3.
Also current GPUs are no more overpriced then the 8800ultra was, which adjusted for inflation was $1100, with NO mining excuses. Didnt even have 1GB of RAM FFS.
well I think part of that is due to the chip shortage currently but i do agree, things like the intel 660p ssd are a great example of nand prices going down and for the btter a 1tb 90$ ssd, AMAZING as far as im concerned and most notebooks use ssds rather than hard drives, prices havent really gone up much for that super amazing benefit.
You keep posting this comment on every article about storage, but that doesn't make it true. Your notion of "economy of scale" is pathetically naive and unconnected to the reality of how NAND flash memory is manufactured. Economies of scale in semiconductor manufacturing come primarily from having more and larger fabs. Using two different mask sets with those production lines instead of just one doesn't ruin those economies of scale. If it did, then you should have been complaining about companies manufacturing both 256Gbit and 512Gbit TLC dies at the same time.
Calling my argument 'pathetically naive' doesn't make your opinions true either.
'Economies of scale in semiconductor manufacturing come primarily from having more and larger fabs. Using two different mask sets with those production lines instead of just one doesn't ruin those economies of scale.'
The reality is that every dollar consumers spend on QLC is a dollar less spent on TLC. That reduces the economy of scale for TLC by reducing TLC production.
"The reality is that every dollar consumers spend on QLC is a dollar less spent on TLC. That reduces the economy of scale for TLC by reducing TLC production."
You have no basis for believing that adding some QLC to the mix of a NAND fab's output meaningfully affects the marginal cost of TLC production. I've never seen you hypothesize any mechanism for how that would actually work. You just keep asserting a general economic principal as if it's a fundamental law.
You are trying to make this seem complex when it's extremely simple.
As we have already seen with SLC and MLC, when a cheaper-to-produce technology comes along, production shifts to producing that technology -- reducing availability of the previous products. (That was a serious drawback for consumers before 3D manufacturing made TLC a much better solution than it was.) Scarcity + demand = higher prices. Reducing production increases scarcity. Eventually, it also generally reduces demand which, in turn, reduces production further.
We have already seen this with MLC. It's rather incredible to see anyone claim there is no evidence of exactly the process I've described. It's also extremely simple, and factual, that every dollar spent on QLC is a dollar not spent on TLC -- nor MLC.
That is not economies of scale, that is market share. What you want is not to make TLC cheaper, but to boycott QLC.
I wouldn't have disagreed with you when QLC came out. But right now I'd consider it good enough for most consumers, regardless of it being technically inferior to TLC.
The truth is, there just isn't any real world difference in performance between modern SSD's when it comes to the tasks a typical consumer faces. Only gamers and workstations benefit from TLC, and while it's natural to want to prevent it from becoming a "Luxury product" like MLC did, I think that there will always be demand for SSD's with higher endurance and throughput than QLC.
If you want to spread awareness about the negative aspects of QLC, do it intelligently, instead of acting like a conspiracy theory weirdo.
Actually, to correct myself: there are SSD's that are objectively bad and should be banished from this dimension, they're called DRAMless SATA SSD's. But thankfully, that issue has already has been sorted out by history.
That exact same argument was sued for MLC when TLC came out, and we all saw what happened to MLC.
QLC is "cheaper" and more importantly has far less endurance then TLC. Built in obsolescence. It's a horrible product for consumers, slower then TLC, especially when the drive fills up, and isnt noticeably cheaper for th econsumer then TLC is.
QLC is garbage, and outside of extreme capacity drives like sabarent's rocket q 8TB, makes no sense.
A 2TB TLC SSD's warranty can cover for 667 Gigabites of writes per day for 5 years. Which consumer will exceed that? Chia miners? How much data have you written into your computer today?
The existing MLC capacity has merely been redirected to enterprise consumers, who actually DO need to entirely rewrite their SSD's daily. And for those cases there's also Optane and the new low-latency SLC (Z-NAND).
Give QLC SSD's some dedicated SLC + a tiering software and it beats TLC drives in endurance. The Enmotus FuzeDrive P200 does exactly that and ot has an endurance of 3,600 TBW, or 1 DWPD. Two to three times the warrantied endurance of your typical TLC drive.
That's the future we're headed towards. QLC for bulk storage, tiered with SLC or an NVRAM (Optane or competitor) for hot storage.
Plus, IIRC there is a 8TB QLC SSD that refuses to fold data from the SLC cache into QLC until it *needs to*, so if you fill less than 2TB of data it essentially behaves like a pSLC SSD. You might have to ask NewMaxx for the details (And to fact-check me) tho.
Plus, the warrantied storage is typically VERY conservative, and is only supposed to stop the enterprise people from buying the cheaper and lower-binned consumer SSD's.
So I expect that in most consumer workloads the FuzeDrive is going to roughly match the endurance of TLC, which itself is more than sufficient for your typical consumer to use for over 10 years - at which point the SSD will either have failed from other problems, or be old outdated garbage that might not even fit in a modern computer.
I expect the Zip drive and the Deathstar hard drive from IBM.
The Zip drive was a massive market success despite being an extremely shoddy and unreliable design. It should be unbelievable (and isn't) that a product that bad was allowed to become so common.
Expect the worst. Companies are in business to 'sell less for more'. If they could sell you an old boot fished out of a toxic lake rather than a computer, for the same money, they would -- in a New York minute.
When you end up with bits of tech that are better than half-baked trash like the Zip drive then be pleasantly surprised. Don't be surprised when tech like the Zip drives gives you the click of death. Inadequate product quality is one of the results of inadequate regulation.
Write endurance limits are set based on how much you can wear out the flash and still have one year of unpowered data retention (or three months for enterprise drives). That's still largely determined with high-temperature accelerated testing, but it's pretty well understood how to do that properly.
