• expired

Samsung 4TB 870 QVO 2.5" SSD (MZ-77Q4T0BW) $399 Delivered @ Computer Alliance


Seems to be the cheapest on OzBargain for a 4TB 870 QVO drive. As usual, be warned it's a QLC drive so may not be suitable for everyone, but it would make a pretty decent Steam or external game drive for a console. Everywhere else seems to have it for $419 (eg Amazon).

Computer Alliance does charge a credit card surcharge (incl PayPal) but they do offer free alternatives eg BPay, Zip, etc.

Note: Also available at $399.20 for eBay Plus members which means a better deal if you have access to discounted gift cards (thanks magic8ballgag).

Update 8/12/2021: Price has increased to $429

Don't forget to redeem the bonus Far Cry 6

Related Stores

Computer Alliance
Computer Alliance

closed Comments

  • +4

    Happy with the drive so far. Using it as a games drive for all the games that aren't likely to need NVMe speed. Games are so big these days and it's made life so much easier. Don't have to move stuff around just to install a new game for a free weekend or on gamepass.

    • = what is your time worth?


    • +2

      Qn on this. Are there games that do need nvme speed? Genuinly curious!

      • As am I

        • -2

          A quick blind test doesn't amount to much. Although it is true that anything older than 2-3 years won't have the software capabilities baked in to take advantage of the increased speeds.

        • Thanks for the video link. Good to know. Always hear about this benchmark and that benchmark. At the end of the day I still have a 1 GB nvme drive as my OS drive which would be mostly empty if I don't install some games on it. Now I guess I won't move games from the QVO to the EVO Plus drive unnecessarily. I'll just install what I think may need the extra boost even if it is just a placebo effect. Right now that's CoD:MW taking up a huge chunk of the drive.

          • +1

            @ozbs25: Microsoft Direct Storage may change that, but it will require Windows 11, certain hardware requirements, and games to actually support the API for it to benefit. I don't imagine we're all going to upgrade systems for Direct Storage so I'm not sure game developers are going to make it a high priority.

            • +1

              @FabMan: Hadn't heard of Direct Storage so thanks for the info. Will keep a lookout for it. Can't imagine I'll upgrade purely to take advantage of it though. Unless I win the lottery or something my current PC will have to last for many years.

  • +4

    Still remember buying a 120gb samsung SSD for $120 back in the day.

    • Paid $400+ for an 80GB Intel drive many years ago.

      • +1

        $130 for a 1GB USB2.0 drive…

        • Yeah flash prices are meant to head down in 2022.

          If we're gonna invoke Monty Python, my company paid over $1000 each for 256kB flash floppy ISA card products for an embedded PC back in the mid-1990's

    • -1

      Times fly. Soon 1Tb will be for a Dollar. Get ready.

    • +1

      I always tell people that I bought a Lexar 12x 128MB compact flash card for my digital camera back in 2001 for AU$500.

      Somewhere in my drawer stash is an 16MB thumb drive. Those things were so small and much faster than a Zip100 disk, but not cheap….

  • +3

    if you're wanting consistent sustained write performance then an extra $150~ for the MX500 is worth it imo. https://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=MX500+4TB&...

    • +1
      • +17

        yea because they dont know how to benchmark ssds, they probably didnt even exhaust the 78GB SLC Cache the QVO models have. what's even worst is the 8TB still has 78GB of SLC Cache, pretty horrible of samsung to even do that to an 8TB model when you can get a rocket Q 8TB and that has 2TB of SLC Cache.

        Also bad website review
        -no test methodolgy
        -no system specifications used
        -no synthetic and real world programs used

        author is basically copy pasta'ing specs from manufacturer's website lolz.

        • +1

          Agree that review is pretty vacuous but you’re saying the MX500 is better with zero detail?

          • @bargainy: I have the MX500 and it is on par with the 860 EVO. So the question you can ask is whether the 870 QVO is better than the 860 EVO. To me, it isn't, hence the MX500 is better than the 870 QVO, except for total capacity of 8TB.

            My use case is for raw video file editing and manipulation, so now I am using 32GB ram drive intermediate files just to save on the endurance of my SSDs.

        • honestly I wouldn't care about these speeds if all you use it for is game like I do lol.

        • Maxing out the 78GB SLC cache isn't that easy, you have to be transferring from another SSD to do that. So for storage it's a fantastic drive, for an OS, 4K video editing, and regular large transfers between SSDs this is far from ideal.

          So to hit the SLC cache you have to transfer 110GB at 530mb/s in one go as the SLC is transferring out as it is transferring in and then it will drop to 160mb/s. I doubt many of us have internet speeds over 160mb/s for downloads.

  • +1

    I bought a 2TB but regret it a bit, ended up as the PS4 drive since transfer speeds are inherently bad on the console and the read speed do the job. Outside of that I can't think of much use for it since getting a lot of data onto it will end up slower than a hard drive.

    I cannot imagine having the patience for large transfers at 80mb a second for a 4tb drive.

    • +1

      yeah I bought a PS5 with a 2tb nvme m.2 drive and I get almost 6000mbps, and it was the best thing I ever got.

    • It isn't 80mb/s, its 160mb/s. If you download from Steam or other game platforms, how close does your internet speeds get to 160mb/s? Or transferring from SD cards, or from HDDs? Even from other SSDs, you have to transfer more than 110GB in one go to hit the SLC cache limit, a few minutes later and the cache will empty into the main storage.

