Tuesday, November 21st 2017

The New Samsung 860 QVO SSD With QLC NAND Gets Listed Online, Will Be Cheaper Than the Evo family

In October Samsung took the stage on its Tech Day event and announced its SSD roadmap. One of the key elements of that roadmap was the project to launch QLC (quad-level cell) SSDs, and now we've got more information on these products. Several European online retailers -French and Italian- have already listed the new Samsung 860 QVO units, which means their official availability is near us.

The new SSD drives will feature the conventional 2.5-inch format with SATA interface, but the naming scheme changes from EVO or Pro to the new QVO, which stands for "Quality and Value Optimized SSD". Performance goes up to 550/520 MB per second for sequential read/write, and apparently these SSDs will feature 96,000 IOPS read and 89,000 IOPS write. There will be at least three variants: 1 TB (MZ-76Q1T0BW), 2 TB (MZ-76Q2T0BW) and 4 TB (MZ-76Q4T0BW), with prices of 117.50 euros, 225,96 euros and 451,93 euros (VAT excluded) according to those online retailers. Even with taxes included 19% would make 140, 270 and 540 euros), these are cheaper priced than the ones we can find on the Evo family (160, 380 and 850 euros at those storage capacities), for example. Some of these online shops mention December 2018 as the ETA.
The QLC technology (four-bit) allows to increase the storage density of current 3D NAND chips based on TLC (3-bit), but although cost can be lower on these chips, the complexity of the new technology could face disadvantages in performance and durability. Other QLC units like Intel's 660p or Crucial P1 don't perform that well in write tests if they run out of SLC cache. Real world use and benchmarks will for sure give more information on this potential issues.
Add your own comment

22 Comments on The New Samsung 860 QVO SSD With QLC NAND Gets Listed Online, Will Be Cheaper Than the Evo family

#1
Rahnak
Looks like it could be my future Steam library drive.
Posted on Reply
#2
Deeveo
If those prices are correct and reviews seem good, then it will be time to get that nice 4TB drive for my steam etc collection, and finally get rid of physical discs on my rig.
Posted on Reply
#3
dj-electric
With Evo 1TB selling atm for 128$, i'm not particularly excited for this.
Posted on Reply
#4
yakk
Maybe for games, but I wouldn't use it for work or anything critical.

IMO so far the price advantage doesn't make it worth the risk.
Posted on Reply
#5
SIGSEGV
dj-electric said:
With Evo 1TB selling atm for 128$, i'm not particularly excited for this.
where? the cheapest here is 166 EUR at amazon.de and it was gone
Posted on Reply
#6
R0H1T
SIGSEGV said:
where? the cheapest here is 166 EUR at amazon.de and it was gone
US, just check some of the prices at newegg or Amazon ~ absolute steal deals.
Posted on Reply
#7
Crowley
R0H1T said:
US, just check some of the prices at newegg or Amazon ~ absolute steal deals.
If you happen to have a MicroCenter in your area, in the US, looks like the have the same nice low price. If you click on the link, you need to enter an email address so they can send you the price. SMH

SKU#700930
860 EVO 1TB MLC V-NAND SATA III 6Gb/s 2.5" Internal Solid State Drive
$129.99
https://www.microcenter.com/product/502942/860-evo-1tb-mlc-v-nand-sata-iii-6gb-s-25-internal-solid-state-drive
Posted on Reply
#8
bonehead123
SATA is soooo 2012-ish..... wtfc anyways ????

bring on some lower priced, higher performance m.2 units, like, yesterday......... and no I don't give a rats asshairs what the call 'em either.....evo was/is just fine by me :D
Posted on Reply
#9
yotano211
Crowley said:
If you happen to have a MicroCenter in your area, in the US, looks like the have the same nice low price. If you click on the link, you need to enter an email address so they can send you the price. SMH

SKU#700930
860 EVO 1TB MLC V-NAND SATA III 6Gb/s 2.5" Internal Solid State Drive
$129.99
https://www.microcenter.com/product/502942/860-evo-1tb-mlc-v-nand-sata-iii-6gb-s-25-internal-solid-state-drive
127.98 over at Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B078DPCY3T/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all
Posted on Reply
#10
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
bonehead123 said:
SATA is soooo 2012-ish..... wtfc anyways ????

