Toshiba launches M.2 1TB SSD - Don't buy these!

[Sakkura]

21 hours ago, TrigrH said:

- SATA interface

- Write at up to 388MB/sec

- Planar 15nm TLC flash

- No endurance numbers provided (I wonder why)

 

These drives will not last, the write endurance of planar TLC flash is too low, even Samsung had issues with the 840 EVO series providing multiple firmware updates to circumvent performance degradation.

 

However:

These drives will probably be rather cheap, you get what you pay for with this one.

There are other planar TLC SSDs that last just fine, and indeed ones built on Toshiba flash. SanDisk Ultra II, remember? 

 

This will probably last just fine, but it will be real slow. Hence the SATA interface. That's alright though, as long as it's still a lot faster than a HDD and priced appropriately. 

 

As such, you really need to fix that title. 

Edited February 20, 2016 by Sakkura

[xiej]

Samsung, release a 950 EVO with M.2 and NVMe already, my M.2 slot will be empty until then.

Unless Intel or somebody else can do that with V-NAND, I'm not using any M.2 SSD.

[TrigrH]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

There are other planar TLC SSDs that last just fine, and indeed ones built on Toshiba flash. SanDisk Ultra II, remember? 

 

This will probably last just fine, but it will be real slow. Hence the SATA interface. That's alright though, as long as it's still a lot faster than a HDD and priced appropriately. 

 

As such, you really need to fix that title. 

SanDisk Ultra II more expensive and slower than the cheaper MLC crucial MX100...

Even then that was 19nm TLC which wasn't that great for endurance.

You think 15nm is going to be better?

Not a chance.

[Guest]

'Don't buy these' ?

More like be aware of the specs, just like with everything else. Any SSD is an upgrade over an HDD in IOPS and power consumption, so these may very well be worthwhile to someone with a device that has a SATA M.2 port.

[Sakkura]

8 hours ago, TrigrH said:

SanDisk Ultra II more expensive and slower than the cheaper MLC crucial MX100...

Even then that was 19nm TLC which wasn't that great for endurance.

You think 15nm is going to be better?

Not a chance.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

The Sandisk Ultra II is about on par with the Crucial MX100, and before the MX100 went EOL they were competing head to head on price - fluctuations could decide which one was cheaper. Now the Ultra II is obviously cheaper since the MX100 is disappearing. Even the MX200 (same as the MX100, but with SLC emulation enabled) appears to be approaching EOL.

 

Here is what Anandtech had to say about performance and pricing when the Ultra II launched in 2014:

Quote

Saying that the Ultra II is faster than the 840 EVO would not be accurate since the two trade blows in our benchmarks, but the truth is that the Ultra II is a tough competitor to the 840 EVO. The same goes for the MX100 – the Ultra II goes head to head with it, and some benchmarks are in favor of the Ultra II while the MX100 excels in others.

 

...

 

It is clear that SanDisk is going after the MX100 in pricing. The prices are within $10 of each other and due to normal price fluctuations the two will likely switch places on a regular basis. I am inclined to say that the MX100 is still a better buy because not only do you get hardware encryption, you also get higher usable capacities since the MX100 features less over-provisioning compared to the Ultra II (7% vs 13%), so technically the price per gigabyte is lower. Of course, even a small drop in the Ultra II's prices will render the difference negligible at which point it boils down to whether you value SanDisk's SSD Dashboard over the MX100's hardware encryption.

And here is a 2015 snapshot from the MX200 review. Ultra II cheaper than MX100 at both ~250GB and ~500GB, in fact slightly cheaper than the slower BX100 as well.

[potoooooooo]

On 2/19/2016 at 11:25 PM, tomoki said:

I've hated Toshiba drives since my very first laptop had one and that was the first thing that died on me. That's why whenever someone recommends a Toshiba drive to them, I GIVE THEM THE LOOK. 

One bad experience and you refuse to ever look at them again?

 

That seems mighty childish

[TrigrH]

4 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Please stop spreading misinformation.

The Sandisk Ultra II is about on par with the Crucial MX100, and before the MX100 went EOL they were competing head to head on price - fluctuations could decide which one was cheaper. Now the Ultra II is obviously cheaper since the MX100 is disappearing. Even the MX200 (same as the MX100, but with SLC emulation enabled) appears to be approaching EOL.

 

Here is what Anandtech had to say about performance and pricing when the Ultra II launched in 2014:

And here is a 2015 snapshot from the MX200 review. Ultra II cheaper than MX100 at both ~250GB and ~500GB, in fact slightly cheaper than the slower BX100 as well.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8520/sandisk-ultra-ii-240gb-ssd-review/8

 

MX100 was cheaper and is faster and is MLC.

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, TrigrH said:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8520/sandisk-ultra-ii-240gb-ssd-review/8

 

MX100 was cheaper and is faster and is MLC.

Wow, that is next level derp. That's the article I just linked above, with quotes disagreeing with you. The Ultra II was competitive with the MX100 and the 840 Evo, and unlike the Evo had no TLC-related issues. 

[tomoki]

8 hours ago, potoooooooo said:

One bad experience and you refuse to ever look at them again?

 

That seems mighty childish

So you expect me to write every single experience I've ever had with Toshiba drives? Your assumptions seem mighty valid.