970 evo NVMe vs. WD Blue 3D M.2 SATA

[CtrlAltDeluxe]

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?

[WereCat]

neither 

get the SX8200 Pro instead if you can 

It's cheaper and better than 970 EVO

[LexenZ]

6 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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?

Hi there CtrlAltDeluxe,

 

To be honest in real world perspective, SSDs regardless of sata and nvme are not really that much of a difference when it comes to daily use. The only thing you can spot the difference is actual benchmark tests.

 

Neverthless, the internal guts of the WD Blue sata are of an older controller and might be subjected to an early death throughout the years of use.

So... i think personally if your desktop/laptop supports the nvme interface go for the nvme one!

 

Otherwise sata still does a good job

 

Regards~ 

[GoldenLag]

11 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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.

What country?

What budget in native currency?

If its not the usual major countries of central europe, could you provide an etailer for us to look through to provide the best SSD?

 

The 970 evo is rarely the choice. 

[CtrlAltDeluxe]

10 minutes ago, LexenZ said:

Hi there CtrlAltDeluxe,

 

To be honest in real world perspective, SSDs regardless of sata and nvme are not really that much of a difference when it comes to daily use. The only thing you can spot the difference is actual benchmark tests.

 

Neverthless, the internal guts of the WD Blue sata are of an older controller and might be subjected to an early death throughout the years of use.

So... i think personally if your desktop/laptop supports the nvme interface go for the nvme one!

 

Otherwise sata still does a good job

 

Regards~ 

 

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

12 minutes ago, WereCat said:

neither 

get the SX8200 Pro instead if you can 

It's cheaper and better than 970 EVO

I specifically said not to recommend anything else since nothing else is being offered at this moment. Thanks anyway.

6 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

What country?

What budget in native currency?

If its not the usual major countries of central europe, could you provide an etailer for us to look through to provide the best SSD?

 

The 970 evo is rarely the choice. 

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.

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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.

There is a difference, but its rather minor. Id save the money and spend it elsewhere. 

[Sir0Tek]

I won't mind buying the WD Blue, $60 more is more than 140% the price of the WD, and I doubt you'll get 5% better performance out of it. Yes, max throughput is higher, but both are TLC anyways. 

[CtrlAltDeluxe]

7 minutes ago, Sir0Tek said:

I won't mind buying the WD Blue, $60 more is more than 140% the price of the WD, and I doubt you'll get 5% better performance out of it. Yes, max throughput is higher, but both are TLC anyways. 

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?

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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?

On paper the evo will last longer, but both will last longer than you would ever want to own them. Providing you do dont do hedt workload that depends on writing a shitton of data. 

 

If the mx500 is around id pick that, but if those are the only options, then id save the money. 

[Sir0Tek]

Just now, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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?

Considering the common usage the longevity aspects between these two is negligible. They're tested to provide you an amount of a daily write-rate about a distinct time-period. A common 250gb ssd will endure at least 10 years if you're going to write 50gb of data any single day, throughout te whole 10 years; most ssd do live a lot longer. If it's a 1tb ssd the lifespan will be about 4 times that of the 250gb with the same amount of writes.

[LexenZ]

20 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

 

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

 

Welcome~ bear in my mind the final decision is still yours to make . You do have to know that NVMe sometimes are abit tricky and they might need drivers to be installed first before they can be detected sometimes~  SATA simply being SATA and will just be connected accordingly.

 

I saw that you mentioned WD is new and has warranty but the 970 isn't. I would prefer you to choose something that is still covered by warranty rather than something that has no longer a warranty unless you completely trust the product/brand (not the seller lol). I mean if your luck is as bad as daniel powter's and something happens with the WD Blue you are still liable for warranty replacement. That sometimes could really come in handy if you are on a tight budget during the 2 years. Something for you to think about besides worrying about the specs (I mean they perform the same generally if you don't run benchmark tests).

 

11 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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?

I am not sure which model of the WD blue you are mentioning about, if its of the latest batch of WD blue then i think like what Sir0Tek mentions both are of a similar controller.  

