Samsung 860 Evo 2TB and Samsung 860 QVO 2TB

[benjaminr]

which is better?in performance,quality and speed;

also what is the difference between Samsung 860 Evo 2TB and Samsung 860 QVO 2TB?

[seon123]

The QVO uses 3D QLC for the NAND, while the Evo uses 3D TLC. The QVO will have worse performance and endurance.

Here's Anandtech's review.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13633/the-samsung-860-qvo-ssd-review

[Bitter]

My understanding is that the flash on the QVO has extremely slow right speeds once you fill the roughly 40GB write cache, where as the Evo is an Evo and has no weird quirks. For a storage drive or a normal PC user the QVO would likely be fine, but someone doing write intensive work may find the QVO unacceptably slow in some situations. It also has a lower write endurance, which again is probably fine for an average user or a storage drive that's mostly write once read often.

[benjaminr]

in  gaming  The QVO will  have  the same performance like  evo?

[Bitter]

That depends on how much the game is using the hard drive, for read speeds (loading data) it would be OK, if you're using the hard drive swap file a lot it might be OK still since that would be in the 40ish GB cache area.

[benjaminr]

Just now, Bitter said:

That depends on how much the game is using the hard drive, for read speeds (loading data) it would be OK, if you're using the hard drive swap file a lot it might be OK still since that would be in the 40ish GB cache area.

what  you mean   depends on how much the game is using the hard drive, for read speeds (loading data) it would be OK, if you're using the hard drive swap file a lot it might be OK still since that would be in the 40ish GB cache area.?

 

what  you mean with all  these  things?

[Bitter]

I'm not really sure how to make that more clear, hopefully someone else will be able to better explain.

[Chaftalie]

some weeks ago I saw an video from one of the big tech guiys on youtube explaining QLC in detail, but i cannot find the vid at the moment /:

 

In general QLC is slower than TLC, but it has 33% more space than a TLC Cell. So it is cheaper to manufacture.

Theres a trick where some QLC cells (which get used as an temporary cache) get treated as TLC Cell and so the write performance is up to a SSD with legit TLC Cells. With that feature you should not see any difference between an 860EVO or an 860QVO (at least not untill the drive gets full)

 

I hope thats correct how I explained it.

 

EDIT:

 

I found a Video from LTT explaining QLC:

 

EDIT2:

I watched the video and thats pretty much what i expected.
In normal use cases (anything but copying hundrets of gigabytes of data at once) you should not have any speed problems

 

[mariushm]

So explaining it in simpler words.

 

There's different kinds of flash memory chips, based on different technologies: SLC , MLC, TLC, QLC 

SLC on the left is the most expensive to manufacture, but has high performance and high endurance.

The more you go to the right, the cheaper the chips are to manufacture (because they can pack more bits in the same area) but the downside is you lose a bit of performance and endurance.

The 860 EVO uses TLC and has an endurance of 1200 TB - that means that you can write data on it as much as you want, but after the 1200 TB of data written to the drive (in real world probably a few tens to hundreds of TB after that threshold, these numbers are conservative), some memory cells may become unable to store new information, they become read only ... so from that point gradually you will no longer be able to store new data on the drive.

The 860 QVO uses QLC memory - it's cheaper to make and packs more bits but tradeoff is lower endurance - the 2 TB drive can only handle 720 TB instead of 1200 TB.

 

QLC is also slower when it comes to writing data to it, so Samsung resorts to some tricks in order to improve speed.  As long as there's empty space on the SSD, it configures a part of the memory chips in SLC mode, which allows it to quickly write incoming data into those portions of the memory chips and when the drive is idle, it slowly moves the data from those SLC portions to the more permanent locations, emptying those area and making them available for new incoming data.

In the case of the 2 TB model, this SLC portion is adjusted dynamically between 6 GB (when drive is nearly 100% full), up to 78 GB when there's plenty of free space.

 

So for example, let's say you install a huge game, like let's say Fallout 4 with Ultra HD textures, basically a 90 GB game.  The SSD will start writing these GB of data as they come in using those 78 GB of SLC mode memory at very high speeds, let's say up to 520 MB/s ... and once 78 GB (or whatever quantity was in SLC mode at that point) is reached, the drive will be forced to start writing in the memory cells configured in QLC mode, so the 12 GB remaining will be written at slower speeds, around 160 MB/s.