bring on some lower priced, higher performance m.2 units, like, yesterday......... and no I don't give a rats asshairs what the call 'em either.....evo was/is just fine by me :D
Nothing wrong with SATA, m.2 can overheat.
Posted on Reply
#11
Assimilator
It begins, finally. Pity it's too late for Black Friday though. The 4TB model needs to come down in price to make it attractive vs buying 2x 2TB models.
Posted on Reply
#12
bonehead123
eidairaman1 said:
Nothing wrong with SATA, m.2 can overheat.
Other than the fact that it's so s..l..o..w... compared to m.2/nvme drives, which will NOT overheat with proper airflow
Posted on Reply
#13
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
bonehead123 said:
Other than the fact that it's so s..l..o..w... compared to m.2, which will NOT overheat with proper airflow
SATA got pretty quick with the SSD, so nothing wrong with it.
Posted on Reply
#14
dj-electric
bonehead123 said:
Other than the fact that it's so s..l..o..w... compared to m.2, which will NOT overheat with proper airflow
You have to ease on shitposting over any thread that isn't about nvme drives that tickle you in the right way over synthetic benchmarks.
Your fancy drive could be replace with an 860 EVO one and you'll never know.
Posted on Reply
#15
coonbro
R0H1T said:
US, just check some of the prices at newegg or Amazon ~ absolute steal deals.
dang was not that long ago a 250 drive near cost that much . that 1 tb looks worth that price fer sur.
Posted on Reply
#17
cucker tarlson
bonehead123 said:
Other than the fact that it's so s..l..o..w... compared to m.2, which will NOT overheat with proper airflow
lol, take real world usage like copying small-medium sized files,unpacking,installing and loading without synthetics and you'll pay +50-100% premium for a drive that's 10-20% faster. I toook 860 evo vs 960 evo review and if you count copying smallpmedium sized files,unpacking,installing and loading times only it's only 14% faster while it costs twice as much. It'll crush 860 in synthetics and transferring single,big files but not much else.
Sorry,but nvme is not delivering anywhere close to its rated sequential speed advantage over sata ssds in random small file transfers. you're beter off buying a bigger sata ssd than a smaller nvme one.I'd only buy nvme if it cost +20% premium over sata ssd, not friggin +50% or more and needs a heatsink to deliver that mere +14% consistently.
Take mx500 1TB and a 500GB nvme like sandisk 3d/new wd black 3d or plextor m9. You'll basically pay the same amounbt of money for each.500GB drive will get completely filled pretty quickly with files and games, you'll lose another few percent or even more from an advantage that's already pretty underwhelming when comparing real world usage. On 1TB mx500 you'll be able to store +700GB of data easily before you start losing any performance.
For me only nvme option I'd consider is no smaller than a 2TB nvme drive and that's when you're taking the price out of consideration completely,in other words when you have money to burn. I'd take a 2TB sata SSD over 1TB nvme any day.
Posted on Reply
#18
hat
Enthusiast
bonehead123 said:
Other than the fact that it's so s..l..o..w... compared to m.2, which will NOT overheat with proper airflow
You're not going to notice those 2.5gb/s speeds unless you're copying large files back and forth all day. I'll take a cheaper (and cooler) SATA drive any day (even in m.2).

Also keep in mind m.2 is just a form factor. It can still be SATA. It doesn't automatically mean NVMe.
Posted on Reply
#19
kapone32
NVME drives are great for Boot drives and if they cool correctly are excellent for Paging files, especially when gaming. I must say that heat is the biggest difference between an SSD and a NVME drive and we all know heat is the number one enemy of computers. Their functionality in terms of form factor cannot be understated but I have always preferred the slots above or behind the PCIe lanes instead of between them. I will also say that moving files between 2 NVME drives is eye opening. I moved Total War Warhammer 2 from one NVME to another the 75+ GB took about 30 seconds to complete.
Posted on Reply
#20
Vayra86
kapone32 said:
NVME drives are great for Boot drives and if they cool correctly are excellent for Paging files, especially when gaming. I must say that heat is the biggest difference between an SSD and a NVME drive and we all know heat is the number one enemy of computers. Their functionality in terms of form factor cannot be understated but I have always preferred the slots above or behind the PCIe lanes instead of between them. I will also say that moving files between 2 NVME drives is eye opening. I moved Total War Warhammer 2 from one NVME to another the 75+ GB took about 30 seconds to complete.
Got some data to support your claims how they are great as boot and gaming drives? Page file? What crevasse did you pull this nonsense from? I have never seen numbers for NVME drives to even slightly impact the user experience in any of those use cases. So you win 1 second on your boot time, great, now it's 9 seconds instead of 10... And how often does one move a full game install from one place to the other?