Can we ban this idiot already? A 10TB QLC drive will have a larger write endurance than a 2TB TLC drive does today. There is nothing inherently wrong with QLC tech, its supposedly inferior write endurance is self-mitigating by the fact that there are more cells to spread writes across. Which is exactly why TLC overtook MLC, and MLC overtook SLC. Go the frick away.
Not a fan of freedom of speech/expression/press? Especially when it comes to these money-driven corporations, one needs to put whatever they do under a microscope and pay little heed to their words.
There's nothing wrong with QLC. It's a product with a place: supposedly, bigger size and cheaper price. (Concerning endurance, if the ratings are true and not made up, they ought to be fine for most people.) But as far as I can see, QLC isn't *that* much cheaper than TLC. About 15-20% or something to that effect. Costly to make, greed, the pandemic, or all three?
That's pretty much what it should be. QLC holds about 33% more than TLC, or, for the same amount of storage QLC uses 25% fewer cells. It's a less mature tech so I wouldn't expect it to get the full 25% savings, and all the other common components will reduce savings too.
Voltage states are an enumeration of possibilities; they do not occupy physical space and are not the correct quantity to compare when discussing storage capacity.
"Voltage states are an enumeration of possibilities; they do not occupy physical space"
well... would you deny that a larger cell, i.e. one with more atoms, is more capable of storing more distinct voltages with some delta of accuracy? not to mention the whole endurance thingee. IOW, as an applied physics problem, QLC is closer to the razor's edge of performance than lower xLC cells. were all this not true, then manufacturers have been wasting gobs and gobs of moolah to implement stacks of 'olde' larger node NAND for TLC and QLC.
But most people don't measure their storage devices by how many different states they can maintain-- they measure them by how many bits (or xxx-bytes) they can store. By that (standard) measure, futrtrubl is correct in that a QLC drive holds 33% more data than a TLC drive with the same number of cells (4 bits per cell vs. 3 bits per cell), and if costs are the same per cell, would be expected to cost 25% less for a given capacity (e.g., 1 TB).
'But most people don't measure their storage devices by how many different states they can maintain-- they measure them by how many bits (or xxx-bytes) they can store.'
You really think that's a logically-sound rebuttal?
" Not a fan of freedom of speech/expression/press? " that what it is, its just his bias opinion, for some reason, he hates QLC, and seems to go to great lengths to say how bad it is.
" " Not a fan of freedom of speech/expression/press? " "
a frequent complaint, esp. the Lunatic Right. the text of the US Constitution *only* promises that the Damn Gummint cannot, arbitrarily, shut you up. they can if your calling for insurrection, for instance. and it says nothing about what a private entity can do. you remember seeing signs on retail doorways - 'no solicitation allowed'? that means union organizers can't say what they want on or near the premises. it also means that Big Bad Tech can monitor and quash speech/text they find objectionable; no reason need be given. the list goes on forever.
Qasar, I think he's making a valid complaint, and fears, like many of us do, that Q will become the standard soon and T the costlier "pro" variant. QLC began with a dubious reputation and so we're resistant to its replacing something we trust. For one thing to replace something else, it must be better, not equal or weaker. Q's argument is better size and price; but, as it stands, doesn't seem to be delivering much in those areas, yet wants to usurp the throne from TLC.
I'm inclined to agree also. I've seen the transition from SLC to MLC to TLC, and I have no doubt that soon QLC will replace even TLC (at least for consumers). TLC wasn't too far a drop-off performance-wise from MLC, but QLC is quite a bit less.
I don't doubt that most consumers won't be able to see the difference, but I'm disappointed that we're going down the spec-tree instead of up (a lower baseline now), primarily because the mfgs want to save money.
It's amusing to see how, despite the many comments condemning QLC from other posters on this site in very recent articles, I am suddenly being singled out.
Ad hominem won't change the facts:
Every dollar spent on QLC is a dollar that reduces TLC production, raising TLC prices by increasing TLC scarcity. The same thing happened with MLC.
QLC has double the voltage states for only 30% more density. That's diminished returns.
TLC was made much more viable via the change from planar to 3D production. Remember how the Samsung 840 (planar TLC) was so unstable from voltage drift that the only solution was a kludge: re-writing the data again and again? That very serious symptom of a very troubling problem (due to the increase in voltage states in going from MLC to TLC) was solved via the introduction of 3D lithography. Where is the silver bullet for QLC? It has been produced in 3D from the beginning and yet its flaws are still quite evident.
I'm kinda with Banshee here, spreading nonsense like this is not just ignorant and counterintuitive, but dangerous. People stupid opinions can be protected by free speech but outright lies shouldn't be.
"protected by free speech but outright lies shouldn't"
Like any principle taken too far, free speech can certainly be abused, and sow lies, discord, or hatred. That's why it's got to be bound by other rules.
Free speech is a myth. All speech is subjected to censorship, including by the mind of the person producing it. The key here is that echo chambers (which aren't difficult to find on tech websites like Ars and Slashdot) are not the only solution to having community feedback.
"All speech is subjected to censorship, including by the mind of the person producing it"
Agreed; and that's a good point. But you know what I mean. The ability for someone to say or print something and not be persecuted or thrown into jail next morning. In the end it's all about finding truth. Opinion is usually worthless, but not tolerating it or dissent can lead to truth being swept under the carpet.
Define 'nonsense' and provide examples from my posts, if you're going to try to act like unelected/non-credentialed forum police. 'I'm kinda with' is the sort of language choice that certainly instills the highest confidence and respect.
But we dont HAVE 10TB QLC drives. We have 1/2TB QLC drives, which have significantly less endurance.
"go the fricka way" until you can come up with a better argument. So long as QLC is selling for TLC capacity and TLC price it is a worthless anti consumer tech.
Hopefully these manufacturers will be getting back lots of dead drives if Chia proof of stake crypto-mining takes off. That will teach them to promote inferior technology!