Once the installer completes writing those 90 GB, the drive will work in background and slowly transfer those 78 GB into the QLC memory, at 100-160 MB/s so let's say those 78 GB will be transferred to QLC over the next 78000 MB / 100 MB/s = 780 seconds or 10-15 minutes.

As soon as portions of that 78 GB of SLC memory are available, the drive can start reusing them for caching writes.

From the operating system's point of view, everything is transparent.

 

The read speeds are not affected, QLC is just as fast as TLC, the limitation is the SATA protocol which limits the transfer speeds to around 500 MB/s.

 

So EVO is better, has higher endurance, but if you're just gonna use the SSD for storing games (so you write very little, you write the game once and then launch it multiple times) then QLC would be OK.

You don't want to use QLC as a drive where you write a lot, like daily file downloads, rendering videos on it, capturing video games to ssd etc etc because you'll burn through those 700 TB of life fast.

 

 

 

[benjaminr]

Just now, mariushm said:

So explaining it in simpler words.

 

There's different kinds of flash memory chips, based on different technologies: SLC , MLC, TLC, QLC 

SLC on the left is the most expensive to manufacture, but has high performance and high endurance.

The more you go to the right, the cheaper the chips are to manufacture (because they can pack more bits in the same area) but the downside is you lose a bit of performance and endurance.

The 860 EVO uses TLC and has an endurance of 1200 TB - that means that you can write data on it as much as you want, but after the 1200 TB of data written to the drive (in real world probably a few tens to hundreds of TB after that threshold, these numbers are conservative), some memory cells may become unable to store new information, they become read only ... so from that point gradually you will no longer be able to store new data on the drive.

The 860 QVO uses QLC memory - it's cheaper to make and packs more bits but tradeoff is lower endurance - the 2 TB drive can only handle 720 TB instead of 1200 TB.

 

QLC is also slower when it comes to writing data to it, so Samsung resorts to some tricks in order to improve speed.  As long as there's empty space on the SSD, it configures a part of the memory chips in SLC mode, which allows it to quickly write incoming data into those portions of the memory chips and when the drive is idle, it slowly moves the data from those SLC portions to the more permanent locations, emptying those area and making them available for new incoming data.

In the case of the 2 TB model, this SLC portion is adjusted dynamically between 6 GB (when drive is nearly 100% full), up to 78 GB when there's plenty of free space.

 

So for example, let's say you install a huge game, like let's say Fallout 4 with Ultra HD textures, basically a 90 GB game.  The SSD will start writing these GB of data as they come in using those 78 GB of SLC mode memory at very high speeds, let's say up to 520 MB/s ... and once 78 GB (or whatever quantity was in SLC mode at that point) is reached, the drive will be forced to start writing in the memory cells configured in QLC mode, so the 12 GB remaining will be written at slower speeds, around 160 MB/s.

Once the installer completes writing those 90 GB, the drive will work in background and slowly transfer those 78 GB into the QLC memory, at 100-160 MB/s so let's say those 78 GB will be transferred to QLC over the next 78000 MB / 100 MB/s = 780 seconds or 10-15 minutes.

As soon as portions of that 78 GB of SLC memory are available, the drive can start reusing them for caching writes.

From the operating system's point of view, everything is transparent.

 

The read speeds are not affected, QLC is just as fast as TLC, the limitation is the SATA protocol which limits the transfer speeds to around 500 MB/s.

 

So EVO is better, has higher endurance, but if you're just gonna use the SSD for storing games (so you write very little, you write the game once and then launch it multiple times) then QLC would be OK.

You don't want to use QLC as a drive where you write a lot, like daily file downloads, rendering videos on it, capturing video games to ssd etc etc because you'll burn through those 700 TB of life fast.

 

 

 

now  can i ask something?

 

lets say  that in 860  2tB evo i will install  40 games, if i will install every week 20 and  40  games and delete  them  will i have problem with the 1200TB>?

 

i mean  how much writes i caN do  with the  2TB  evo?  in games?

