Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

TheManInTheSuite

Member
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About TheManInTheSuite

  • Title
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. but i'm pretty sure, both have neither DRAM nor are the TLC or QLC, or better said the controllers on the SU635 or that 60GB Drive good in any way.
  2. thing is, i bought a friend this SSD for 25€ because he needed an SSD as a main storage and OS Drive (his mainboard didn't like HDDs, it corrupted windows all the time, why 'tf it did that, we still don't know, i tried so many things other than replacing it because he didn't want to spend 65€ on another), well, he already told me "it's kinda slow" oh boi, when i tried it out- i didn't really knew anything about SSDs a few month back and thought "hey, it's definitely faster than those 7200rpm HHDs!" - though i can't tell if it's slower than a 5400RPM HDD, can't compare- At least now i know a little bit- and now even more-
  3. oof, that sounds rough- So, the QVO is a bad choice in basically every aspect, or at least worse than the other option and or NVMe QLC SSDs- thank god i did get some advice-
  4. Ok! Thanks, so im guess im gonna go with the SanDisk then, seems the most logical choice, since i need an SSD now.
  5. so for now a TLC based drive would be better in any case, because it would be always faster/sustain fast(er) speeds?
  6. but still, if i would for example copy an 80Gb File, i would probably drain that cache and really get a slow down during the accuring transfer, TLC wouldn't get that big of a hit as QLC in that scenario, that's what im getting out of this conversation-
  7. but the think is, that TLC would still be faster than QLC, since there are less bits per cell. or less fat dudes trying to get through a door.
  8. i think im gonna go with the SanDisk and just leave around 100-200GBs Free, that would work out the best i guess, even if i only have max speeds of around 550MB/s, it's probably better than slowing down to slower than HDD speeds when the Cache's empty at 50%-
  9. So, for my case with 2TB (that will probably filled up to only around 100/200GB left empty) it would work out fine? Or would the SanDisk TLC based SSD be better? And what's with the Speeds when moving around large files?
  10. Oh, alright! Probably i mixed up something- But would it be a good idea to use that second Slot, or any QLC Based M.2 SSD? (and i wrote the P1 was a SATA based drive, deleted it, the MX500 had a SATA based version.)
  11. I know, but the P1 and the 660p is also QLC, i have a Mortar MAX and already use a Kingston KC2000 1TB as my main drive in the first M.2 Slot. I, for some reason, don't want to use the second one, maybe i want to put in an Wifi/Bluetooth expansion card in it
  12. Thank you! good to know, glad im asked before buying! they are pretty similar, the SanDisk only costs 20€ more, so i guess im gonna go with it, don't want the problems involved with Samsung's QLC if it's that bad-
  13. Hi, i need some advice on this, im thinking about replacing my 2TB WD Black HDD with an SSD, though i don't know with which one, the options would be either the QVO 860 or the SanDisk Ultra 3D, both in a 2TB Capacity, I probably would move a lot of files around and install a bunch of games, which could slow down over larger files as soon as the SLC and MLC "cache" gets filled up, maybe store pictures or record some videos onto it, so i thought maybe i shouldn't get the QLC based QVO, but the SanDisk is a pretty old drive at this point, that's probably why it uses TLC NAND. Which one would you recommend?
×