Kingston pulled a similar trick with their V300 series of SSDs back in 2014, albeit "only" with slower NAND - I hear ADATA switched to slower NAND as well as a slower controller.
I've run an ADATA XPG SX8200 (non-pro) 1TB for the past 3+ years in my MacBook Pro as the system drive. Been very happy with it, and still blistering fast even now. Was approx 3x faster read & 4x faster write than the Apple OEM SSD, made a big difference to the feel of my MPB.
As to changing components, not brilliant, but perhaps inevitable over the life of a long-lived model. Most SSD brands are not full-stack manufacturers, and supply / cost of sub-components is outside their control. As long as it meets the specs on the box and isn't crippled (like silently changing HDD models to HAMR mechanism without stating on the box).
Anandtech was quite accepting of companies changing SSD components on their middle-low end lines in the last SSD roundup. The 8200 Pro launched around 3 years ago, and while it's still damn fast for most people, I'd call it middle of the road now that PCIe 4.0 is here.
They could easily have done this a number of ways: 1. add a letter to the end of the model with each rev, SX8200A, SX8200B 2. add Mk1, Mk2, etc. 3. increment the model number by +1 every time, SX8201, SX8202, etc
Each of these signify that it's still a related product aimed at the same market segment, while communicating that it isn't the exact same hardware that was reviewed when the product initially came out.
And yet Intel, which was mentioned on the first page, has been at the forefront of pushing the anti-value QLC trash.
Which would you rather choose? A company that is openly hostile to consume value or one that changes parts surreptitiously?
Nvidia is reportedly going to surreptitiously sell some 3060s with its latest anti-mining thing, without bothering to let consumers know which type they're getting for their money. Things like that should be illegal but the world is not governed adequately. Caveat emptor rules. The panel lottery for TVs is a huge example of the surreptitiousness fraud.
Ad hominem won't change reality. In reality, QLC offers only 30% more density for double the voltage states. That is diminished returns.
Moreover, every dollar consumers spend on QLC reduces the price value of TLC by reducing TLC production.
I'm not sorry that I'm ruffling the feathers of various QLC-peddling corporations by posting the truth. Being attacked for it is hardly unexpected. It's how business communication works.
"In reality, QLC offers only 30% more density for double the voltage states. That is diminished returns."
IFF both TLC and QLC are on the same node size. moving back up to a larger node (and I know not whether that's happened) for QLC could (note the subjunctive) end up with an equivalent NAND density/bit. that, of course, should be the controlling factor.
Any decent QLC drive will operate in SLC mode for as long as it can (e.g an empty 4TB QLC drive has 1TB of SLC space, and a half-full 4TB QLC drive will have around 500GB of TLC space). So you can rest easy, they’re even better than your precious TLC drives.
many times the 'experts' here at AT have asserted that 'SLC mode' by xLC NAND just ain't like 'real' SLC. don't recall how large the falloff is, but it exists.
"Any decent QLC drive will operate in SLC mode for as long as it can (e.g an empty 4TB QLC drive has 1TB of SLC space,"
How many QLC drive can operate in SLC mode? But hey, I'm paying for 4TB, I expect to have a full 4TB of reasonable quality NAND, not 4TB of crappy NAND and hoping it would work well if I use only 1/4 of its capacity.
"So you can rest easy, they’re even better than your precious TLC drives"
Imagine thinking the above line justifies your technology being "good". You can take your condescending attitude and shove it. Nobody buys a drive to use a quarter of its capacity just to try to keep speeds up to previous generation tech just to pay as much as said previous gen tech. Unless QLC brings 2TB NVMe drives under $100 it's worthless to most consumers.
let's just admit that nand is nand and it's honestly pretty great, do we need something new yes, was that intel 3d x-point, possibly but according to them no, so we are gonna have to deal with cheaper higher capacity SSD's for a while as long as I can still get an SLC/MLC/TLC SSD for my boot drive I don't care about having my games on qlc or whatever comes after and as long as OEM for laptops dont use qlc or later for boot drives im fine with it.
"as long as OEM for laptops dont use qlc or later for boot drives im fine with it."
whose going to stop them from putting QLC or whatever the next xLC is called in your laptop? the FTC? not even Biden's cabal has the stones to do that.
yeah I agree, not that any president would care about nand but anyway if it does happen which it will, I know i can probably buy a 120gb model and just buy a tlc or lower drive either way and flip the 120gb or something maybe put it into an HPC machine something like that.
Most B550 boards have 2x M.2 slots, with the main slot being 4.0 and connected to the CPU and the second slot hanging off the chipset and limited to 3.0 speeds. So... plug it into the 2nd slot and leave the 1st slot for a higher performance 4.0 drive if you have one?
X570 avoids this by having 4.0 lanes off of the chipset, so take your pick on which slot to plug it into. Probably wouldn't hurt to plug the higher performance drive into the CPU lanes.
Future buyers may get different hardware, but at least today based on the reviewed hardware and the price of the product this drive looks like it has pretty decent value.
In most of the tests it seems to rival the 970 EVO Plus which is a decent bit more expensive. After the SLC cache runs out, performance is definitely lower, but most average consumers aren't writing hundreds of GB of data at a time and should stay within the cache most of the time.
I wish the reviewers did a bit better job at explaining what the average person actually needs in terms of performance. Yes, they do all kinds of different tests which are admirable, but what does it mean in the end to the average user?
Maybe the truth is that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the fastest SSD on the market and a SATA SSD, so it literally doesn't matter.
"Yep, it makes no sense use PCIe 4.0 for a drive which is not fast enough to reach the PCIe 3.0-max speeds"
yeah, but... I'll bet lots o folks will gladly spend twice as much for a '5G' phone that can, at best, run sub-6 in a few locations and mmWave only in some sports arenas so they can watch the game they've paid a bunch to sit in the seat, on that phone. a fool and his money is soon parted.
The 2 advantages of using PCIe 4.0 x4 is that it can still get the same speed as a PCI-e 3.0 x4 on slots that support PCIe 4.0 x2 and if you use a PCIe 3.0 x4 slot you shouldn't loose much if any performance (just cause this drive is kinda slow for PCIe 4.0).
The good ol' "Fool me once..." I was recommending the S8200 pro to several friends, even bought one myself around Thanksgiving last year. Turned out I got the "in-between" version with slightly lower performance. I wouldn't mind buying it at all if they were just honest with part switch since paying for $110 for above-average 1TB NVME SSD is still a pretty good deal. No way I'll buy ADATA SSD again though...
I'm currently wrapping up testing of the most recent Innogrit firmware available. Over the weekend I'll be re-testing the 980 PRO with Samsung's newest firmware. Once those tests are complete, I plan to write up my Phison E18 review first, then the ADATA S70.
'we had originally speculated that the SM2267 controller might allow the S50 Lite to be the first Gen4 SSD suitable for laptop usage (hoping for similar power efficiency to the SK hynix Gold P31)'
What about? Sabrent 1TB Rocket 4 Plus NVMe 4.0 Gen4 PCIe M.2 Internal SSD Extreme Performance Solid State Drive (SB-RKT4P-1TB)
The Rocket 4 Plus is a Phison E18 drive. That's an 8-channel controller designed for maximum performance. That kind of goal usually leads to mediocre power efficiency at best. And our testing shows that the E18 doesn't even have great efficiency among current top of the line Gen4 controllers. For example, an E18 drive against the WD Black SN850 loses in all but one of the efficiency scores: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2783?vs=27...
And against the SK hynix Gold P31, the E18 drive loses very badly on efficiency, with the P31 typically getting somewhere around 3x better performance per Watt: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2783?vs=27...
You might be able to run an E18 drive in a laptop, but the extra performance isn't going to make anything feel noticeably faster, and if you have a heavy storage workload that might come close to making use of the drive's theoretical performance, then its poor efficiency will start to have an impact on battery life.
laptops have one big issue, thermal performance, and we have seen let's just call "optimistic" ways of cooling down our silicon chips there will always be problems with thermals and desktops will always be faster just because of thermals period simple as that, I do realize this is very like probably not right in the sense desktops will always outperform laptops but for the foreseeable future, I believe it to be true.
I run that drive on an enclosure taped to a M1 Air, the thing draws so much power I had to buy a higher wattage charger than the one Apple supplies other wise the drive would not boot!
The drive is now permanently writing Chia plots, should kill the drive in under a month.
I know this might be a niche demand, but is there any chance you could test some of these Gen4 drives on a PCIe 3.0 interface to see how MUCH of a difference the bus makes?
Some of these PCIe 4.0 drives are so close to PCIe 3.0 you have to wonder if the interface even matters.
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
93 Comments
Back to Article
yannigr2 - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Years are passing by and the cost per GB is moving up instead of down.deil - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
but speeds go up a lot. if you compare those to 60GB ssd's of 2005'ish those are 100x fasterStrangerGuy - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
Obviously he implies recent price trends in a market where some older products are clearly better then new ones not only in performance/$ but also in absolute performance.But sure please keep up your disingenuous trollish comparisons. Maybe you would also want to elaborate how current GPUs aren't overpriced because they are a million times faster than the 1998 TNT?
TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, May 6, 2021 - link
Take a chill pill dude. You still get way more bang for your buck on sSDs now then you did 3-4 years ago. 4-8TB m.2 drives wern't even an option back then, and PCIe gen 4 is expensive to implement compared to gen 3.Also current GPUs are no more overpriced then the 8800ultra was, which adjusted for inflation was $1100, with NO mining excuses. Didnt even have 1GB of RAM FFS.
Linustechtips12#6900xt - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
well I think part of that is due to the chip shortage currently but i do agree, things like the intel 660p ssd are a great example of nand prices going down and for the btter a 1tb 90$ ssd, AMAZING as far as im concerned and most notebooks use ssds rather than hard drives, prices havent really gone up much for that super amazing benefit.Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Part of that is the fact that QLC actively works against consumer value, by reducing the economy of scale cost-reduction benefit for TLC.People are literally giving themselves an arrow to the knee when they buy QLC.
Billy Tallis - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
You keep posting this comment on every article about storage, but that doesn't make it true. Your notion of "economy of scale" is pathetically naive and unconnected to the reality of how NAND flash memory is manufactured. Economies of scale in semiconductor manufacturing come primarily from having more and larger fabs. Using two different mask sets with those production lines instead of just one doesn't ruin those economies of scale. If it did, then you should have been complaining about companies manufacturing both 256Gbit and 512Gbit TLC dies at the same time.Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Calling my argument 'pathetically naive' doesn't make your opinions true either.'Economies of scale in semiconductor manufacturing come primarily from having more and larger fabs. Using two different mask sets with those production lines instead of just one doesn't ruin those economies of scale.'
The reality is that every dollar consumers spend on QLC is a dollar less spent on TLC. That reduces the economy of scale for TLC by reducing TLC production.
Billy Tallis - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
"The reality is that every dollar consumers spend on QLC is a dollar less spent on TLC. That reduces the economy of scale for TLC by reducing TLC production."You have no basis for believing that adding some QLC to the mix of a NAND fab's output meaningfully affects the marginal cost of TLC production. I've never seen you hypothesize any mechanism for how that would actually work. You just keep asserting a general economic principal as if it's a fundamental law.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 - link
You are trying to make this seem complex when it's extremely simple.As we have already seen with SLC and MLC, when a cheaper-to-produce technology comes along, production shifts to producing that technology -- reducing availability of the previous products. (That was a serious drawback for consumers before 3D manufacturing made TLC a much better solution than it was.) Scarcity + demand = higher prices. Reducing production increases scarcity. Eventually, it also generally reduces demand which, in turn, reduces production further.