 

also  MX500 2TB  have  the same  writes  like  860  evo 2TB?

 

also  Mx500 can it be  use for daily file downloads, rendering videos on it, capturing video games to ssd etc etc?

[Chaftalie]

16 minutes ago, benjaminr said:

now  can i ask something?

 

lets say  that in  2tB evo i will install  40 games, if i will install every week 20 and  40  games and delete  them  will i have problem with the 1200TB>?

If you write 650GB of Data each day in 5 years you will get to the limit of 1200TB after 5 years.

 

1 Game = 80GB (thats probably much higher than an average of game size)

installing 40 Games a week.

 

80GB * 40 Games = 3200GB = 3.2TB per Week

1200TB/3.2TB per Week = 375Weeks = 7.2 Years

 

I hope I calculated this understandable

 

Edited February 17, 2019 by Chaftalie
My calculations were a little bit off and I colorcoded it

[mariushm]

Well, you can simply do the math.

Assuming a game has 25 GB size on average, if you install 40 games each week, you'll write 40 x 25 GB = 1000 GB (~1 TB) each week.

Therefore, you'll eat through those 1200 TB in 1200 weeks, or 23 years (assuming 52 weeks in a year).

 

You're only writing a game once, so you only write 25 GB once, or whatever the amount of data the game uses. Reading data from the memory chips is free, it doesn't wear out the memory cells.

 

Note that these calculations are only valid if there's plenty of empty space on the drive. The more full the drive is, the more that 1200 TB number will be less accurate. For example, if you fill 1.8 TB of those 2 TB with stuff and then you keep installing games and uninstalling games in those 200 GB remaining, the endurance may drop to 1000 TB over the drive's life.

The SSD is smart enough to constantly move around data inside the memory cells and write new data in cells that are less "abused", and it tries to keep the "wear and tear" level on each memory chip at around the same percentage with all the others.... for example, for TLC memory, in general the memory cells can be erased up to 200-400 times, and then they become unusable, so the controller keeps track of how much each memory chip and each portion of the memory chips is used, and picks less used memory areas to put new data into.

But, under certain conditions like when there's little room available, it's forced to choose less optimal locations for new data, because it would otherwise simply take too much time to calculate where to put the data, and the speed would decrease.

 

2 minutes ago, Chaftalie said:

If you write 650GB of Data each day in 5 years you will get to the limit of 1200TB after 5 years.

 

1 Game = 80GB (thats probably much higher than an average of game size)

installing 40 Games a week.

40 Games * 80GB =3200GB = 3.2TB

3200/7 = 460 GB / Week = 0.46 TB/Week

1200TB/0.46 = 2625 Weeks =50.5 Years 

 

I hope I calculated this understandable

 

Your math is wrong ... 3200 / 7 = 0.46 GB per day

so it's 1200 TB / 0.46 = 2625 days /366 days in a year = ~ 7 years.

 

[Chaftalie]

5 minutes ago, mariushm said:

Your math is wrong ... 3200 / 7 = 0.46 GB per day

so it's 1200 TB / 0.46 = 2625 days /366 days in a year = ~ 7 years.

 

50 Years would be cool ^^

I corrected it, thanks for pointing out!

[benjaminr]

Just now, Chaftalie said:

50 Years would be cool ^^

I corrected it, thanks for pointing out!

 

Just now, mariushm said:

Well, you can simply do the math.

Assuming a game has 25 GB size on average, if you install 40 games each week, you'll write 40 x 25 GB = 1000 GB (~1 TB) each week.

Therefore, you'll eat through those 1200 TB in 1200 weeks, or 23 years (assuming 52 weeks in a year).

 

You're only writing a game once, so you only write 25 GB once, or whatever the amount of data the game uses. Reading data from the memory chips is free, it doesn't wear out the memory cells.

 

Note that these calculations are only valid if there's plenty of empty space on the drive. The more full the drive is, the more that 1200 TB number will be less accurate. For example, if you fill 1.8 TB of those 2 TB with stuff and then you keep installing games and uninstalling games in those 200 GB remaining, the endurance may drop to 1000 TB over the drive's life.

The SSD is smart enough to constantly move around data inside the memory cells and write new data in cells that are less "abused", and it tries to keep the "wear and tear" level on each memory chip at around the same percentage with all the others.... for example, for TLC memory, in general the memory cells can be erased up to 200-400 times, and then they become unusable, so the controller keeps track of how much each memory chip and each portion of the memory chips is used, and picks less used memory areas to put new data into.

But, under certain conditions like when there's little room available, it's forced to choose less optimal locations for new data, because it would otherwise simply take too much time to calculate where to put the data, and the speed would decrease.

 

 

Your math is wrong ... 3200 / 7 = 0.46 GB per day

so it's 1200 TB / 0.46 = 2625 days /366 days in a year = ~ 7 years.

 

MX500 2TB  have  the same  writes  like  860  evo 2TB?

 

also  Mx500 can it be  use for daily file downloads, rendering videos on it, capturing video games to ssd etc etc?

 

also what is the difference between Samsung 860 Evo 2TB  and MX  500 2TB?in performance.., speed, and  etc?

 

 

because i have a lot games , music,, movies librarys more than 4TB i want to buy one hardisk 6-8 TB also in this hardisk which i will buy i will put and games because i will play games in the hardisk..
also i cant put all my games to run them from the ssd because i will have to pay a lot of money for to buy one ssd in 4TB
do you understand what i mean?
so which to buy from these 3?
from these 3 ??which is better?

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/wd-6...formance-hard-drive-wd6003fzbx-hd-551-wd.html


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/seag...ternal-hard-drive-st8000dm0004-hd-37g-se.html



https://www.overclockers.co.uk/tosh...rmance-hard-drive-hdwe140uzsva-hd-042-ts.html


which is better in everything?

[mariushm]

13 minutes ago, benjaminr said:

 

MX500 2TB  have  the same  writes  like  860  evo 2TB?

 

also  Mx500 can it be  use for daily file downloads, rendering videos on it, capturing video games to ssd etc etc?

Crucial MX 500 uses a different kind of TLC memory (Samsung manufactures their own memory chips, Crucial uses TLC memory made by Micron) which is slightly lower quality than the memory used by Samsung for their drives.

Also, the Crucial uses a cheaper controller ( Silicon Motion SM2258) which isn't as smart as the Samsung controller, so it's not as good at writing the data in optimum places, in order to improve the life of the drive.

Therefore, Crucial only guarantees 700 TB of life for their 2 TB models.

 

ALL drives can be used for daily file downloads, rendering videos on them, anything... I'm just saying you have to be aware of these "lifetime writes" numbers.

When you're rendering or capturing videos from games, you're often writing large amounts of data, for example I often capture 1 TB worth of data in a few hours of gameplay, because I like to capture in a lossless format and then compress it at the highest quality. In such scenario, where I capture 1 TB of data every day, the drive would wear out in less than 2 years, much less than the 5 year warranty of the drive.

If you want very long endurance, a drive to last you a long time, you should look for a drive that uses MLC memory. However, these are quite rare these days and expensive.

 

For example, Samsung 860 2 TB PRO  uses MLC and has a 2400 TB endurance value (twice as much as the TLC version) but costs 500$: https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Inch-SATA-Internal-MZ-76P2T0BW/dp/B07879KC15/

Or, Adata SU900 uses MLC memory and has a lifetime writes of 1600 TB : https://www.amazon.com/ADATA-Ultimate-SU900-SU900SS-Internal/dp/B07473GKD1/

 

My opinion is pretty much this:  even if you write 1 TB each day to the drive, with that 2 TB drive you'll still wear it out in more than 3 years... 2-3 years from now, you'll probably be able to buy a 4-6 TB SSD for the equivalent of today's 100-200$, so you really won't care about it.

It's like being sorry today that a 250-500 GB mechanical drive you bought 3-5 years ago is about to die on you. 500 GB is so low you won't care, and you won't mind buying a replacement drive, it has served you well for 3-5 years.

 

I'd go with the 860 EVO because it would have a more consistent performance and it's a proven drive, used by loads of people... QLC is still relatively new, and I wouldn't be comfortable with the performance quirks.

 

ps. please stop with the private messages / emails, I don't answer to those. Be patient and wait for answers on the forum.

[benjaminr]

Just now, mariushm said:

Crucial MX 500 uses a different kind of TLC memory (Samsung manufactures their own memory chips, Crucial uses TLC memory made by Micron) which is slightly lower quality than the memory used by Samsung for their drives.

Also, the Crucial uses a cheaper controller ( Silicon Motion SM2258) which isn't as smart as the Samsung controller, so it's not as good at writing the data in optimum places, in order to improve the life of the drive.

Therefore, Crucial only guarantees 700 TB of life for their 2 TB models.

 

ALL drives can be used for daily file downloads, rendering videos on them, anything... I'm just saying you have to be aware of these "lifetime writes" numbers.

When you're rendering or capturing videos from games, you're often writing large amounts of data, for example I often capture 1 TB worth of data in a few hours of gameplay, because I like to capture in a lossless format and then compress it at the highest quality. In such scenario, where I capture 1 TB of data every day, the drive would wear out in less than 2 years, much less than the 5 year warranty of the drive.

If you want very long endurance, a drive to last you a long time, you should look for a drive that uses MLC memory. However, these are quite rare these days and expensive.

 

For example, Samsung 860 2 TB PRO  uses MLC and has a 2400 TB endurance value (twice as much as the TLC version) but costs 500$: https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Inch-SATA-Internal-MZ-76P2T0BW/dp/B07879KC15/

Or, Adata SU900 uses MLC memory and has a lifetime writes of 1600 TB : https://www.amazon.com/ADATA-Ultimate-SU900-SU900SS-Internal/dp/B07473GKD1/

 

My opinion is pretty much this:  even if you write 1 TB each day to the drive, with that 2 TB drive you'll still wear it out in more than 3 years... 2-3 years from now, you'll probably be able to buy a 4-6 TB SSD for the equivalent of today's 100-200$, so you really won't care about it.

It's like being sorry today that a 250-500 GB mechanical drive you bought 3-5 years ago is about to die on you. 500 GB is so low you won't care, and you won't mind buying a replacement drive, it has served you well for 3-5 years.

 

I'd go with the 860 EVO because it would have a more consistent performance and it's a proven drive, used by loads of people... QLC is still relatively new, and I wouldn't be comfortable with the performance quirks.

 

ps. please stop with the private messages / emails, I don't answer to those. Be patient and wait for answers on the forum.

so which to buy from these 3?
from these 3 ??which is better?

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/wd-6...formance-hard-drive-wd6003fzbx-hd-551-wd.html


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/seag...ternal-hard-drive-st8000dm0004-hd-37g-se.html



https://www.overclockers.co.uk/tosh...rmance-hard-drive-hdwe140uzsva-hd-042-ts.html


which is better in everything?

these 3 hardisks  which  differences they  have? in speed, performance ,,  noises, and  etc?

[mariushm]

I wouldn't buy either of them.

 

WD Black is great, but too expensive, not good value.

It's fast but also warmer than others. You get long warranty, you get a RELIABLE drive, less likely to fail and break down, but the risk of failure is not zero. Let's say it's 0.5% risk of hard drive failing, compared to 1% risk of hard drive failing on other brands. I don't consider worth paying 50-100$ more for that 0.5% of extra "safety".

 

For example, instead of paying £229.99 for that 6 TB WD Black drive, you could pay 300 pounds for 2 x 6 TB Seagate drives (or less for 2 x 4 TB drives) and keep one drive on the shelves as spare, or simply put it in your computer and keep important data on both drives. The risk of both drives dying at same time is minimal, unless you have a critical failure like power supply dying or a lightning strike hitting your computer.

IF for some reason your fancy WD Black drive fails or shows signs of failure,  you would want to quickly copy over those terabytes of data and send the drive for warranty, and you risk being without a drive for weeks until you get another drive. With two drives, you have redundancy, you can copy data over and go on with your life and not stress about not having a drive for a week or two.

 

The Seagate is OK, personally I'm not a fan of Seagate but I'm probably biased - had two Seagate drives fail on me just outside warranty and only one WD failed on me within warranty period and was replaced with brand new one.. so I'm not a fan of Seagate. HOWEVER, that was years ago, newer series are probably much better and just like me, other people are sure to have had bad experiences with WD or Toshiba or others. 