      • No, it really is 80mb/s. Look at Tom's hardware review. After the cache is spent the drive crawls. It would take over 3 hours to copy my 1tb steam library over, A decent hard drive will take 1.7 for the same thing. For 70-100 bucks more the same job takes like 15 minutes, I think its worth it.

        It does limit the usefulness of it as a portable drive and it will waste a heap of your time moving large files around. This wasn't a theoretical limitation in my experience, so I gave the drive to the PS4 which never manages to write faster than a harddrive anyway.

        • That is the 1TB model, 2TB and higher are 160MB/s.


          It writes at 530MB/s to the SLC cache, simultaneously writing to QLC at 160MB/s, as such you'd have to write over 110GB at 530MB/s to reach the higher speed saturation, and then it will drop to 160MB/s. So unless you are generating contect at 530MB/s, or transferring data from one SSD to this, then it is unlikely most people will experience an issue. Our download speeds are not exeeding 160MB/s for the vast majority of us.

          • +1

            @FabMan: That's a lot better than I thought, its the 1TB version that lowers to 80mb.

            • @Chino Gambino: The 1TB is a horrible device, I don't see the point of a SSD with transfer speeds of 80MB/s. 160MB/s would feel sluggish, but if you use it for downloading Steam games or something similar, you wouldn't experience that, while copying 110GB from another SSD probably wouldn't happen too often for most. To hit 80MB/s on the 1TB you only need to transfer 55GB from another SSD, or internally copy, and that seems more likely too occur. No, forget the 1TB QVO models.

  • Anyone mind posting the speeds you are all referring to? For those of us who are too lazy to do our own research (but to be fair it's an hour of work to sift through the crud).

  • Would this be fine as a backup/torrent storage drive long term ?

    The speed doesn’t concern me, as I want to upgrade my barracuda 4tb drive, and slim down from a NR200p , to a smaller sffpc case.

    • +1

      I'd trust the hard drive for more the cold long term backup, SSD may not keep the information when left unpowered for a while, especially QLC. Should work ok when powered at least occasionally.

      • Any other 4TB ssd’s you trust for long term ?

        • +1

          It's hard to tell, I'd not expect it to be an issue except for the case when the system is kept powered off for months. But for backup, when I copy data and just store the drive, I'd prefer the old HDD drive, it's also cheaper.

      • Based on any research or just fears?

        • +7

          Being an early adopter of TLC, I experienced Samsung's first gen planar TLC slow old data read problem on two SSDs (840 and 840 Evo). The "slow down" was caused by cells needing to be read multiple times due to degrading of old data. The so called firmware update is basically a workaround (re-write old data to new blocks to keep them "fresh"). The P5 deal, one OZBer posted a youTuber finding an issue with P5's weakness at handling old data (even though that was simulated by heating up the SSD while it is not powered, it still shows that there is a trade off between speed vs reliability). The tech specs on the Micron NAND chips that youTuber showed worries me. Tech wise, keeping data long term reliably is harder on QLC vs TLC and harder on TLC vs MLC.

          It doesn't mean MLC is better. I've had issues with MLC SSDs (MLC NANDs are expensive, so there were so many different grades, some are junk). Is 80% of all my failed SSDs happened after not having the SSD actively running for 3-4 weeks pure coincidence? Generally, you should have SSDs powered up regularly so it can do a bit of housekeeping. Also, best to keep 10% free.

          It doesn't matter what type of storage you use, having backups is important. However, for games, I generally don't bother backing up. Just re-download from Steam, Microsoft, Epic, EA etc… QLC SSDs for gaming is fine, especially these large size ones. This 4TB one seems to be able to take advantage of multi channel write better so the sustained write on this, even on the QLC NAND flash is actually much better than 2TB or 1TB QLC ones.

          • +2

            @netsurfer: Nice. Thank you for taking the time on that.

        • +1

          The data retention spec is seldom specified in the specs for consumer SSDs, but the standard specifies at least one-year retention at 30deg C, 14 weeks at 40deg and two years at 25C: https://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data...

          I'd expect, everything else equal for TLC to keep data longer compared to QLC since QLC is 2x as sensitive for cell charge changes (it uses 2x number of levels to store 4 bits compared to 3 bits with TLC).

    • +2

      Totally fine for this usage, but don't leave it powered off for months at a time 👍

  • Anyone know what the cheapest 250GB or 500GB 2.5" SSD deal would be for a quick upgrade on a spare laptop?

  • This is slightly cheaper via Futu online's eBay store.

    • Isn’t it $499 less 15% BF15OFF ($424) or am I missing a coupon?

      • +1

        It's coming up as 20% off for me, therefore I'm assuming it's an eBay Plus perk.

        • If that’s the case then it’s $499 less 20% so $399.20, and then pay with discounted gift cards (3% Suncorp) for total $387. EBay plus only though.

  • Would this work okay for a NAS? Just streaming Plex and occasional content, no real high volume, just trying to eke some speed.

    • Mechanical drives are in my nas for the r cost/TB.
      Streaming barely uses any bandwidth

    • +1

      Other than slight improvement in UI and loading thumbnails (which you may be better able to achieve through a cache drive if supported) I don’t think this QLC SSD (or any SSD) is particularly good value for that use case given negligible performance benefits from the SSD.

Login or Join to leave a comment