We have already seen this with MLC. It's rather incredible to see anyone claim there is no evidence of exactly the process I've described. It's also extremely simple, and factual, that every dollar spent on QLC is a dollar not spent on TLC -- nor MLC.
FunBunny2 - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
"every dollar spent on QLC is a dollar not spent on TLC -- nor MLC."it's been ages since I looked, but I'd wager that not even Enterprise RDBMS Storage Appliances are built with SLC any more. where did it all go? :)
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 6, 2021 - link
SLC is an extreme example for most workloads. MLC is a far more enlightening one for consumers, as is the transition from planar to 3D TLC.Wereweeb - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
That is not economies of scale, that is market share. What you want is not to make TLC cheaper, but to boycott QLC.I wouldn't have disagreed with you when QLC came out. But right now I'd consider it good enough for most consumers, regardless of it being technically inferior to TLC.
The truth is, there just isn't any real world difference in performance between modern SSD's when it comes to the tasks a typical consumer faces. Only gamers and workstations benefit from TLC, and while it's natural to want to prevent it from becoming a "Luxury product" like MLC did, I think that there will always be demand for SSD's with higher endurance and throughput than QLC.
If you want to spread awareness about the negative aspects of QLC, do it intelligently, instead of acting like a conspiracy theory weirdo.
Wereweeb - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
Actually, to correct myself: there are SSD's that are objectively bad and should be banished from this dimension, they're called DRAMless SATA SSD's. But thankfully, that issue has already has been sorted out by history.TheinsanegamerN - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
That exact same argument was sued for MLC when TLC came out, and we all saw what happened to MLC.QLC is "cheaper" and more importantly has far less endurance then TLC. Built in obsolescence. It's a horrible product for consumers, slower then TLC, especially when the drive fills up, and isnt noticeably cheaper for th econsumer then TLC is.
QLC is garbage, and outside of extreme capacity drives like sabarent's rocket q 8TB, makes no sense.
Wereweeb - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
A 2TB TLC SSD's warranty can cover for 667 Gigabites of writes per day for 5 years. Which consumer will exceed that? Chia miners? How much data have you written into your computer today?The existing MLC capacity has merely been redirected to enterprise consumers, who actually DO need to entirely rewrite their SSD's daily. And for those cases there's also Optane and the new low-latency SLC (Z-NAND).
Give QLC SSD's some dedicated SLC + a tiering software and it beats TLC drives in endurance. The Enmotus FuzeDrive P200 does exactly that and ot has an endurance of 3,600 TBW, or 1 DWPD. Two to three times the warrantied endurance of your typical TLC drive.
That's the future we're headed towards. QLC for bulk storage, tiered with SLC or an NVRAM (Optane or competitor) for hot storage.
Plus, IIRC there is a 8TB QLC SSD that refuses to fold data from the SLC cache into QLC until it *needs to*, so if you fill less than 2TB of data it essentially behaves like a pSLC SSD. You might have to ask NewMaxx for the details (And to fact-check me) tho.
Wereweeb - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
Plus, the warrantied storage is typically VERY conservative, and is only supposed to stop the enterprise people from buying the cheaper and lower-binned consumer SSD's.So I expect that in most consumer workloads the FuzeDrive is going to roughly match the endurance of TLC, which itself is more than sufficient for your typical consumer to use for over 10 years - at which point the SSD will either have failed from other problems, or be old outdated garbage that might not even fit in a modern computer.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 6, 2021 - link
I expect the Zip drive and the Deathstar hard drive from IBM.The Zip drive was a massive market success despite being an extremely shoddy and unreliable design. It should be unbelievable (and isn't) that a product that bad was allowed to become so common.
Expect the worst. Companies are in business to 'sell less for more'. If they could sell you an old boot fished out of a toxic lake rather than a computer, for the same money, they would -- in a New York minute.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 6, 2021 - link
When you end up with bits of tech that are better than half-baked trash like the Zip drive then be pleasantly surprised. Don't be surprised when tech like the Zip drives gives you the click of death. Inadequate product quality is one of the results of inadequate regulation.GeoffreyA - Thursday, May 6, 2021 - link
"Deathstar hard drive from IBM"I believe you're referring to the Deskstar's famous temperatures?
utmode - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
@Billy Tallis, is there any recent research done on data retention on QLC drive. Electrons are very naughty at staying at a set voltage.Billy Tallis - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
Write endurance limits are set based on how much you can wear out the flash and still have one year of unpowered data retention (or three months for enterprise drives). That's still largely determined with high-temperature accelerated testing, but it's pretty well understood how to do that properly.bansheexyz - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
Can we ban this idiot already? A 10TB QLC drive will have a larger write endurance than a 2TB TLC drive does today. There is nothing inherently wrong with QLC tech, its supposedly inferior write endurance is self-mitigating by the fact that there are more cells to spread writes across. Which is exactly why TLC overtook MLC, and MLC overtook SLC. Go the frick away.GeoffreyA - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
Not a fan of freedom of speech/expression/press? Especially when it comes to these money-driven corporations, one needs to put whatever they do under a microscope and pay little heed to their words.There's nothing wrong with QLC. It's a product with a place: supposedly, bigger size and cheaper price. (Concerning endurance, if the ratings are true and not made up, they ought to be fine for most people.) But as far as I can see, QLC isn't *that* much cheaper than TLC. About 15-20% or something to that effect. Costly to make, greed, the pandemic, or all three?
futrtrubl - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
That's pretty much what it should be. QLC holds about 33% more than TLC, or, for the same amount of storage QLC uses 25% fewer cells. It's a less mature tech so I wouldn't expect it to get the full 25% savings, and all the other common components will reduce savings too.MFinn3333 - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
It is 50% more, not 33%.If you look at the total number states of a TLC which is 8 or 3 bit cells versus a QLC which is 16 states or 4 bit cells.