 

Toshiba, I wouldn't recommend... based on reliability and various online reviews, the failure rate is higher on them.

 

Currently, if I were to buy a new drive, I would go with HGST NAS drives ... though you won't see them in stores as much because HGST was bought by WD and they're slowly rebranding them to WD.

There is a HGST Ultrastar 8 TB that looks good on that page: https://www.overclockers.co.uk/wd-ultrastar-8tb-data-center-internal-enterprise-hard-drive-hus728t8tale6l4-hd-55p-wd.html

The 4 TB versions are 180 pounds.

 

[benjaminr]

Just now, mariushm said:

I wouldn't buy either of them.

 

WD Black is great, but too expensive, not good value.

It's fast but also warmer than others. You get long warranty, you get a RELIABLE drive, less likely to fail and break down, but the risk of failure is not zero. Let's say it's 0.5% risk of hard drive failing, compared to 1% risk of hard drive failing on other brands. I don't consider worth paying 50-100$ more for that 0.5% of extra "safety".

 

For example, instead of paying £229.99 for that 6 TB WD Black drive, you could pay 300 pounds for 2 x 6 TB Seagate drives (or less for 2 x 4 TB drives) and keep one drive on the shelves as spare, or simply put it in your computer and keep important data on both drives. The risk of both drives dying at same time is minimal, unless you have a critical failure like power supply dying or a lightning strike hitting your computer.

IF for some reason your fancy WD Black drive fails or shows signs of failure,  you would want to quickly copy over those terabytes of data and send the drive for warranty, and you risk being without a drive for weeks until you get another drive. With two drives, you have redundancy, you can copy data over and go on with your life and not stress about not having a drive for a week or two.

 

The Seagate is OK, personally I'm not a fan of Seagate but I'm probably biased - had two Seagate drives fail on me just outside warranty and only one WD failed on me within warranty period and was replaced with brand new one.. so I'm not a fan of Seagate. HOWEVER, that was years ago, newer series are probably much better and just like me, other people are sure to have had bad experiences with WD or Toshiba or others. 

 

Toshiba, I wouldn't recommend... based on reliability and various online reviews, the failure rate is higher on them.

 

Currently, if I were to buy a new drive, I would go with HGST NAS drives ... though you won't see them in stores as much because HGST was bought by WD and they're slowly rebranding them to WD.

There is a HGST Ultrastar 8 TB that looks good on that page: https://www.overclockers.co.uk/wd-ultrastar-8tb-data-center-internal-enterprise-hard-drive-hus728t8tale6l4-hd-55p-wd.html

The 4 TB versions are 180 pounds.

 

this  https://www.overclockers.co.uk/wd-ultrastar-8tb-data-center-internal-enterprise-hard-drive-hus728t8tale6l4-hd-55p-wd.html  are  new? releases?

 

also  when  you say  that  WD Black is great what  you mean with  this?

in  which  things  the WD  black is great?

also based on reliability and various online reviews what  the reviews are  saying for  https://www.overclockers.co.uk/wd-6...formance-hard-drive-wd6003fzbx-hd-551-wd.html


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/seag...ternal-hard-drive-st8000dm0004-hd-37g-se.html?

 

[mariushm]

WD Ultrastar  are HGST Ultrastar drives that now WD puts the label on them.

I don't understand why it's so hard to figure things out

Black series from WD is their "performance", "premium" series. You pay extra for the top performance, longer warranty (5 years) , but the downside is that  the drives will be noisier and warmer.  Think of it as a car "tuned" for higher performance.

 

In theory they're built slightly better than the other series of WD (for example WD Blue series, or WD Red), and they use higher grade of components and they may use the newest technologies, like for example newest platter design WD makes, which packs more bits per surface. So for example, a WD Black 6 TB may have 3 platters, so the data is stored on 6 surfaces, while a WD Blue drive may use older design platters, and therefore use 4 platters and 8 surfaces to store the same amount of data. The extra platter adds to the weight of the hard drive and the weight of the read/write heads, so the heads move ever so slightly slower, which adds a bit of latency when seeking data randomly on the drive, which means a WD Blue would be ever so slightly slower at random search through files.  That's why WD Black is called "performance" drive.