[CtrlAltDeluxe]

1 minute ago, LexenZ said:

Welcome~ bear in my mind the final decision is still yours to make . You do have to know that NVMe sometimes are abit tricky and they might need drivers to be installed first before they can be detected sometimes~  SATA simply being SATA and will just be connected accordingly.

 

I saw that you mentioned WD is new and has warranty but the 970 isn't. I would prefer you to choose something that is still covered by warranty rather than something that has no longer a warranty unless you completely trust the product/brand (not the seller lol). I mean if your luck is as bad as daniel powter's and something happens with the WD Blue you are still liable for warranty replacement. That sometimes could really come in handy if you are on a tight budget during the 2 years. Something for you to think about besides worrying about the specs (I mean they perform the same generally if you don't run benchmark tests).

 

I am not sure which model of the WD blue you are mentioning about, if its of the latest batch of WD blue then i think like what Sir0Tek mentions both are of a similar controller.  

 6 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

On paper the evo will last longer, but both will last longer than you would ever want to own them. Providing you do dont do hedt workload that depends on writing a shitton of data. 

 

If the mx500 is around id pick that, but if those are the only options, then id save the money. 

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

2 minutes ago, Sir0Tek said:

Considering the common usage the longevity aspects between these two is negligible. They're tested to provide you an amount of a daily write-rate about a distinct time-period. A common 250gb ssd will endure at least 10 years if you're going to write 50gb of data any single day, throughout te whole 10 years; most ssd do live a lot longer. If it's a 1tb ssd the lifespan will be about 4 times that of the 250gb with the same amount of writes.

 

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.

[GoldenLag]

14 minutes ago, LexenZ said:

You do have to know that NVMe sometimes are abit tricky and they might need drivers to be installed first before they can be detected sometimes~

No? They are detected like regular drives through the PCIe connection. 

 

1 minute ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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

They heat up if you provide no airflow, and run them at the maximum speed at massive file transfers. Not an issue a normal user runs into.

4 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

then recommends QLC trash.

QLC is better than what most people think, it is just not suited for doing 30+gb full speed writes to them. Which is what people point to when saying they are bad, but in reality they are better than what most people thing. 

 

QLC > Sata for regular users. (When looking at P1/660p vs mx500)

 

At the time you run out of SLC cache, you would have been able to install windows at full speed, aswell as 1-2 games. Neither of them would actually ever be installed at full speed. 

[CtrlAltDeluxe]

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

They heat up if you provide no airflow, and run them at the maximum speed at massive file transfers. Not an issue a normal user runs into.

 

QLC is better than what most people think, it is just not suited for doing 30+gb full speed writes to them. Which is what people point to when saying they are bad, but in reality they are better than what most people thing. 

 

QLC > Sata for regular users. (When looking at P1/660p vs mx500)

 

At the time you run out of SLC cache, you would have been able to install windows at full speed, aswell as 1-2 games. Neither of them would actually ever be installed at full speed. 

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.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

massive file transfers...why then even get an NVMe instead of a SATA?

Note the word "massive" . They run at the maximum speed without being affected for a very long. That ks providing you dont give it any airflow at all. Which you do one way or another through ambient case airflow, or the GPU.

 

3 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

They have substantially less TBW values than TLC

Their TBW is still large enough that you will be able to own it for much longer than you would want to own it....... And normal user scenarios do not consist of multigig writes each day. 

 

32 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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.

Its faster while costing roughly the same. Its only slightly better, but for most, that is enough. 

 

And the SLC cache serves the few scenarios where you would like to have increased speeds. 

 

In no way can you describe a drive that is better for most people as "shit" or "bad". It has its downsides, but tjeybare either negligable or unnoticable to most people.

[Sir0Tek]

You better not use any TLC or even QLC for scrap or harddisk-cache-purposes, no matter if and by how much SLC-cache it is using. As systemdrive/stand-alone for the common user or for games/data it is great (reads>>>writes), MLCs are also good if used as a system-drive and as such it doesn't matter much if it offers 500mb/s or 3000mb/s throughput. SLC would've been the best but they're simply out of range.

