out of stock Samsung 860 QVO 1TB $145 + Delivery (Limit to 2 Per Customer) @ Mwave

1190

Price keeps falling…

Samsung V-NAND technology (Samsung V-NAND 4bit MLC)
· Up to 550 MB/s read and 520 MB/s write speeds
· Samsung MJX Controller
· SATA 6 Gb/s Interface, compatible with SATA 3 Gb/s & SATA 1.5 Gb/s interface

Redeem a Far Cry: New Dawn code via Samsung

Related Stores

Mwave Australia
Mwave Australia

Comments

  •  

    Thanks bought 2.

  •  

    Stupid question, can I sit this on top of my xbox one x or does it have to be internal to work?

    • +6 votes

      It will work externally with an enclosure. USB3 will bottleneck the speed but it will still be a notable improvement over a HDD.

      • +3 votes

        USB3.0 has a max speed of 640MB/s. A cheap usb controller might bottleneck, but the actual USB3 standard is faster than this drive.

        •  

          I tried many enclosures with Samsung SSDs and never got more than about 280MB/s, even with UASP enclosures. I've heard that Samsung SSDs don't play nice with USB 3 controllers.

          •  

            @psdillon: I used a orico with Evo and it was good

            •  

              @jasontravelstheworld: Me too, I tested an Orico UASP enclosure with Evo 840. It worked, but max speed I got was around 280MB/s, about half of what I should be getting.

              • +1 vote

                @psdillon: i just tested on my 850 EVO 860 EVO (250gb and 1tb) on a orico enclosure (i got 2x one transparent one black)
                Using blackmagic disk speed test and a Macbook Pro

                i got 359mb write and 375 read (EVO 850 250gb / transparent orico case)
                i got 404mb write and 412 read (EVO 860 1tb / black orico case)

          • +1 vote

            @psdillon: CrystalDiskMark on an 860 EVO on a StarTech USB312SAT3CB (~$25, Amazon AU) with the TRIM firmware update installed. Tested with 5 passes of 1 GiB (so it'll probably hit on-drive SLC cache, which is fine because we're testing USB interface here, not raw drive speed).

            USB 3.0 (442/448 seq R/W)

            -----------------------------------------------------------------------
            CrystalDiskMark 6.0.2 x64 (C) 2007-2018 hiyohiyo
                                    Crystal Dew World : https://crystalmark.info/
            -----------------------------------------------------------------------
            * MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
            * KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes
            
            Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) :   442.935 MB/s
            Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) :   448.875 MB/s
            Random Read 4KiB (Q=  8,T= 8) :   180.231 MB/s [  44001.7 IOPS]
            Random Write 4KiB (Q=  8,T= 8) :   179.709 MB/s [  43874.3 IOPS]
            Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :   153.513 MB/s [  37478.8 IOPS]
            Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :   153.942 MB/s [  37583.5 IOPS]
            Random Read 4KiB (Q=  1,T= 1) :    24.491 MB/s [   5979.2 IOPS]
            Random Write 4KiB (Q=  1,T= 1) :    39.267 MB/s [   9586.7 IOPS]
            
            Test : 1024 MiB [Q: 0.2% (1.2/465.7 GiB)] (x5)  [Interval=5 sec]
            Date : 2019/03/25 4:13:43
              OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 17134] (x64)
            

            USB 3.1gen2 (563/518 seq R/W)

            -----------------------------------------------------------------------
            CrystalDiskMark 6.0.2 x64 (C) 2007-2018 hiyohiyo
                                      Crystal Dew World : https://crystalmark.info/
            -----------------------------------------------------------------------
            * MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
            * KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes
            
               Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) :   563.868 MB/s
              Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) :   518.704 MB/s
              Random Read 4KiB (Q=  8,T= 8) :   336.009 MB/s [  82033.4 IOPS]
             Random Write 4KiB (Q=  8,T= 8) :   213.383 MB/s [  52095.5 IOPS]
              Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :   142.346 MB/s [  34752.4 IOPS]
             Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s [      0.0 IOPS]
              Random Read 4KiB (Q=  1,T= 1) :    32.854 MB/s [   8021.0 IOPS]
             Random Write 4KiB (Q=  1,T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s [      0.0 IOPS]
            
              Test : 1024 MiB [Q: 0.0% (0.2/465.7 GiB)] (x5)  [Interval=5 sec]
              Date : 2019/03/25 4:05:56
                OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 17134] (x64)
            

            (…ignore the 0s on the random writes, my 3.1gen2 USB controller isn't … very reliable)

            I've also used the older StarTech USB3S2SAT3CB (~$17.50, Amazon AU) with similar results on USB 3.0, but I can't recommend that one anymore because it doesn't support TRIM.

