joeyjojo123

"I AM TOTALLY NOT IN THE EARLY PHASES OF BEING SUED BY EPIC GAMES, AND RATHER THAN TURN MY COMPANY INTO THE GROUND FROM EXCESSIVE COURT/LAWYER FEES WE'D NEVER RECOVER FROM, LET ME INSTEAD COMPLY WITH EPIC GAMES DEMANDS OF A PUBLIC APOLOGY BY POSTING A VIDEO TO ESPOUSE THE REVOLUTIONARY GAINZ PS5(tm)'s NEW SSD WILL BRING TO ALL GAMERS. I AM VERY SORRY TIM SWEENEY, I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU WILL PERSONALLY SEE THIS, BUT I AM SURE YOUR LAWYERS WILL NOTIFY YOU THAT WE'VE COMPLIED WITH YOUR DEMANDS."
 
Also, please send your own apology tweets to Tim Sweeney so that he drops the lawsuit, also ~~sponsored~~ links to buy Sony(tm) Playstation 5 (r) products and services in the description below! BTW, not a shill!
 
I never watched the Cerny video, and I don't care to. I've been in this industry long enough to know that every big reveal about a "revolution" in computing has been lukewarm single-digit% improvements (yes, even Zen generations are just single digit improvements over each other, it just so happens those 5 - 8% improvements are more exciting than Intel's 1 - 2%). It will most likely be just all hype. Everyone knows that the sheer majority of games published are multiplatform titles that the industry wants to shove out the door rather than taking care to optimize them. Very rarely are console games even hitting 60FPS, and almost always it's targeting 30FPS. And given that PS5/Xbox/PC are practically all running x86 architecure Zen chips, who's really that optimistic that EA, Ubisoft, or any of the """AAA""" game companies will even bother optimizing for PS5's "special" SSD anyways? And even when they do, will we even see double-digit improvements? Or, more likely, will it just be the same single digit % improvements...?
 
And even if I were wrong on this (once special PS5 exclusive games are launched 2 - 3 years from now that can take advantage of the special SSD) would I even waste my breath making any kind of dumb apology to a faceless multi-billionaire corporation? Why would they care? They could cry their eyes out and dry their tears on $1000 bills and still be so wealthy and successful that it wouldn't matter.
 
To clarify, the only time I see <business A> apologize publically to <business b> is because they're trying to settle out of court. Hence, I'm cautiously suspicious this video wasn't out of earnest redemption to make up for anything to Tim Sweeney, because why would Linus Media Group (the company, not the individual Linus Sebastian) care about Epic Games (the company, not the individual Tim Sweeney), unless Epic Games is threatening legal action of some sort.

Long time watcher, and I had to sign up for the LMG forums with a 10minutemail throwaway account just to make this post, and I agree.
 
While the video does eventually come around to the real conclusion that any downfall associated with QLC just does not matter (at least for the vast majority of cases that an end consumer shopping for SSD storage in this price bracket would do), over half the video is spent peddling around the same "science" (ie: theories which fail to really show a noticeable impact in day-to-day usage) before coming to the conclusion in the last minute or so that "oh yeah, but for most people they wouldn't even notice the difference since it's just as fast as any other drive in game/software load tests".
 
Nothing annoys me more than whiners of technology. I often see the same whining about technology day after day. "What the heck!? The ~e~n~d~u~r~a~n~c~e~ on this thing sucks! TLC is garbage, where's the SLC?! QLC has TERRIBLE cold storage uses, why would ANYONE ever buy this if you can lose your data from your PC being off for more than 3 months?"
 
Here's the facts:
The bulk of SSD purchases go to PCs used by either enterprise (the tippity top end) or by laymen (the bottom end) customers. Enterprise users are buying enterprise grade storage drives with adequate performance characteristics for their extreme use cases. They also pay an arm and a leg more for those specs. Laymen just want a PC that boots up fast, opens Chrome, and surfs Facebook to post about politics or family pictures (to the annoyance of everyone else). QLC drives are targeted in a price bracket compatible with laymen PCs, have use-cases that are more than adequate for their needs, and perform perfectly fine. At the end of the day QLC is providing larger storage capacity opportunities for lower costs to these users, while retaining the same speeds for the majority of all their use time on their PC.
 
If you decided that you're too cool for QLC/TLC/MLC memes and you're hardcore and can only ever justify using SLC for opening the Windows Calculator or playing FartNight, then the product you want is out there for you: sell a kidney and buy enterprise storage drives. It's similar to being a car enthusiast and complaining that Firestone is coming to market with a new all-weather tire design for trucks and complaining that these tires don't have the speed/traction on tarmac racing courses; buy some sticky racing slicks for track days for your sports car. In other words, buy the right tool for the right job. Don't complain that products are being developed for use-cases that you decided you're too good for.
 
There's a lot of nerd-knowledge-superiority-complex flexing on enthusiast discussion boards for SSDs, and this video spends way too much time validating their theory craft garbage, when at the end of the day "endurance" ratings absolutely do not freaking matter to enthusiast PC builders who do lots of gaming or casual PC use. TechReport had a torture test 24/7 for over year that showed that the endurance ratings on SSDs are extremely conservative and some wrote for OVER one petabyte before their NAND flash wearing out. (read: https://techreport.com/discussion/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead) The storage drive would be absolutely obsolete by the time its NAND flash wears out with normal usage characteristics and it'd be best replaced by a newer/faster/larger volume alternative by that point. The best indicator for an SSD's quality for long-term use is the manufacturer's warranty period for the product, which is basically the cutoff point where they're confident that their product should last to. Instead we have way too many memesters drooling for ~real~world~endurance~ratings~ for SSDs.
 
What would I have rather seen from this video?
Instead of rambling about meme SSD specs that people pay too much focus on like endurance for over 5 minutes, an actual video dedicated to debunking common enthusiast misconceptions on what _really_ matters for their SSD purchases. A much more adequate spin to this video would've been "Debunking SSD Metrics, featuring Intel's QLC 660p". While you eventually came to that conclusion in the script, the script should really have had more time focused on the metrics of SSD performance that don't matter. But what we got instead was rambling that "these specs matter a lot, here's the science" and then at the end "well, actually the science doesn't really support most real world use cases and QLC's fine for common PC users".
 
And yes, this was worth typing an essay and signing up for a throwaway account to make a post that wouldn't get drowned in YouTube comment garbage, even after all the meme clickbait thumbnails and titles LMG has been pushing towards for the past few years, along with doing sponsored content with disreputable tech companies (ex: Facebook) because LMG just apparently doesn't understand their audience.
 
Just get it together, guys.

That is the worst title I think I have ever seen from you guys.