Tuesday, August 13th 2019

ADATA Launches 2 TB Version of Its XPG SX8200 Pro NVMe SSD

Amidst falling prices of NAND flash and increased desirability from users' part, companies have been expanding their portfolio of SSD offerings for the consumer side of the fence as well as the enterprise one. ADATA's XPG SX8200 Pro SSD was initially only offered in 256 GB, 512 GB, and 1 TB configurations, but in the case of SSD storage, "moar" is usually better. We'll see when do 256 GB offerings get discontinued, but I'd give it another pair of years at the most.

The ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro features Silicon Motion's SM2262EN controller packing eight NAND channels, four ARM Cortex-R5 cores, support for NVMe 1.3, LDPC ECC, RAID engine et all (eh), paired with Micron's 3D TLC NAND - no QLC here, folks. The SSD offers up to 3.5 GB/s sequential read speed and up to 3 GB/s sequential write speed, and up to 360K random read/write 4K IOPS. The ADATA SSD features a TBW rating of 1280 TB over a 5-year warranty period - and a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) rate of 2,000,000 hours (something like 83.333, 33 (3) days of continuous usage. Now that's north of two hundred years of continuous operation, which makes me sad just thinking about it and what I'd do with that time. In another conscience state, perhaps. ADATA's 2 TB XPG SX8200 Pro is $289.99, in select European countries (from eBay) at about €308, and in Japan for ¥36,680.
Source: AnandTech
Add your own comment

19 Comments on ADATA Launches 2 TB Version of Its XPG SX8200 Pro NVMe SSD

#2
kapone32
Finally now please come to Canada!!!!
Posted on Reply
#3
metalfiber
I'm happy with the performance of the 1TB version.
Posted on Reply
#4
kapone32
metalfiber, post: 4097583, member: 174420"
I'm happy with the performance of the 1TB version.
Yes but to have another TB to play with is nice.
Posted on Reply
#5
Mamya3084
I had 2 of the 512gb versions for in 2 seperate PC's within a month. No idea how. Waiting on replacements. My Evo 960 is 3 years old without any issues.
Posted on Reply
#6
xkm1948
Get it from Rakuten, they have 15% off regularly and no sales tax (yet)
Posted on Reply
#7
BakerMan1971
Had the 512GB version of the 8000 for a good while now
works great, would love the extra storage, when these drop at a good price on the Jungle they are great value
Posted on Reply
#8
Dammeron
trparky, post: 4097574, member: 170376"
No QLC NAND? Good.
And what's the problem with those? Shortened life span? Let's just say that SSD on QLC would have TBW as low, as 200TB (and we all know it has a higher one) - that means 60GB every single day throughout 10 years - have fun doing nothing but writing stuff...

I think people have to get rid of those demons called "only SLC/MLC is worthy of buying".
Posted on Reply
#9
trparky
I have a TLC-based SSD, specifically the Samsung 970 EVO along with Samsung 860 EVO; both are TLC NAND. I'm quite alright with TLC NAND but QLC? That's pushing it, especially considering you need sixteen different voltage states to represent all the various combinations to represent four bits. That's not a lot of wiggle room for things to go horribly bad.
Posted on Reply
#10
randomUser
Dammeron, post: 4097983, member: 150201"
And what's the problem with those? Shortened life span? Let's just say that SSD on QLC would have TBW as low, as 200TB (and we all know it has a higher one) - that means 60GB every single day throughout 10 years - have fun doing nothing but writing stuff...

I think people have to get rid of those demons called "only SLC/MLC is worthy of buying".
Hello mister.
You seem you have no idea how TBW works these days.
What you see on the package is a Marketing value of TBW. This TBW is only reached in ideal workloads.
So, MX500 500GB SSD has 180TBW, it states 98GB writes per day for 5 years.
The reality is not that good as it sounds.
Currently 18TB written into my drive now, and it is degraded by 21% (79% life remaining)
Thats about 37,5GB per day for 16 months now ( i don't even know what is actually writing this much data into my SSD, but i always have chrome open with like 20 tabs )

Judging by marketing material, it would seem that it should be showing only 10% wear level right?

I also have SX8200 (non pro) and the trend is the same. Wears out much faster than it should.
Posted on Reply
#11
Dammeron
randomUser, post: 4098094, member: 176138"
Hello mister.
You seem you have no idea how TBW works these days.
What you see on the package is a Marketing value of TBW. This TBW is only reached in ideal workloads.
So, MX500 500GB SSD has 180TBW, it states 98GB writes per day for 5 years.
The reality is not that good as it sounds.
Currently 18TB written into my drive now, and it is degraded by 21% (79% life remaining)
Thats about 37,5GB per day for 16 months now ( i don't even know what is actually writing this much data into my SSD, but i always have chrome open with like 20 tabs )

Judging by marketing material, it would seem that it should be showing only 10% wear level right?

I also have SX8200 (non pro) and the trend is the same. Wears out much faster than it should.
21% health drop doesn't mean going through 21% of it's TBW, it means that the cells already started deteriorating, which shouldn't happen before reaching the TBW. So You just have faulty products.

And yes - chrome (and any other browser) can be the culprit for such huge workout - constantly writing down the cache while You use it... One way to prevent it would be to move the cache to a normal HDD.
Posted on Reply
#12
kapone32
Everytime I read threads about the danger of QLC Nand I remember the dawn of SSDs when the same argument was used vs HDDs. The only SSD drive that has failed on me is one that I bought on Ebay (Sandisk Ultra 2 960GB used). If you are really worried about lifespn do what I did and put 2 in RAID 0.
Posted on Reply
#13
Dammeron
I'd be even more worried about that raid0. :P

Had one r0 matrix fail on me 10 years ago, ruined my music collection - all files full of jitter... Spent months bringing it back from the CDs.

From that moment I'm a zealous worshipper of one saying: "there are two types of people - those that do backup, and those that will start doing backup". Also ditched all raid0 ideas - since SSDs are way faster than HDD, there's no point for me to risk it for small performance improvements.
Posted on Reply
#14
kapone32
Dammeron, post: 4098198, member: 150201"
I'd be even more worried about that raid0. :p

Had one r0 matrix fail on me 10 years ago, ruined my music collection - all files full of jitter... Spent months bringing it back from the CDs.

From that moment I'm a zealous worshipper of one saying: "there are two types of people - those that do backup, and those that will start doing backup". Also ditched all raid0 ideas - since SSDs are way faster than HDD, there's no point for me to risk it for small performance improvements.
The difference between RAID 0 on a HDD and SSD are like night and day. As RAID works the way it does for me it is a solution for people worried about wear. I have never had a RAID array fail.
Posted on Reply
#15
unluckymsk
Im happy with my SX 8200 Pro 1 TB version :)
Posted on Reply
#16
trparky
In a lot of ways that’s why I only buy Samsung SSDs.
Posted on Reply
#17
randomUser
Dammeron, post: 4098106, member: 150201"
21% health drop doesn't mean going through 21% of it's TBW, it means that the cells already started deteriorating, which shouldn't happen before reaching the TBW. So You just have faulty products.

And yes - chrome (and any other browser) can be the culprit for such huge workout - constantly writing down the cache while You use it... One way to prevent it would be to move the cache to a normal HDD.
No, Crucial thinks its normal. My cells degrade twice as fast, because my drive is not performing workload which would allow it to reach the advertised TBW.
You would assume that TBW is the minimum ammout of data you will write until it reaches 0% no matter what is the workload, but its not.
Posted on Reply
#18
Dammeron
No i'd not assume that. My old Samsung 830 is still at 100% after writing around 40TB. I also had a laptop with a small 32GB mSata disk acting as a cache (so every write went through it before saved on a HDD) and it only started deteriorating after a long time.

If Crucial was stating that lowered health on a SDD is normal, for me it sounds like washing their hands...
Posted on Reply
#19
gamefoo21
trparky, post: 4098396, member: 170376"
In a lot of ways that’s why I only buy Samsung SSDs.
840 dead, replaced
860 Evo dead, twice, replaced
SM951 over heated damaged it's nand, replaced
PM981 over heats, replaced

This is personal or near to me machines. I had those drives replaced under warranty. I have several Samsung drives that have been perfect so far though. Samsung has funky drives and NAND failures too.

I've branched out besides being an Intel/Samsung SSD loyalist. MX500, MP510, SX8200NP and 8200PNP.

I use the ram buffering offered by Samsung and Crucial to hopefully lessen the cache thrashing wear on the drive. I also tend to run an over-partition of 10% on all of the drives for better wear leveling.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment