Another 870 QVO Deal, ends Tonight at 11pm, Far Cry 6 Via redemption.
Samsung 870 QVO 2TB 2.5" SATA SSD $219 + Delivery ($0 to Metro Areas/ VIC C&C) + Far Cry 6 via Redemption @ Centre Com
1010
celery juice on 10/10/2021 - 12:17 centrecom.com.au (1863 clicks)
Last edited 10/10/2021 - 12:58 by 1 other user
Last edited 10/10/2021 - 12:58 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
About $80 for PC (if you surf the global cd key market)
standard price is $89, but you will get it for $69 from most retail outlets.
that is the cost
it's worth/value (going by metacritic) is quite a bit less…
EDIT: and appears it got review bombed overnight by Mario & Luigi
$69 is for consoles.. PC is $89 or $80 if you get it from CD Key outlets.
90 Bux if you want to play now and less if you wanna play later. Personally I feel 90 is too much for a game and I would definitely wait for the 50+% off deal.
2021, where all mother boards still have SATA ports for use with larger tiered HDD storage, cheaper SSD storage or to support multiple drives.
USB-A???? what year is this?
Organic lifeforms, what year is this?
This is a QLC drive, it's speeds won't even fully saturate SATA6gbps. It has no need to be NVME PCIE.
Samsung rates it for 560 MBps read and 530 MBps sequential write.
I don't see everyone rocking SAS or motherboards with half a dozen NVMe slots.
LOL, NVME snob.
Classical computing? Pffft! Just wait for q-bits -.-
1985
do you get the code straight away or wait for it to ship with the drive?
usually u have to go to samsung redemption page give proof of purchase. then u get the key
NO GPU kills the deal
Horrible SSD, slows down to below spinning HDD speeds after SLC cache is exhausted, and endurance is subpar too. The price is good though.
Who writes 78gb data at once?
You know BR UHD movies are 50 GB + these days, it is really easy to hit 78GB no issue per file.
But for movie, HDD is good enough.
If you are rich enough to put BR UHD "rips" on an SSD, then sure go for it.
There are just some issues for most people:
- Realistically, it doesn't make sense. You don't need to play a 4K UHD movie from SSD.
- It's odd for anyone who wants to store UHD rips on a 2TB storage device (too small).
- If the current device with those rips is an HDD, is it going to saturate this SSD?
- Ripping an original UHD from a UHD BR drive or BD-R/XL with a firmware hack is so slow even an external HDD is fast enough.
@netsurfer: Lets flip that argument, games are quick bigger than your average UHD BR, 100+ these days, so using this as a game SSD?
@[Deactivated]: Other than the initial download/installation, I don't think any games would write enough data to the SSD to saturate the cache.
Honestly I'm thinking this might be a great drive to connect to my Xbox Series X for non Series X/S games. Sure it'll be slow to do the initial copy/download, but in everyday use it'll be perfect. I used to have an MX500 2TB drive for this purpose but it felt wasteful.
@jace88: I run Samsung USB 3 drives T3, T5s, even have a Toshiba 1TB that got for dirt cheap.
Regardless of size, speed is not enough to run newer SX games.
I have moved back and forth many many games so it is pretty easy to hit these drives a little harder than they need to.@[Deactivated]: That's mainly because there is no competition on the external memory storage for Series S|X.
Series X's internal storage is basically WD Blue SN520 (not even SN530). It is a serverless SSD that's slightly below WD Blue SN530. There is no special core dedicated storage for Series S|X so it is just standard NVMe. Microsoft didn't even bother going for a PCIe gen 4 x4 controller. Microsoft tried to spin it as PCIe gen 4 x2 controller (which has the same bandwidth PCIe 3 x4).
My main gripe with a lot of Series S|X enhanced games which basically just have a minor patch applied to them is that Microsoft forces you to run from internal storage or that expensive external storage add-on. A lot of those games would run fine on external USB storage.
Microsoft, nice try, but don't give us the BS that we need to put Tetris on Series X's internal SSD.
@[Deactivated]: I am actually debating whether I need more storage/etc or if I'm better just downloading games off the server as/when I want to play. Sure it is faster doing it locally, but I'm currently waiting to get gigabit internet installed so maybe that makes more sense.
@[Deactivated]: That doesn't answer the question about writing 78gb data at once. For games:
- You don't constantly transfer games from one drive to another drive unless (once again, you are too rich and just want to test your SSD for sustained writes).
- So, most of the time, you get the game installs from the Web/cloud or Blu-ray discs (let's face it, game makers not going to waste money giving you a UHD disc yet, especially PS4 and XB1 are still relevant). Even if you have gigabit NBN, it is still not fast enough to saturate QLC NAND.
One reason TLC is able to become mainstream is from the advancement of SSD controller (multi-channel). Another reason is the random read/write has not improved much for MLC (there isn't much incentive to improve there). QLC does also benefit from SSD controller improvement. Let's face it, all those PCIe gen 4 figures are SLC cache, just because it is a QLC SSD doesn't mean it cannot have SLC cache.
There are usage patterns which you do need TLC or maybe MLC. However, those are mostly for content creators and/or servers. Don't forget Richard from Digital Foundry did a test of using Samsung 8TB QLC SSD a while ago as a game drive.
@netsurfer: 80 GB per day was what we were talking about and it is easy to do, constantly probably not, but I know for a fact if I were to keep editing every day, I would hammer 1 of these drives quite easily, render cache would nuke it, also the types of files I use as well.
@[Deactivated]: Do you maths, 80GB per day means 0.92MB/s. You really need to download a lot more. Even 800GB a day is 9.2MB/s.
If you do make a living generating 1TB+ of contents, then you can afford lots of SSD. However, that's not you. You have T3, T5s and a Toshiba 1TB. Pros won't bother with those. Anyone who uses Series X usage as an example cannot seriously have proper needs of high grade SSDs. Pro contents creators would have high end PCs and/or Macs. USB 3.1 gen 1 SSDs are useless to those people. They would also have top notch graphics cards which simply blow Series X away.
@netsurfer: That's for the SX, not my PC, I move files around and also make triple copies so don't assume someone's usage of storage.
@[Deactivated]: Move what files around on your PC? Using what? T3, T5s, or the Toshiba 1TB? USB 3.0/USB 3.1 gen 1 external SSDs? T5 isn't really taking advantage of USB 3.1 gen 2. I don't bother with USB 3.0 SSD devices. That defeats the purpose. You want at least USB 3.1 gen 2.
Triple copies of what? UHD rips? Really? It's a pain to rip an original UHD blu ray so why bother? I have Series X too so don't try to fool other people about moving games around all the time. Most people don't do that.
@[Deactivated]: Absolutely using it as a game SSD, it's perfectly suited as a cheap Steam drive.
Zero games write 78GB in a single operation, so the SLC cache always remains in play.
I usually keep the data on large HDDs (SSD would be too expensive/small) and copy the datasets I'm working on to a few faster SSDs, so it's usually a 0.5-2TB copy operation, sometimes copy between SSDs. I made the mistake of buying 1TB QVO SSD, it takes so much time to copy data to the QLC SSD.
1TB version is somewhat average, but the 2TB has double SLC cache and double the DRAM.
Unless you write 80 GB continuosly all day every day, this will be perfect as a fast storage drive (eg. Steam games).
You also have to transfer data quicker than the cache copies it to the QLC. So as you copy to SLC, SSD copies to QLC. So you have to transfer 101GB at 530MB/s to hit the SLC cache limit and hit QLC speeds of 160MB/s
If you copy at speeds less than 530MB/s, say internet speeds of 40MB/s, you'll not encounter those slow QLC write speeds. Transferring from one SSD to this is realistically how you'll hit that SLC cache limit. How often would you do that?
Read speeds are still the same, so this drive is a great storage device, terrible for constant deleting and copying.
Tempted to get this for my Nitro 5’s spare 2.5” slot so I can store video content on it for Plex. Debating between this and a 1TB M2, wondering whether M2 is the better option due to the below video review and longer warranty.
Got one. Should be fine to expand my steam library past my 2 x 1tb NVME drives
I'm in the same camp as you, having to add 2TB SATA SSD for my steam library.
Apparently, compared to NVMe, SATA adds 0-5 seconds (avg. 2-3 sec) to game load time. But most advices are that it's money better spent on capacity rather than a measly few seconds of load time, as long as it's SSD and not HDD.
Yeah I think I can deal with that. It's still faster than my old system by leaps and bounds so im not too stressed. Not sure why the elite comments on this thread to be honest. Must be some serious systems out there with top of the range drives by the sounds of it
If for some reason I feel the need to upgrade I'll just get a nvme pcie card and get more. If that's even a thing.
Same here, I've got 2 x Nvme but needed a bit more storage for games. I also have 2x 2TB Firecuda SSHD but they're barely faster than HDD.
Don't know about this drive but do not put 4K MKV files on the normal spinning HDD. Playing from a Nvidia Shield Pro via Kodi, there is a massive difference between a proper SSD/NVME drive and the HDD. The 4K movies on the SSD/NVME drive play without issues but the 4K on the HDD always stutter.
Complete nonsense. I store various full size 4K movies on various 8, 12, 14 TB Western Digital and Seagate hard drives in my home file server running a Ryzen 3100. Never had any problem playing them back across the LAN using Kodi.
You're probably using Wifi which is causing the slowdowns. Go with Ethernet. SSDs are unecessary even for watching high quality media.
I am using 1Gbps ethernet. Go and try fast forward the same 4K remux of movies on HDD and SSD. The one on the HDD lag and stutter compared to SSD. The read rate on the HDD is 10 generations behind a decent SATA 3 SSD.
A few things:
- Was the test performed on the same NAS? Which NAS?
- What speed are you getting from the NAS with HDD inside?
- Have you tried the USB-A port and confirmed the problem persists?
What you described generally doesn't make sense because UHD blu-ray playback requirement is 128 megabits per second (16MB/s) so 4K mkv (compressed) is likely lower than that. Even if you 2X or 3X 16MB/s, any decent NAS should be able to deliver it and any decent HDD should be able to handle that.
I get the SSD would have significant random read advantage. However, I would be concerned why a wired 1Gbps ethernet with a decent NAS struggles with 4K mkv playbacks from an HDD (because that's a mostly sequential read). On a gigabit ethernet, you generally cannot benefit from SSD sequential read (you need 5Gbps or 10Gbp ethernet). So most of the advantage you are feeling is the random read advantage of SSD over NAS. It's not that you cannot use an SSD for movies, it is generally an overkill, but if you have a deep pocket, then sure go ahead.
If your tests were done on different NAS, make sure your NAS for HDD runs in gigabit Ethernet mode. Sometimes, a cheap ethernet cable can cause the NAS to run in 100Mb/s mode. You should be able to get at least 75MB/s out of a NAS that support gigabit Ethernet (and that's actually subpar) for sequential read of large 4K mkv files.
@netsurfer: My HDD are just USB 3 to my PC, SSD is on the same PC connect to the router and then from the router is the 1Gbps ethernet to Nvidia Shield Pro. I do understand that the HDD should be able to handle 16Mb/s read even with USB 2, I know for a fact that my USB HDD can handle up to 50MB/s read minimum, but I have been extensively testing it for a month and there are micro stutters with 4K movies on the USB HDD compared to the SSD/NVME drive. Kodi will display a message in the vein of the source drive is too slow to read. I'm assuming it got to do with the random read on these USB HDD.
@Wolfofwallstreet: That's the problem. You are using a 2.5 inch external HDD and Windows file sharing. That's the wrong way for most people really want to do streaming on gigabit ethernet.
First, you normally use a 3.5 inch HDD because those would run in 100MB/s sequential read range and most people would avoid shingled or hybrid shingled HDD(s) (which your 2.5 inch HDD is most likely using). If your "SSD" happens to be one that's inside your PC, rather than USB 3 based, then it has another advantage, it doesn't need to go through the USB conversion (another reason why people would use NAS, to avoid the performance overhead through that conversion). There is also overhead from Windows file sharing as it isn't very efficient.
Another reason for using NAS is more energy efficient. You need to do your test on a proper setup before making a statement that HDDs cannot be used inside a NAS for 4K movie playback.
@netsurfer: I never said anything about NAS, it just USB HDD via SMB is the problem. Too much headache with NAS especially with the noise and always on so I just stick with SSD for 4K movies and shows.
@Wolfofwallstreet: Noise with NAS is louder than a PC? The main issue with using a large SSD for 4K mkv files is that if we are talking about originals (i.e. you rip your original blu-ray discs or UHD blu-rays discs and convert to mkv in loseless or near loseless bitrate / encoding), 2TB SSD simply isn't enough. If you are talking about pirated ones (honestly, I think you guys are brave if you are referring to pirated mkv files), I doubt the bitrate is that high so it is hard to understand why a properly setup HDD based NAS or dedicated file share server would struggle.
If you really go for a large SSD, I reckon just get streaming service. Move to streaming service I reckon, so much easier and no need to worry about legal issues. For movies and TV series you really like and want to go, just get the original.
This. I also play 4K movies from mechanical drives, with absolutely no issue. They're more than fast enough for this purpose.
lolwut? I'm still running an N54L Microserver with 4 x 4tb HDD. 4k 10bit HDR playback via Kodi on a Shield Pro, skipping forward or backward is fine.
Don't make me laugh
You've already played: Far Cry 6 (Review). I think it all boils down to being just another Far Cry game similar to previous entries in the series.
so it is not worth the asking price of $70?
It'll be on sale for 50% off within 6 months. It wont be much different from the previous far cry games, consider looking for one of them on sale, they're fun, not amazing, but fun.
@timtam-slam: Alternatively if you're keen enough to give it a go right now- Just cough up the $20 for a month of UbiConnect+.
Same old same old that you've played 7 times already.
people are complaining because the last few far cry games are basically the same thing reskinned with different characters. If you've never played them before then its worth a go cos they are decent for sure, but people are just over the same old formula i guess.
Got one thanks OP, prepare for another FC6 key in the classified.
Do you just make a new Samsung account with a different email address to claim?
This is normal price, so you are basically getting the game free?
Looks like a good deal. How much is Far Cry 6 worth?