Billy Tallis - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
Voltage states are an enumeration of possibilities; they do not occupy physical space and are not the correct quantity to compare when discussing storage capacity.FunBunny2 - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
"Voltage states are an enumeration of possibilities; they do not occupy physical space"well... would you deny that a larger cell, i.e. one with more atoms, is more capable of storing more distinct voltages with some delta of accuracy? not to mention the whole endurance thingee. IOW, as an applied physics problem, QLC is closer to the razor's edge of performance than lower xLC cells. were all this not true, then manufacturers have been wasting gobs and gobs of moolah to implement stacks of 'olde' larger node NAND for TLC and QLC.
Tamdrik - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
But most people don't measure their storage devices by how many different states they can maintain-- they measure them by how many bits (or xxx-bytes) they can store. By that (standard) measure, futrtrubl is correct in that a QLC drive holds 33% more data than a TLC drive with the same number of cells (4 bits per cell vs. 3 bits per cell), and if costs are the same per cell, would be expected to cost 25% less for a given capacity (e.g., 1 TB).Oxford Guy - Sunday, May 9, 2021 - link
'But most people don't measure their storage devices by how many different states they can maintain-- they measure them by how many bits (or xxx-bytes) they can store.'You really think that's a logically-sound rebuttal?
Qasar - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
" Not a fan of freedom of speech/expression/press? " that what it is, its just his bias opinion, for some reason, he hates QLC, and seems to go to great lengths to say how bad it is.Linustechtips12#6900xt - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
I love seeing the fights in the comment sections, honestly makes my day lolFunBunny2 - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
" " Not a fan of freedom of speech/expression/press? " "a frequent complaint, esp. the Lunatic Right. the text of the US Constitution *only* promises that the Damn Gummint cannot, arbitrarily, shut you up. they can if your calling for insurrection, for instance. and it says nothing about what a private entity can do. you remember seeing signs on retail doorways - 'no solicitation allowed'? that means union organizers can't say what they want on or near the premises. it also means that Big Bad Tech can monitor and quash speech/text they find objectionable; no reason need be given. the list goes on forever.
GeoffreyA - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 - link
Qasar, I think he's making a valid complaint, and fears, like many of us do, that Q will become the standard soon and T the costlier "pro" variant. QLC began with a dubious reputation and so we're resistant to its replacing something we trust. For one thing to replace something else, it must be better, not equal or weaker. Q's argument is better size and price; but, as it stands, doesn't seem to be delivering much in those areas, yet wants to usurp the throne from TLC.Oxford Guy - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 - link
'Qasar, I think he's making a valid complaint, and fears, like many of us do, that Q will become the standard soon'Just wait for PLC. It's coming, apparently.
romrunning - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 - link
I'm inclined to agree also. I've seen the transition from SLC to MLC to TLC, and I have no doubt that soon QLC will replace even TLC (at least for consumers). TLC wasn't too far a drop-off performance-wise from MLC, but QLC is quite a bit less.I don't doubt that most consumers won't be able to see the difference, but I'm disappointed that we're going down the spec-tree instead of up (a lower baseline now), primarily because the mfgs want to save money.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 - link
It's amusing to see how, despite the many comments condemning QLC from other posters on this site in very recent articles, I am suddenly being singled out.Ad hominem won't change the facts:
Every dollar spent on QLC is a dollar that reduces TLC production, raising TLC prices by increasing TLC scarcity. The same thing happened with MLC.
QLC has double the voltage states for only 30% more density. That's diminished returns.
TLC was made much more viable via the change from planar to 3D production. Remember how the Samsung 840 (planar TLC) was so unstable from voltage drift that the only solution was a kludge: re-writing the data again and again? That very serious symptom of a very troubling problem (due to the increase in voltage states in going from MLC to TLC) was solved via the introduction of 3D lithography. Where is the silver bullet for QLC? It has been produced in 3D from the beginning and yet its flaws are still quite evident.
Samus - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
I'm kinda with Banshee here, spreading nonsense like this is not just ignorant and counterintuitive, but dangerous. People stupid opinions can be protected by free speech but outright lies shouldn't be.GeoffreyA - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
"protected by free speech but outright lies shouldn't"Like any principle taken too far, free speech can certainly be abused, and sow lies, discord, or hatred. That's why it's got to be bound by other rules.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 6, 2021 - link
Free speech is a myth. All speech is subjected to censorship, including by the mind of the person producing it. The key here is that echo chambers (which aren't difficult to find on tech websites like Ars and Slashdot) are not the only solution to having community feedback.GeoffreyA - Thursday, May 6, 2021 - link
"All speech is subjected to censorship, including by the mind of the person producing it"Agreed; and that's a good point. But you know what I mean. The ability for someone to say or print something and not be persecuted or thrown into jail next morning. In the end it's all about finding truth. Opinion is usually worthless, but not tolerating it or dissent can lead to truth being swept under the carpet.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 6, 2021 - link
Define 'nonsense' and provide examples from my posts, if you're going to try to act like unelected/non-credentialed forum police. 'I'm kinda with' is the sort of language choice that certainly instills the highest confidence and respect.TheinsanegamerN - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
But we dont HAVE 10TB QLC drives. We have 1/2TB QLC drives, which have significantly less endurance."go the fricka way" until you can come up with a better argument. So long as QLC is selling for TLC capacity and TLC price it is a worthless anti consumer tech.
