Many SSD deals right now, but this is for the 860PRO 1TB for $299 less PFIVE5 coupon now $284.05
Shopbot says next cheapest is at least $100 higher.
Note - this is the PRO - not EVO, not QVO
There is a big difference. The cheaper 1TB drives can be had around $150. This is the PRO.
Yes, this one has a red square on it instead of a silver one :)
Got it, bought 11.
Not worth it given the limitations of SATA bottleneck.
You can get M.2 for less money and MUCH better performance!!
Samsung Evo Plus 1tb $279 @ centre com
https://www.centrecom.com.au/samsung-970-evo-plus-1tb-nvme-p…
Yes it's not the pro version, but bang for buck sees Me.2 being a much better choice.
I agree with OP, u can't exactly just compare evo with pro
Samsung 970 Pro 1TB M.2 2280 NVMe 1.3 PCIe 3x4 SSD $429
https://www.centrecom.com.au/samsung-970-pro-1tb-m2-2280-nvm…
TL;DR
If you only care about speed, go for nvme m.2 and who cares if its tlc or mlc
If you want better performance, get one with decent ram cache
Longevity of the drive? MLC.
35,000 lifecycle vs 1500-3000 lifecycles
Ref: https://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/storage-hardware/ssd-…
The argument of TLC vs MLC for almost all users became a moot point years ago, the MLC in the 860 Pro is reliable enough that you could rewrite the entire drive each and every day and it'll still last a decade. That article you linked to with the 850 Pro offering 300 TBW on a 1TB drive? The MX500 is 700 TBW these days. The 860 Pro is 4,800. Something else will go wrong with the drive long before the NAND gives out.
Anyone who has a workload where they write enough to care about MLC vs TLC already knows the difference, for the rest of us just pay half the price and buy a drive 10 time bigger, faster and more reliable in a few years with the difference.
Which is well… why this is called 'Pro'
It's not hard to understand what it means for the target buyer lol
@plmko: I dunno, the target buyer of this seems to be the kind of person who buys a car with a spoiler on it when they don't need it or drinks Johnny Walker Blue. I.e. the perception that it's the best on the market, because they slapped the word "Pro" on it.
If you're have a career editing movies and for some reason don't have an m.2 slot, or are likely to ignore every warning about bad sectors in a PC you plan on using for the next 15 years, I guess it makes sense.
Something else will go wrong with the drive long before the NAND gives out.
What can go wrong with the drive long before the NAND gives out? Can you give us an example please?
@alvian: Capacitors blow over time, a power surge can take out anything, the flash controller itself can fail. Where the firmware is stored can failed.
When people talk about drives failing regardless of type, it's usually one of the above. Which is frustrating because drives give you a tonne of heads up when the wear levels mean blocks are being marked as bad, but the above just means the drive vanishes.
Correct.
Performance wise you cannot really tell the difference between the two, unless you run benchmarks.
But in 5-10 years time when the SSD craps out, and needs a rebuild, spending a bit more for longevity will be worth the extra $.
With consumer drives there is always a race to the bottom in terms of price, and reliability always loses out.
You can't compare TLC/QLC to MLC.
If all you care about it price (true ozbargainer) then it's hard to justify MLC
Plenty of MLCs die earlier than it's supposed to, same as SLC/TLC/QLC.
The most important thing is backing up!! Forget about all these drives that advertise 'longevity'… Even if one day it craps out prematurely they're not gonna recover your files for you so save the money and get a cheaper drive but BACK UP.
to our segway, 14tb WD element XD
Yes, I agree you can't compare the tech as they are both built for a dif purpose.
I guess I was coming at it from a $ perspective more than anything.
Given how things change in tech quite quickly, what is the chances you will be using the same drive you are now in 5-10 yr? Surely it bottleneck the hell out of your system by then and why I wouldn't bother using a Pro SATA atm. If it was a Pro M.2, that's a bit of a different argument.
In 3 years you'll probably be able to buy a 2TB Evo for half this.
Which means you'll still be better off buying a 1TB for around $140 now, and buying a brand new 2TB later.
Yes, another good point 👍
Isn't MX400 like $140 for 1TB? Why this? It's still sata
get a clue bro
The performance difference between the EVO and the PRO is irrelevant as NVMe presents a significantly greater speed up.
You're paying for write durability.
You'd most likely be better off buying a 2TB EVO instead of a 1TB PRO to achieve a similar level of write durability.
Is there really enough of a difference between the EVO and this to justify it being double the price?