CtrlAltDeluxe

Yes but does that pertain to only SATA SSDs or NVMe as well?

Do NVMe drives suffer from the same problem like SSDs that one shouldn't fill them up more than 75%? If not then it's definitely a deal breaker, meaning that they're a much better choice since I can fill them up more.

Well damn, now you're making me think whether to get the 970 evo anyway. ?

What would be the small price premium? Not $60 that I'd have to pay? Maybe $30?

So in other words, you do recommend NVMe, but only if they can be had for the same price as SATA (for an average user)? (which in my case isn't the case)

I see your point. However, as an average user I don't copy 8 to 70gb files either. That's what I'm trying to say. If I just game and don't transfer gigs of files from one drive to another (or even have more than 1 drive), then I won't benefit. If I do constantly shift files, then I probably shift more than 50gb at a time. That window QLC NVMe provides is very narrow. But, if it's the same price like a SATA TLC drive, for an average user I guess it doesn't really matter one way or the other. I guess it just comes down to price then... But I still find it deceptive to advertise it as NVMe then, since people who actually need NVMe shift a lot more than 25-50gb of data. Just for Windows startup? Well...I guess for someone who has multiple programs set to start at startup, and really cares about starting 2 to 10 seconds earlier, that narrow QLC NVMe window is perfect. Though, I did read somewhere that NVMe has a disadvantage where it takes longer to initialize at startup than SATA, could be wrong though. To be honest I think that the benefits of NVMe for the average user, whether QLC or TLC, are greatly exaggerated. The benchmarks always show sequential speeds, where TLC does matter, rather than 4kQ1T1 which matter for the average users, where the numbers are really unimpressive and are nearly identical to SATA SSDs.

I agree about keeping 20% free, however, if I'm not going to notice the speed difference between a SATA and a QLC NVMe, I'd much rather have the peace of mind knowing it will never potentially drop to below HDD performance. Just the thought that it could makes me feel like I've been duped. And it's not just the 660p, look at the review of the Crucial P1 by Tom'shardware: "Poor direct to TLC write speed. Lower than average application performance. Write endurance rated to just 100TBW" During what kind of usage will you notice the difference? In scenarios where a lot needs to be fetched at the same time? So no scenario an average PC user/gamer would encounter? If said average user would encounter that scenario (aka me) then I'll cancel my WD Blue order and order the 970 evo instead, since I'd still rather pay more knowing I don't have an HDD disguising as an NVMe. Still, just the thought of paying for essentially the cache rather than the memory itself... I would just feel duped to be honest. I'd rather have a TLC SATA that isn't an HDD in disguise. Though, like I said, I'd spring for the 970 evo if the speed is noticeable and have a true NVMe. Btw. you didn't say anything about the WD Blue controller?

So in other words, the average user won't notice the difference in longevity between TLC or QLC, neither will they notice the speed between a SATA or NVMe. The conclusion would be to buy a QLC SATA, not a QLC NVMe. BTW the SLC cache for the Intel 660p 1tb would only be 25gb if you fill it up at more than 65% (which, of course you will), giving you in fact a 25gb nvme drive since when the cache is empty the performance is worse than even a HDD whereas a SATA with TLC will drop from 550gb to 300gb when out of cache. HUGE difference IMHO. Even the much more expensive Intel 760p drops to SATA speeds when out of cache. Refer to the LTT video "How SSD Technology Keeps Getting WORSE! - Intel 660p Review" In the review an EVO 850 copied a 250gb file in 8+ minutes maintaining 400gb speed, while the 660p took 23 minutes. The controller for the WD Blue is "Marvell 88SS1074", hope it's not one of the infamously bad ones?

If you don't run them at the maximum speed at massive file transfers...why then even get an NVMe instead of a SATA? I don't think QLC is bad for the lack of speed but for the longevity. They have substantially less TBW values than TLC. And if I'm not going to do 30+gb speed writes I don't really need an NVMe, then why not go for a SATA that will last longer? QLC NVMe doesn't make sense in my book, since it's good only for people that don't need the speed it proudly advertises that would be better of with an SATA that will last longer. Think about it. You're telling me I should get the WD Blue since I won't see a difference, but then say that QLC is better than SATA for regular users (that won't see a difference). The only difference we WILL see is longevity.

Drivers aren't an issue, though I do think it's dumb that storage devices heat up and need heatsinks, having watched a few videos on how NVMe drives heat up very quickly and throttle if one uses them a the speeds that are advertised. Thank you for mentioning that warranty. I do trust Samsung (to an extent), and the seller is offering me a 7 day no questions asked return window, but no one can guarantee I didn't get a low quality specimen and the drive won't fail in a year. The 970 is new, sealed, just doesn't come with a warranty since it's being sold by some tech flipper rather than a store. The model is: WD Blue 3D NAND 1TB Internal PC SSD - SATA III 6 Gb/s, M.2 2280, Up to 560 MB/s - WDS100T2B0B I think I've watched at least 30 videos on the subject and tech youtubers really differ in opinion, whereas forums (regular people) almost all recommend skipping an nvme. LTT's last video confirms it's irrelevant whether you choose an SSD, NVMe 3rd gen or 4th gen, but then Tech Deals' last video on the subject says to go for an nvme without question and then recommends QLC trash. Real life comparisons show 1 to 5 seconds of difference when loading games or programs which did entice me, but then I saw a video showing that if you have an HDD still connected to the PC (which most people have for storage) it adds back 2 to 5 seconds despite loading from an SSD or NVMe (weird, I know). I guess in the end it doesn't matter. My HDD has been going strong for 7 years now. It will eventually stop working and when it does (hopefully in 5 years or so) I'll just replace it with an NVMe (which will probably be dirt cheap by then) to go along the WD SATA. So I guess I'll go with the WD Blue 3D SATA. Thank you all for your input. It's been invaluable. Really, I can't thank you enough.

What about what LexenZ said about the controller being older and maybe being subjected to an earlier death? Or would you say both are about equal when it comes to longevity?

Thanks for the detailed reply. That's also a concern, the age. The WD is from 2017, while the 970 is from 2018. Though to be fair, the WD has a TBW of 400 while the evo has 600. Not sure if any of it makes a difference but I've never heard of any SSD or NVMe failing, though I might not have searched enough on that topic. I've got an H370 Aorus gaming WIFI motherboard, so yes it does support NVMe and comes with a heatsink. It's also got a separate slot for a SSD M.2 I specifically said not to recommend anything else since nothing else is being offered at this moment. Thanks anyway. Eastern Europe, Balkans. Retailers don't matter, I've looked through them, contacted them all and they've all depleted their stocks. It will take about 2 to 4 weeks for stocks to replenish, but the prices will be higher (they claim there's a shortage of NAND). Anyway, these 2 are the only 1tb SSDs on offer which I can get within 2 days for a reasonable price. There's no real budget that I'm working with. Nevertheless I'm definitely trying to save up money, have to invest it in something coming up. But even if I had an unlimited budget I don't like to waste money. Like I said in the original post, I don't want to pay more unless there's a difference I'll notice...whether in speed, longevity, sturdiness or something else.

The title says it all. I'm looking to upgrade my 64gb SSD + 1tb HDD. I'll keep the HDD as storage if needed, but will mostly use the new SSD. There's a shortage of SSDs where I live so no need to recommend me anything. I've only got these 2 to choose from unless I want to wait for a month and pay more since these 2 are on sale. The WD is $127 while the 970 is $187 (Europe). I know $60 isn't much but frankly, even $1 is too much if I'm not going to see or feel a difference. I use my PC for gaming, browsing and a lot of MS Office for work. That's about it. The only file transfers I do is from a USB stick to my PC and the other way round. Both the WD and 970 are 1tb, I of course wouldn't go below that size. The WD is sold by a local store and comes with 2 years store warranty while the 970 is sold by some guy (it's unopened though, brand new), hence it doesn't come with any warranty (other than Samsung's). Really not sure what to choose. The WD has a warranty (for what it's worth), is $60 cheaper and might be just as good as the evo. The 970 evo is faster (for what it's worth), is Samsung (for what it's worth) and is NVMe (for what it's worth). There's a lot of "for what it's worth". Not sure whether it makes or will make any difference in the future. PS I've seen the latest LTT video on SSDs, yet for some reason it doesn't help. Thoughts?