pSupaNova - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
Hopefully these manufacturers will be getting back lots of dead drives if Chia proof of stake crypto-mining takes off. That will teach them to promote inferior technology!pSupaNova - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
Proof-of Space.meacupla - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
They are cheaper, but only if you buy a SSD drive that doesn't use Gen4watzupken - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Looking at their recent history of sneakily replacing components on their SX 8200 Pro, I won't bother nor will I recommend others to use this brand.YB1064 - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
I agree 100%.silverblue - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Kingston pulled a similar trick with their V300 series of SSDs back in 2014, albeit "only" with slower NAND - I hear ADATA switched to slower NAND as well as a slower controller.Scour - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Kingston started the A400 with Phison S10 and TLC-NAND. Now, at least the 1,92TB use QLC and SM2259XT.Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
'At least'? QLC is a downgrade, not an upgrade.Scour - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
Never wrote that the A400 was upgraded ;)Sorry, I´m not a native english speaking person
Tomatotech - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
I've run an ADATA XPG SX8200 (non-pro) 1TB for the past 3+ years in my MacBook Pro as the system drive. Been very happy with it, and still blistering fast even now. Was approx 3x faster read & 4x faster write than the Apple OEM SSD, made a big difference to the feel of my MPB.As to changing components, not brilliant, but perhaps inevitable over the life of a long-lived model. Most SSD brands are not full-stack manufacturers, and supply / cost of sub-components is outside their control. As long as it meets the specs on the box and isn't crippled (like silently changing HDD models to HAMR mechanism without stating on the box).
Anandtech was quite accepting of companies changing SSD components on their middle-low end lines in the last SSD roundup. The 8200 Pro launched around 3 years ago, and while it's still damn fast for most people, I'd call it middle of the road now that PCIe 4.0 is here.
Scour - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
I would prefer a new model-name if other components are used.MrCommunistGen - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
+1They could easily have done this a number of ways:
1. add a letter to the end of the model with each rev, SX8200A, SX8200B
2. add Mk1, Mk2, etc.
3. increment the model number by +1 every time, SX8201, SX8202, etc
Each of these signify that it's still a related product aimed at the same market segment, while communicating that it isn't the exact same hardware that was reviewed when the product initially came out.
Scour - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
I still think the main reason is to use a model name which had good reviews.And maybe it costs 10 cents more/piece if you order new packages with a new model number
Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
And yet Intel, which was mentioned on the first page, has been at the forefront of pushing the anti-value QLC trash.Which would you rather choose? A company that is openly hostile to consume value or one that changes parts surreptitiously?
Nvidia is reportedly going to surreptitiously sell some 3060s with its latest anti-mining thing, without bothering to let consumers know which type they're getting for their money. Things like that should be illegal but the world is not governed adequately. Caveat emptor rules. The panel lottery for TVs is a huge example of the surreptitiousness fraud.
bji - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Holy crap man, will you get off of your anti-QLC rant already?Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Ad hominem won't change reality. In reality, QLC offers only 30% more density for double the voltage states. That is diminished returns.Moreover, every dollar consumers spend on QLC reduces the price value of TLC by reducing TLC production.
I'm not sorry that I'm ruffling the feathers of various QLC-peddling corporations by posting the truth. Being attacked for it is hardly unexpected. It's how business communication works.
FunBunny2 - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
"In reality, QLC offers only 30% more density for double the voltage states. That is diminished returns."IFF both TLC and QLC are on the same node size. moving back up to a larger node (and I know not whether that's happened) for QLC could (note the subjunctive) end up with an equivalent NAND density/bit. that, of course, should be the controlling factor.
Tomatotech - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Which is better, TLC or SLC?SLC of course!
Any decent QLC drive will operate in SLC mode for as long as it can (e.g an empty 4TB QLC drive has 1TB of SLC space, and a half-full 4TB QLC drive will have around 500GB of TLC space). So you can rest easy, they’re even better than your precious TLC drives.
FunBunny2 - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
"QLC drive will operate in SLC mode"many times the 'experts' here at AT have asserted that 'SLC mode' by xLC NAND just ain't like 'real' SLC. don't recall how large the falloff is, but it exists.
sonny73n - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
"Any decent QLC drive will operate in SLC mode for as long as it can (e.g an empty 4TB QLC drive has 1TB of SLC space,"How many QLC drive can operate in SLC mode? But hey, I'm paying for 4TB, I expect to have a full 4TB of reasonable quality NAND, not 4TB of crappy NAND and hoping it would work well if I use only 1/4 of its capacity.
sonny73n - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
"So you can rest easy, they’re even better than your precious TLC drives."Stop spreading misinformation! Internet have enough fake news already.
TheinsanegamerN - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
"So you can rest easy, they’re even better than your precious TLC drives"Imagine thinking the above line justifies your technology being "good". You can take your condescending attitude and shove it. Nobody buys a drive to use a quarter of its capacity just to try to keep speeds up to previous generation tech just to pay as much as said previous gen tech. Unless QLC brings 2TB NVMe drives under $100 it's worthless to most consumers.
Linustechtips12#6900xt - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
let's just admit that nand is nand and it's honestly pretty great, do we need something new yes, was that intel 3d x-point, possibly but according to them no, so we are gonna have to deal with cheaper higher capacity SSD's for a while as long as I can still get an SLC/MLC/TLC SSD for my boot drive I don't care about having my games on qlc or whatever comes after and as long as OEM for laptops dont use qlc or later for boot drives im fine with it.FunBunny2 - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
"as long as OEM for laptops dont use qlc or later for boot drives im fine with it."whose going to stop them from putting QLC or whatever the next xLC is called in your laptop? the FTC? not even Biden's cabal has the stones to do that.
Linustechtips12#6900xt - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
yeah I agree, not that any president would care about nand but anyway if it does happen which it will, I know i can probably buy a 120gb model and just buy a tlc or lower drive either way and flip the 120gb or something maybe put it into an HPC machine something like that.Linustechtips12#6900xt - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
HTPC*eastcoast_pete - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
So, do I get this correctly? Basically a waste of perfectly good PCIe4 channels? I guess if you have plenty, not so bad, but otherwise, not really.Scour - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Yep, it makes no sense use PCIe 4.0 for a drive which is not fast enough to reach the PCIe 3.0-max speedsMrCommunistGen - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Most B550 boards have 2x M.2 slots, with the main slot being 4.0 and connected to the CPU and the second slot hanging off the chipset and limited to 3.0 speeds. So... plug it into the 2nd slot and leave the 1st slot for a higher performance 4.0 drive if you have one?X570 avoids this by having 4.0 lanes off of the chipset, so take your pick on which slot to plug it into. Probably wouldn't hurt to plug the higher performance drive into the CPU lanes.
Future buyers may get different hardware, but at least today based on the reviewed hardware and the price of the product this drive looks like it has pretty decent value.
In most of the tests it seems to rival the 970 EVO Plus which is a decent bit more expensive. After the SLC cache runs out, performance is definitely lower, but most average consumers aren't writing hundreds of GB of data at a time and should stay within the cache most of the time.
Nagorak - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
I wish the reviewers did a bit better job at explaining what the average person actually needs in terms of performance. Yes, they do all kinds of different tests which are admirable, but what does it mean in the end to the average user?Maybe the truth is that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the fastest SSD on the market and a SATA SSD, so it literally doesn't matter.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
Techpowerup has a few real-world numbers that might be useful. Different model though.https://www.techpowerup.com/review/adata-xpg-gammi...
FunBunny2 - Thursday, May 6, 2021 - link
"Yep, it makes no sense use PCIe 4.0 for a drive which is not fast enough to reach the PCIe 3.0-max speeds"yeah, but... I'll bet lots o folks will gladly spend twice as much for a '5G' phone that can, at best, run sub-6 in a few locations and mmWave only in some sports arenas so they can watch the game they've paid a bunch to sit in the seat, on that phone. a fool and his money is soon parted.
utroz - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
The 2 advantages of using PCIe 4.0 x4 is that it can still get the same speed as a PCI-e 3.0 x4 on slots that support PCIe 4.0 x2 and if you use a PCIe 3.0 x4 slot you shouldn't loose much if any performance (just cause this drive is kinda slow for PCIe 4.0).ozark - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
The good ol' "Fool me once..."I was recommending the S8200 pro to several friends, even bought one myself around Thanksgiving last year. Turned out I got the "in-between" version with slightly lower performance. I wouldn't mind buying it at all if they were just honest with part switch since paying for $110 for above-average 1TB NVME SSD is still a pretty good deal.
No way I'll buy ADATA SSD again though...
FerroMagnetar - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
To this day I always try to buy MLC drives, though I know their days are numbered :(Nexing - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
At 2021 I am quite lost in this. Which MVME 1TB MLC drives, fast and below $150-200 exist?Thank you
crimson117 - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
"The pricing for the Gammix S50 Lite is unimpressive but also unsurprising"Actually I thought the pricing was one of the main things going for it. It's one of the cheaper good-performing 2TB NVME drives you can buy.
In your chart it's basically tied for second lowest price.
Dizoja86 - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
I was also confused about that. The price seems fair for the performance.Dizoja86 - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
Really hoping to see that S70 review soon. From the SSD recommendations for this month, it sounds like it's in the works.Billy Tallis - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
I'm currently wrapping up testing of the most recent Innogrit firmware available. Over the weekend I'll be re-testing the 980 PRO with Samsung's newest firmware. Once those tests are complete, I plan to write up my Phison E18 review first, then the ADATA S70.Scour - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
Would be nice :)Dug - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
From looking at others like storage review, I wouldn't even be looking at that drive.Nexing - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
'we had originally speculated that the SM2267 controller might allow the S50 Lite to be the first Gen4 SSD suitable for laptop usage (hoping for similar power efficiency to the SK hynix Gold P31)'What about?
Sabrent 1TB Rocket 4 Plus NVMe 4.0 Gen4 PCIe M.2 Internal SSD Extreme Performance Solid State Drive (SB-RKT4P-1TB)
Billy Tallis - Saturday, May 1, 2021 - link
The Rocket 4 Plus is a Phison E18 drive. That's an 8-channel controller designed for maximum performance. That kind of goal usually leads to mediocre power efficiency at best. And our testing shows that the E18 doesn't even have great efficiency among current top of the line Gen4 controllers. For example, an E18 drive against the WD Black SN850 loses in all but one of the efficiency scores: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2783?vs=27...And against the SK hynix Gold P31, the E18 drive loses very badly on efficiency, with the P31 typically getting somewhere around 3x better performance per Watt: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2783?vs=27...
You might be able to run an E18 drive in a laptop, but the extra performance isn't going to make anything feel noticeably faster, and if you have a heavy storage workload that might come close to making use of the drive's theoretical performance, then its poor efficiency will start to have an impact on battery life.
Scour - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
I think thermal throttling in laptops could be a big problem if using high performance NVME-SSDsTheinsanegamerN - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
Well duh.Linustechtips12#6900xt - Monday, May 3, 2021 - link
laptops have one big issue, thermal performance, and we have seen let's just call "optimistic" ways of cooling down our silicon chips there will always be problems with thermals and desktops will always be faster just because of thermals period simple as that, I do realize this is very like probably not right in the sense desktops will always outperform laptops but for the foreseeable future, I believe it to be true.pSupaNova - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
I run that drive on an enclosure taped to a M1 Air, the thing draws so much power I had to buy a higher wattage charger than the one Apple supplies other wise the drive would not boot!The drive is now permanently writing Chia plots, should kill the drive in under a month.
Samus - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
Billy,I know this might be a niche demand, but is there any chance you could test some of these Gen4 drives on a PCIe 3.0 interface to see how MUCH of a difference the bus makes?
Some of these PCIe 4.0 drives are so close to PCIe 3.0 you have to wonder if the interface even matters.
Linustechtips12#6900xt - Wednesday, May 5, 2021 - link
greAT idea "see what I did there" tho please do Billy.