However, a regular user won't notice these differences, and the average person doesn't really benefit from these things the Black series offers.

 

So it is great, if you don't care about the price, the technical specifications are great, and it would be a very good hard drive... but you don't really need that great of a hard drive, if the price actually matters.

 

So I wouldn't pay 229 pounds for a 6 TB WD Black - I'd rather pay 150 pounds for a cheaper series with smaller warranty, and spend the difference on a 500 GB SSD.

If I need the "performance", the SSD is several times faster at anything compared to any mechanical drive, so it makes no sense to spend so much money on a WD Black.

 

The HGST Ultrastar I recommended is "datacenter" series.. .in general enterprise / datacenter hard drives are even better than WD Black or similar drives, and they're designed to function for years 24/7, to function in tougher environments like where you may have vibrations from other mechanical hard drives in the case and so on. 

Think of them as cars tuned for racing but also to survive 24 hours "le mans" race, they're designed for long life, endurance etc not necessarily the fastest speeds, smallest latencies like WD Black aims for, but more rounded in other categories.

 

Anyway, if you want these just for games and occasional rendering of videos, you don't need this high performance drives. If you have money to throw, go for them, but otherwise if you have a limited budget there's better things you could do with your money.

 

 

[benjaminr]

Just now, mariushm said:

WD Ultrastar  are HGST Ultrastar drives that now WD puts the label on them.

I don't understand why it's so hard to figure things out

Black series from WD is their "performance", "premium" series. You pay extra for the top performance, longer warranty (5 years) , but the downside is that  the drives will be noisier and warmer.  Think of it as a car "tuned" for higher performance.

 

In theory they're built slightly better than the other series of WD (for example WD Blue series, or WD Red), and they use higher grade of components and they may use the newest technologies, like for example newest platter design WD makes, which packs more bits per surface. So for example, a WD Black 6 TB may have 3 platters, so the data is stored on 6 surfaces, while a WD Blue drive may use older design platters, and therefore use 4 platters and 8 surfaces to store the same amount of data. The extra platter adds to the weight of the hard drive and the weight of the read/write heads, so the heads move ever so slightly slower, which adds a bit of latency when seeking data randomly on the drive, which means a WD Blue would be ever so slightly slower at random search through files.  That's why WD Black is called "performance" drive.

However, a regular user won't notice these differences, and the average person doesn't really benefit from these things the Black series offers.

 

So it is great, if you don't care about the price, the technical specifications are great, and it would be a very good hard drive... but you don't really need that great of a hard drive, if the price actually matters.

 

So I wouldn't pay 229 pounds for a 6 TB WD Black - I'd rather pay 150 pounds for a cheaper series with smaller warranty, and spend the difference on a 500 GB SSD.

If I need the "performance", the SSD is several times faster at anything compared to any mechanical drive, so it makes no sense to spend so much money on a WD Black.

 

The HGST Ultrastar I recommended is "datacenter" series.. .in general enterprise / datacenter hard drives are even better than WD Black or similar drives, and they're designed to function for years 24/7, to function in tougher environments like where you may have vibrations from other mechanical hard drives in the case and so on. 

Think of them as cars tuned for racing but also to survive 24 hours "le mans" race, they're designed for long life, endurance etc not necessarily the fastest speeds, smallest latencies like WD Black aims for, but more rounded in other categories.

 

Anyway, if you want these just for games and occasional rendering of videos, you don't need this high performance drives. If you have money to throw, go for them, but otherwise if you have a limited budget there's better things you could do with your money.

 

 

why The HGST Ultrastar  hard drives https://www.overclockers.co.uk/wd-ultrastar-8tb-data-center-internal-enterprise-hard-drive-hus728t8tale6l4-hd-55p-wd.html  are even better than WD Black or similar drives,?

in  which are better? in  speed?  quality? power? etc?

[Bitter]

He literally just explained the differences between the two and why one may or may not be better than the other depending on your intended use. You have to decide where to spend your money and which product is best suited for your use.

[benjaminr]

Just now, mariushm said:

Crucial MX 500 uses a different kind of TLC memory (Samsung manufactures their own memory chips, Crucial uses TLC memory made by Micron) which is slightly lower quality than the memory used by Samsung for their drives.

Also, the Crucial uses a cheaper controller ( Silicon Motion SM2258) which isn't as smart as the Samsung controller, so it's not as good at writing the data in optimum places, in order to improve the life of the drive.

Therefore, Crucial only guarantees 700 TB of life for their 2 TB models.

 

ALL drives can be used for daily file downloads, rendering videos on them, anything... I'm just saying you have to be aware of these "lifetime writes" numbers.

When you're rendering or capturing videos from games, you're often writing large amounts of data, for example I often capture 1 TB worth of data in a few hours of gameplay, because I like to capture in a lossless format and then compress it at the highest quality. In such scenario, where I capture 1 TB of data every day, the drive would wear out in less than 2 years, much less than the 5 year warranty of the drive.

If you want very long endurance, a drive to last you a long time, you should look for a drive that uses MLC memory. However, these are quite rare these days and expensive.

 

For example, Samsung 860 2 TB PRO  uses MLC and has a 2400 TB endurance value (twice as much as the TLC version) but costs 500$: https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Inch-SATA-Internal-MZ-76P2T0BW/dp/B07879KC15/

Or, Adata SU900 uses MLC memory and has a lifetime writes of 1600 TB : https://www.amazon.com/ADATA-Ultimate-SU900-SU900SS-Internal/dp/B07473GKD1/

 

My opinion is pretty much this:  even if you write 1 TB each day to the drive, with that 2 TB drive you'll still wear it out in more than 3 years... 2-3 years from now, you'll probably be able to buy a 4-6 TB SSD for the equivalent of today's 100-200$, so you really won't care about it.

It's like being sorry today that a 250-500 GB mechanical drive you bought 3-5 years ago is about to die on you. 500 GB is so low you won't care, and you won't mind buying a replacement drive, it has served you well for 3-5 years.

 

I'd go with the 860 EVO because it would have a more consistent performance and it's a proven drive, used by loads of people... QLC is still relatively new, and I wouldn't be comfortable with the performance quirks.

 

ps. please stop with the private messages / emails, I don't answer to those. Be patient and wait for answers on the forum.

lets  say  that  i will install 40  games in one  week  which are 1.8 TB of use  from 2TB space.my question is if i will delete the  40 games  which are 1.8 TB of use  from 2TB 

will i have problems with the   write? 

i mean how many TB i will  have   from 1200TB in evo? if i will delete and unistall 1.8TB?

 

also what  write speeds  have  black drives and enderpises  drives? i mean how many  write speeds  you can do with  black drives and enterprizes  drives?

 

can  you  tell me  please?

[benjaminr]

what is the difference between black  and blue and  purple western hardisks drives?

[mariushm]

Can't you do some basic research on your own?

 

Straight from WD's website:  https://www.wd.com/products/internal-storage.html   < --- read the text that follows the color, click on links and read the description

 

WD Blue : https://www.wd.com/content/dam/wdc/website/downloadable_assets/eng/spec_data_sheet/2879-771436.pdf

 

WD Purple : https://www.wd.com/content/dam/wdc/website/downloadable_assets/eng/spec_data_sheet/2879-800012.pdf

 

WD Black : https://www.wd.com/content/dam/wdc/website/downloadable_assets/eng/spec_data_sheet/2879-771434.pdf

 

 

 

[benjaminr]

Just now, mariushm said:

Can't you do some basic research on your own?

 

Straight from WD's website:  https://www.wd.com/products/internal-storage.html   < --- read the text that follows the color, click on links and read the description

 

WD Blue : https://www.wd.com/content/dam/wdc/website/downloadable_assets/eng/spec_data_sheet/2879-771436.pdf

 

WD Purple : https://www.wd.com/content/dam/wdc/website/downloadable_assets/eng/spec_data_sheet/2879-800012.pdf

 

WD Black : https://www.wd.com/content/dam/wdc/website/downloadable_assets/eng/spec_data_sheet/2879-771434.pdf

 

 

 

blacks disks   can use for general use? like blue? for storing photos, videos & other important files and etc?

or  you  believe  that  blue are  better  for storing photos, videos & other important files and etc?