 

But back to longevity: Usually it is not the nand that fails but the controller used (older (very old...) Phison and Sandforce are quite infamous). I've yet to meet an ssd where the failure is due to the nand used beeing end of life.

[CtrlAltDeluxe]

32 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Note the word "massive" . They run at the maximum speed without being affected for a very long. That ks providing you dont give it any airflow at all. Which you do one way or another through ambient case airflow, or the GPU.

 

Their TBW is still large enough that you will be able to own it for much longer than you would want to own it....... And normal user scenarios do not consist of multigig writes each day. 

 

Its faster while costing roughly the same. Its only slightly better, but for most, that is enough. 

 

And the SLC cache serves the few scenarios where you would like to have increased speeds. 

 

In no way can you describe a drive that is better for most people as "shit" or "bad". It has its downsides, but tjeybare either negligable or unnoticable to most people.

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.

13 minutes ago, Sir0Tek said:

You better not use any TLC or even QLC for scrap or harddisk-cache-purposes, no matter if and by how much SLC-cache it is using. As systemdrive/stand-alone for the common user or for games/data it is great (reads>>>writes), MLCs are also good if used as a system-drive and as such it doesn't matter much if it offers 500mb/s or 3000mb/s throughput. SLC would've been the best but they're simply out of range.

 

But back to longevity: Usually it is not the nand that fails but the controller used (older (very old...) Phison and Sandforce are quite infamous). I've yet to meet an ssd where the failure is due to the nand used beeing end of life.

The controller for the WD Blue is "Marvell 88SS1074", hope it's not one of the infamously bad ones?

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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. Refer to the LTT video "How SSD Technology Keeps Getting WORSE! - Intel 660p Review

Im very well aware of the limitations of the SLC cache. But at what point do you do a 25 GB write workload that requires it to be done at full speed? Even when the drives is at almost max capacity there is SLC cache to make most tasks to be done without issue. 

 

And you really should keep 20% free of an SSD regardless of nand flash used.

 

3 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

The conclusion would be to buy a QLC SATA, not a QLC NVMe.

If it was an option outside of the overpriced samsung drive, sure (and providing other better options arent around). 

 

But there is a speedbump that you can notice during usage, tho minor, the extra speed is certainly there. Usually in scenarios where a lot needs to be fetched at the same time.

 

(Comming from someone who uses everything from cacheless Sata to cached Nvme TLC (SLC cache). And i do not like anectdotal points, but there is a difference)

 

 

[Sir0Tek]

4 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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"

The controller for the WD Blue is "Marvell 88SS1074", hope it's not one of the infamously bad ones?

That's not how the cache works. You're not regularly exceeding 25gb writes in a row and it doesn't affect read-speeds to that extend. I did view the vid, and they clearly state that usually you won't notice any difference.

And it is kind of interesting that some reviews even mention the performance drop when a drive like the 660p is almost full - because this isn't a thing to the Intel 660p only, it is much more common than you'd expect. Remember the praised Samsung 840? All it means is you should try to have a certain amount of your ssd unused. 

The infamous controller failures have been a thing about 10 years ago, sometimes fixed/patched with regular firmware-updates as were the at times unsatisfying performance-issues. For as far as I can tell it should be a thing of the past.

[CtrlAltDeluxe]

8 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Im very well aware of the limitations of the SLC cache. But at what point do you do a 25 GB write workload that requires it to be done at full speed? Even when the drives is at almost max capacity there is SLC cache to make most tasks to be done without issue. 

 

And you really should keep 20% free of an SSD regardless of nand flash used.

 

If it was an option outside of the overpriced samsung drive, sure (and providing other better options arent around). 

 

But there is a speedbump that you can notice during usage, tho minor, the extra speed is certainly there. Usually in scenarios where a lot needs to be fetched at the same time.

 

(Comming from someone who uses everything from cacheless Sata to cached Nvme TLC (SLC cache). And i do not like anectdotal points, but there is a difference)

 

 

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.

1 minute ago, Sir0Tek said:

That's not how the cache works. You're not regularly exceeding 25gb writes in a row and it doesn't affect read-speeds to that extend. I did view the vid, and they clearly state that usually you won't notice any difference.

And it is kind of interesting that some reviews even mention the performance drop when a drive like the 660p is almost full - because this isn't a thing to the Intel 660p only, it is much more common than you'd expect. Remember the praised Samsung 840? All it means is you should try to have a certain amount of your ssd unused. 

The infamous controller failures have been a thing about 10 years ago, sometimes fixed/patched with regular firmware-updates as were the at times unsatisfying performance-issues. For as far as I can tell it should be a thing of the past.

 

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?

[Sir0Tek]

6 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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?

 

I have no meaningful negative reports so far on the WD Blue.

[GoldenLag]

16 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

the review an EVO 850 copied a 250gb file in 8+ minutes maintaining 400gb speed, while the 660p took 23 minutes.

When do you copy a 250GB file while also being in a rush where you dont expect it to take a while?

 

Meanwhile you can do a relativly large file of 8-70gb (depending on the drive and how full) at a much higher speed. 

 

In the LTT video they show the worst case scenario for a workload you dont encounter during normal use. And if you regularly do those workloads you wouldnt be looking at a TLC or QLC drive, you would be looking at a DLC/MLC drive. Or even intel optane. 

 

6 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

In scenarios where a lot needs to be fetched at the same time?

Startup when you have multiple applications loading. Which will allow a drive with Nvme protocol + SLC cache to be a lot snappier. 

 

7 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

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

There is a minor difference you can notice. But its minor, and when spending 60% more its not worth noting. But when its the same price and you are using it for regular consumer tasks, then its better. 

 

If you are worried of it dropping in speed during +50gb file transfers and at that point do not have the time for it to finish doing its thing. Then sure. Grab the Sata TLC drive. 

 

All im saying is that you dont really run into that. And the limitations of QLC drives are greatly exagerated, not helped by LTTs representation of it. Even the 970 evo has the issue of dropping to TLC speeds when the SLC cache runs out. 

[CtrlAltDeluxe]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

When do you copy a 250GB file while also being in a rush where you dont expect it to take a while?

 

Meanwhile you can do a relativly large file of 8-70gb (depending on the drive and how full) at a much higher speed. 

 

In the LTT video they show the worst case scenario for a workload you dont encounter during normal use. And if you regularly do those workloads you wouldnt be looking at a TLC or QLC drive, you would be looking at a DLC/MLC drive. Or even intel optane. 

 

Startup when you have multiple applications loading. Which will allow a drive with Nvme protocol + SLC cache to be a lot snappier. 

 

There is a minor difference you can notice. But its minor, and when spending 60% more its not worth noting. But when its the same price and you are using it for regular consumer tasks, then its better. 

 

If you are worried of it dropping in speed during +50gb file transfers and at that point do not have the time for it to finish doing its thing. Then sure. Grab the Sata TLC drive. 

 

All im saying is that you dont really run into that. And the limitations of QLC drives are greatly exagerated, not helped by LTTs representation of it. Even the 970 evo has the issue of dropping to TLC speeds when the SLC cache runs out. 

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.

[GoldenLag]

18 minutes ago, CtrlAltDeluxe said:

To be honest I think that the benefits of NVMe for the average user, whether QLC or TLC, are greatly exaggerated

From people who have little insight into what it entails, that is usually the case. 

 

The improvements are minor as the holdups are usually elsewhere once you reach SSD speeds

 

Edit:

Quote

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.

Nvme is just the protocol, it could be slower than floppydrives, but still be nvme. 

 

And people who do shift a lot of data usually know what drives they are looking for. 

[CtrlAltDeluxe]

20 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

From people who have little insight into what it entails, that is usually the case. 

 

The improvements are minor as the holdups are usually elsewhere once you reach SSD speeds

 

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)