            Now, the Xbox might be slower than the best-case PC test here. But I don't have one to test.

            •  

              @elusive: , @jasontravelstheworld: thanks a lot guys, clearly that "Samsung SSD not playing nice with USB controllers" rumour is debunked.

              Not sure why I had such lousy results. I had an Orico clear USB3.0 enclosure, 840 EVO 1TB, copying to/from a Dell XPS 15 (9550) laptop w/ 960 PRO 2TB NVMe disk.

              I double checked my results and I was getting 300MB/s, not 280 that I stated above. Still awful. Not sure where the problem is. I will have a USB3.1 capable host in a few weeks, will re-test to see whether the problem is host side or device side.

    •  

      Can sit anywhere you can connect it

    •  

      Connect using a good Sata to usb3 adapter. The Xbox won’t have massively decreased load times with an ssd though

    •  

      You can't upgrade an internal xbox hdd like you can with Sony's.

      I tried. Note i was upgrading size too which you might not be doing. I even got the OS onto it but it shat bricks trying to do anything like run a game. They wouldn't run at all.

      Imho it's an unacceptable MS failing. They need to learn a lesson from Sony on this one.

  • +5 votes

    ssd is still ssd, much better than a hdd so defs worth the upgrade

    • -3 votes

      This is a pretty risky move as a boot drive, and not a great option to carry over to a new system as a storage drive.

      QLC tech is like being back to early SSD implementations.

      • +1 vote

        Which are still going strong.

        Bad advice.

        • -1 vote

          With higher rates of data loss and bad sectors than any technology before them and since, until now.

          But they're still running, so it's all good?

        • +2 votes

          Good advice really, depends on use cases though. These drives have very low endurance compared to the standard EVO or PRO drives (hence the price).

          I considered a few of these in RAID, but decided against, will go M.2 EVO instead due to its higher endurance.

    • +4 votes

      Once SLC cache exhausted the QVO is much slower than HDD.

  • +5 votes

    I think you an get a free Far Cry New Dawn Game if you buy this drive.

  •  

    Great price, mad deal! Breaking my self-imposed storage ban.

    PS. Far Cry 5 New Dawn.
    Worth $35 even with current 50% off.

  •  

    4bit MLC? It’s QLC.
    I hate this misleading description.

    • +4 votes

      I don't see how that's misleading. Quad = 4.

    • +1 vote

      The misleading thing is MLC being a term used to specify DLC.

      DLC, TLC and QLC are all MLC tech.

    •  

      MLC 'technically' > 1, it's only really been a 'sometimes' followed convention rather than rule that it's gone SLC > MLC > TLC > QLC. '4bit' is specific enough that I don't find it misleading. That and the Q in the name makes you not forget it.

      •  

        Why not just use QLC?
        QLC is a widely used name.
        If the customer is not familiar with tech, he will think it's some kind of MLC.
        and many people will think the bigger number is better, 4 is better than 2.
        I talked with more than 5 people. They all said it is misleading.

        •  

          Ah. It is some kind of MLC. If the sort of customer thinks bigger is better they're not going to know the difference between MLC SLC etc and this is the drive for them, fine for 98% of use cases.

  • +2 votes

    I need to stop buying SSDs.

  •  

    Thanks - just bought 2

  •  

    Anyone tried replacing their PS4 HDD with this ? I'm thinking of doing it but unsure if there is going to be a noticeable difference in terms of processing or loading times

    • +4 votes

      I've seen like 3sec all the way to 60sec difference depending on the game in tests on youtube.

    • +1 vote

      I've done it to my PS4 Pro and I have a super fast PC with NVME drive. In most games it only takes a little bit off the actual loading times, however despite saying that taking the edge off of those times really helped me enjoy using it as a media device to watch Netflix and I didn't curse my luck dying and having to reload a region. Pre-SSD, dying in Dishonoured 2 made me want to quit as the load times felt very long, with the SSD, it took that feeling away.

      So my take is, do it, it may only shave a few seconds off loading times, but it shaves heaps off frustration.

    • +1 vote

      Last time I checked it wasn't worth it. Slight improvement in load-times but not enough to matter. Possibly the PS4 is decompressing off storage and the CPU is the bottleneck.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/3c4ffz/video_ps4_hdd_v...

      Might have different mileage for certain games or newer SSDs. That reddit thread is from 2016.

  • +3 votes

    Something like this is very useful to upgrade consoles with, the consoles cannot utilise the full speed of these drive so uselss going to 970 type drives, best off going with the larger but cheaper SSDs.

    • -5 votes

      Please link a "larger but cheaper SSD"

    • -1 vote

      the consoles cannot utilise the full speed of these drive so uselss going to 970 type drives

      The same can be said for this particular drive as there are cheaper 1TB SSDs available.

      •  

        I agree, before your comment I did try looking for a 1TB SSD that was cheaper than this one and couldn't find one, so I could suggest it.

    •  

      Why not just get a smaller external SSD and a larger standard HD. Whatever games you are playing at the moment put on the SSD and transfer to the other HDD when done.

  •  

    I bought from eBay Futu 20% off last week. I paid $220 %20 off which is $176….

  •  

    I’ve still got a 120gb evo as my boot drive but considering swapping to this as a boot…

    Hold on what’s the difference with evo and this?

    •  

      Do it!

      I relegate mine to torrent drives, download & unpack. Then move to archive drives.

    • +2 votes

      QVO is the new quad-level SSD. It uses QLC technology (4 bits) so it is a lot slower than EVO for some operations. They include a small SLC cache in front of the QLC to speed it up somewhat (I think 80GB of SLC) but you can still fill that cache and get the slower QLC speeds.

      EVO is faster. QVO is cheaper. For most people it makes no difference - QVO will be fine.

      Biggest benefit of QVO is the new storage sizes. You can get 2TB QVO and 4TB QVO. It is still a bit expensive ($339 for 2TB and $700 for 4TB). Spinning rust is almost dead. Soon you'll have an NVMe boot SSD and QVO storage SSD and no spinning disks at all.

      •  

        Bought a 4 TB EVO for $749 (after cashback) in December, the QVO 4TB is down to $649 last I checked (PCCG I think), dropping fast as expected. I'd imagine there will be an 8TB QVO for ~$750 by this time next year. QLC will let them drop prices a lot but their initial RRP (more than the previous EVO deals) wasn't spectacular.

        There'll be a bunch of spinning rust around for bulk storage or a while, but documents, photos and anything that will benefit from the higher IOPS will be able to move pretty soon at least for enthusiasts.

    •  

      Get NVMe if you can for boot and things you want to load fast like games.

      • +1 vote

        Have a 970 Evo Plus 500gb as OS drive. And Intel 660p 1tb for data. Speeds are crazy!

    •  

      Depends what EVO you have. I'd do a thorough comparison and determine your use first. May be more beneficial as a storage drive in lieu of a boot drive as Windows 10 will kill these things pretty quickly if you don't have a) bucket loads of ram, b) a set swap size, and c) let Windows manage the swapfile and not turn off file indexing.

      I myself am waiting for 4TB 860 Pro's to come down significantly. With 4800 TBW on those babies, there's due cause to lose the spinning rust.

  • +3 votes

    Must … resist …

    prices … dropping … further …

    buy … in … June …

    2TB … $200 …

    Send help, I'm actually dying.

  • +2 votes

    Prices keep falling, as does the endurance..

  • -2 votes

    Almost at the entry price point you could actually consider buying this drive.

  •  

    Will this be good to run VM’s off? Want to put it in my esxi host.
    Thanks

  •  

    I realise this may have already been asked & possibly a stupid question but….

    1: is this really that cheap?…and…

    2: is this or evo better?

    3: am I better off getting the newer stick type Hard drive as I'll be building a new Computer soon?

    •  
      1. Yes cheaper but QVO currently has "shiny new tax" and EVO was recently discounted so the difference isn't as obvious (yet).

      2. EVO is better.

      3. M.2 (sticks) are better again. Especially if you get the NVMe M.2 variety and not the cheaper (slower) SATA M.2 variety.

  • +1 vote

    Damn looks like out of stock :(

  • +2 votes

    Seems like it’s expired now! Damn my indecision. I want it more now that I can’t have it.

  •  

    wtf is it me or am I the only one that recently bought a 2TB HDD 3.5" drive?
    It was @110.