It gets pretty odd when regular gaming and casual usage is being used to explain NVME advantages. Get the memo: these ain't for you that is why the $/GB is twice as high as it is on SATA.
Posted on Reply
#21
kapone32
Vayra86 said:
Got some data to support your claims how they are great as boot and gaming drives? Page file? What crevasse did you pull this nonsense from? I have never seen numbers for NVME drives to even slightly impact the user experience in any of those use cases. So you win 1 second on your boot time, great, now it's 9 seconds instead of 10... And how often does one move a full game install from one place to the other?

It gets pretty odd when regular gaming and casual usage is being used to explain NVME advantages. Get the memo: these ain't for you that is why the $/GB is twice as high as it is on SATA.
I understand your argument but If you notice my Specs I actually own and have 4 NVME drives in my system and one of them is in a RAID 0 M2 card from Asus.

I may not be the typical user but I have over 800 Steam games and 7 pages of Humble Monthly games to redeem not to mention GOG, UPlay, Battlenet and Origin no Windows store though (hehe). Besides one game can now be as high as 100TB of data. I prioritize my games based on what I am playing and move my most played games to the fastest drive(s).

As much as you may think that NVME drives are twice the price of SSDS I will give you an example. There was a HP NVME 1TB on sale for $219 Canadian the cheapest 1 TB SSD was on sale for $199.99 so $20 more for 4x the read speed? I do not make statements based on my thoughts or opinions but what I have actually seen with my own eyes.

A paging file is what a game(application) uses especially at 4K if your RAM goes above it's allotment. So if a Page file is strictly reading information (I know I am simplifying it) would it not make sense even from a theoretical standpoint that a HDD will give you 200 MB/s an SSD will give you 550 MB/s and a NVME drive will give you 2500Mb/s. I know some people disable the paging file in Windows but I have no games installed on my C drive. In RAID 0 it gets better because that throughput goes up to 8000 MB/s depending on your equipment.

BTW I have every form of storage in my system including HDDs, SSHDs, SSDs and NVME drives. I only use the task manager and have the performance tab highlighted with the drive I am interested in displayed and that is the crevasse I am talking about.
Posted on Reply
#22
Vayra86
kapone32 said:
I understand your argument but If you notice my Specs I actually own and have 4 NVME drives in my system and one of them is in a RAID 0 M2 card from Asus.

I may not be the typical user but I have over 800 Steam games and 7 pages of Humble Monthly games to redeem not to mention GOG, UPlay, Battlenet and Origin no Windows store though (hehe). Besides one game can now be as high as 100TB of data. I prioritize my games based on what I am playing and move my most played games to the fastest drive(s).

As much as you may think that NVME drives are twice the price of SSDS I will give you an example. There was a HP NVME 1TB on sale for $219 Canadian the cheapest 1 TB SSD was on sale for $199.99 so $20 more for 4x the read speed? I do not make statements based on my thoughts or opinions but what I have actually seen with my own eyes.

A paging file is what a game(application) uses especially at 4K if your RAM goes above it's allotment. So if a Page file is strictly reading information (I know I am simplifying it) would it not make sense even from a theoretical standpoint that a HDD will give you 200 MB/s an SSD will give you 550 MB/s and a NVME drive will give you 2500Mb/s. I know some people disable the paging file in Windows but I have no games installed on my C drive. In RAID 0 it gets better because that throughput goes up to 8000 MB/s depending on your equipment.

BTW I have every form of storage in my system including HDDs, SSHDs, SSDs and NVME drives. I only use the task manager and have the performance tab highlighted with the drive I am interested in displayed and that is the crevasse I am talking about.
About moving games to the fastest storage, OK, you do this. About using page file, guess what, its best to keep it on and use it.

Nowhere have you managed to provide any kind of difference in how the data is used. The games perform the exact same. All you've won is theoretical speed increases that do not materialize as a practical advantage. So you move games to the fastest drive, I say you're just wasting your drives that way, as in, creating unnecessary wear on your rather expensive storage setup for no benefit whatsoever except your idea of more speed. It almost sounds like you want to transfer data across your drives because they can do it faster.

To each his own, but what you're doing is completely pointless, and costs you money. I also have a massive games library which requires downloads all the time. Still, you only play one game at a time, and once you moved to SSD, there really isn't much of a storage bottleneck anymore where HDD had one. Thát is the point of getting them. Everything beyond that is just nonsense for a regular consumer or (hardcore) gamer.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment