Question Recommendations for M.2 NVME drives that offer excellent REAL WORLD Performance?

[DimkaTsv]

"quality" is absolutely a consideration.

Ah, yes, for sure quality is important as well, i just meant that QLC and PLC may have their own buyer group... people that need not that much of performance (they only need it to be adequate), but amount of storage
Tbf though... have no idea who can actually be that person though

 

[Iver Hicarte]

Just lay out all your stipulations from the get go.

Gen 3
No Samsung (higher in my country/region)


Then we will be able to answer more specifically. Also if your not in the USA or CA, like suggested by USAFRet give us a list of the choices you want us to pick from lol, be easier. If you don't' give us a list, then get the Samsung lol, that is off the list due to price (totally get that).

Most drives will go over 1000mb second, are you asking for sustained 1000mb a second and greater well that is a different requirement. Some drives after the cache the performance drops like a rock.

Avoid QLC drives if you want 1000mb second writes sustained.


What is wrong the SN750 for a Gen 3?

snippent from toms hardware.......talking about the SN750

"Much like the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro, it writes at 2.8 GBps for the first 36GB of the test, but performance degrades to an average of about 1400 MBps once the workload saturates the cache "



Good luck!

Ooooohhhhh, so when the drives age, they lose a little bit of performance because the cache gets filled up over time. OK, now I get the idea. So what's a good drive that will age well and will sustain a gigabyte speed through years of usage?

 

[mdd1963]

It's a good drive no doubt, but I'm not willing to pay the premium, you're just paying for the name "Samsung". Although no doubt they have the best drives, quality wise also. But I'm not just willing to pay the premium, on that price I could easily get a bigger capacity drive on other brands and on a cheaper price.

It is not as if the 970 EVO Plus is exorbitantly priced; if the system is for you,... get the Samsung.

 

[USAFRet]

Ooooohhhhh, so when the drives age, they lose a little bit of performance because the cache gets filled up over time. OK, now I get the idea. So what's a good drive that will age well and will sustain a gigabyte speed through years of usage?

No, that's not what that means.

The cache is a small space of even faster memory.
As you write to the drive, that cache space is written to first, and then the data is written to the actual drive chips.
If you have a fast enough source to read from, it can fill up that cache, and incoming data has to wait a bit for some cache space to clear out.

It is NOT a case of it filling up over the years.

 

[itrip]

No, that's not what that means.

The cache is a small space of even faster memory.
As you write to the drive, that cache space is written to first, and then the data is written to the actual drive chips.
If you have a fast enough source to read from, it can fill up that cache, and incoming data has to wait a bit for some cache space to clear out.

It is NOT a case of it filling up over the years.

For instance the Samsung 980 Pro witch I am using has a cache capacity of 113Gb at witch it can sustainably read or write at high speed.

It seems at this point the more expensive the NVMe, the larger of files can be handled at higher speeds, this seems to be a fact because I also have an WD SN550 NVMe and it's cache is much smaller and sustained speeds do drop faster if large files are handled.

 

[falcon291]

I believe there is a huge difference if you use an NVEME M.2, if using an NVME SATA, then yes, there wouldn't really be a noticeable difference.

There is definitely a difference between PCIx and SATA interfaces and it is noticeable for all. Does it matter a lot? For most of the users no.
There is definitely a difference between PCIe 3.0 and 4.0 drives, and it you can notice only when you transfer files from one M2 drive to another or editing 4K videos. Please check if your mainboard also supports PCIe 4.0, if you have an older mainboard it probably does not support it.

If you are working with 4K videos do not search for cheap solutions. Working with 4K videos means a lot more writing and this is not good for cheaper models.

 

[Endre]

There is definitely a difference between PCIx and SATA interfaces and it is noticeable for all. Does it matter a lot? For most of the users no.
There is definitely a difference between PCIe 3.0 and 4.0 drives, and it you can notice only when you transfer files from one M2 drive to another or editing 4K videos. Please check if your mainboard also supports PCIe 4.0, if you have an older mainboard it probably does not support it.

If you are working with 4K videos do not search for cheap solutions. Working with 4K videos means a lot more writing and this is not good for cheaper models.

Hello!

For large files transfer, the type of NAND is far more important than the interface's protocol!
For instance, Samsung 860 PRO 1TB (2-bit MLC V-NAND, SATA SSD) will be faster than the Samsung 980 PRO 1TB (3-bit TLC V-NAND, M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 x4 SSD)!
The 980 PRO will be very fast as long as your transfers don't exceed the 1GB (LPDDR4) of its cache!
Immediately as that cache is filled, the speed will drop to the speed of the 3-bit TLC V-NAND, which is a lot slower than 2-bit MLC!

 

[sonofjesse]

For instance, Samsung 860 PRO 1TB (2-bit MLC V-NAND, SATA SSD) will be faster than the Samsung 980 PRO 1TB (3-bit TLC V-NAND, M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 x4 SSD)!
The 980 PRO will be very fast as long as your transfers don't exceed the 1GB (LPDDR4) of its cache!
Immediately as that cache is filled, the speed will drop to the speed of the 3-bit TLC V-NAND, which is a lot slower than 2-bit MLC!

Not trying to be disagreeable.but do you have any any benchmarks of this? The 860 PRO shows a max speed of 560/530 mb at MAX. The 980 PRO is rated much higher, and has 114GB SLC cache. I don't see it dropping below 500mb/sec which is the MAX of the 860.

The article I found
"Samsung's 1TB 980 Pro wrote at a rate of 5.2 GBps for roughly 120GB before the TurboWrite SLC cache filled. Once it began writing directly to the TLC flash, average performance measured 1.8GBps until full "

If it droops to 700-800mb a second its still more than the MAX of the 860 PRO. (860 pro is a great drive, I just don't see it being faster than a 980 pro)

I do agree in general the MLC is better than TLC.

 

[USAFRet]

For instance, Samsung 860 PRO 1TB (2-bit MLC V-NAND, SATA SSD) will be faster than the Samsung 980 PRO 1TB (3-bit TLC V-NAND, M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 x4 SSD)!

I'd have to see some actual numbers on this.

 

[Endre]

Not trying to be disagreeable.but do you have any any benchmarks of this? The 860 PRO shows a max speed of 560/530 mb at MAX. The 980 PRO is rated much higher, and has 114GB SLC cache. I don't see it dropping below 500mb/sec which is the MAX of the 860.

The article I found
"Samsung's 1TB 980 Pro wrote at a rate of 5.2 GBps for roughly 120GB before the TurboWrite SLC cache filled. Once it began writing directly to the TLC flash, average performance measured 1.8GBps until full "

If it droops to 700-800mb a second its still more than the MAX of the 860 PRO. (860 pro is a great drive, I just don't see it being faster than a 980 pro)

I do agree in general the MLC is better than TLC.

Hello!

Here’s a reliability / warranty chart including both drives (the terrabytes that can be written on the drives):
860 PRO: 1200 TB TBW
980 PRO: 600 TB TBW

SSD Product Warranty | Support | Samsung Semiconductor Global

Samsung ensures the best quality in all products and services beyond customer expectations. Warranty policy, conditions for Samsung Consumer and Portable SSD.

www.samsung.com

MLC is superior to TLC by far!

 

[USAFRet]

Here’s a reliability / warranty chart including both drives (the terrabytes that can be written on the drives):
860 PRO: 1200 TB TBW
980 PRO: 600 TB TBW

That is simply the warranty coverage.

Neither of those will fall over and die once reaching that number.

And, it would take a couple of decades at the earliest to get close to that 600TBW in normal consumer use.
What is the TBW on your current SSD(s)?

 

[sonofjesse]

Hello!

Here’s a reliability / warranty chart including both drives (the terrabytes that can be written on the drives):
860 PRO: 1200 TB TBW
980 PRO: 600 TB TBW

Just to clairfiy in your previous post you was not talking about warranty or estimated longevity of the drive, you was referencing speed.

"
For instance, Samsung 860 PRO 1TB (2-bit MLC V-NAND, SATA SSD) will be faster than the Samsung 980 PRO 1TB (3-bit TLC V-NAND, M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 x4 SSD)!
The 980 PRO will be very fast as long as your transfers don't exceed the 1GB (LPDDR4) of its cache! "

The 980 pro has 144GB cache not 1gb. Do you have have any benchmarks of a 860 beating the 980 in write or read tests (this would be speed). Cause I can't find any, and based on the specs it seems impossible the 860 PRO would never beat the 980 PRO in speed (read/write).

Remember TBW is not when the drive will just die, its an estimate and more to do with warranty. MLC is generally more durable than TLC yes (we never did talk about this until now)

Like I said I agree in general MLC is better than TLC, but were not talking about warranty, TBW written you brought up speed, now your moving the goal posts of the conversation.


I guess that leaves me overall confused of the point of your posts. Back to the OP's original question, I don't' think most people are going to tell him to get an 860 PRO at this point in time.

 

[Endre]

That is simply the warranty coverage.

Neither of those will fall over and die once reaching that number.

And, it would take a couple of decades at the earliest to get close to that 600TBW in normal consumer use.
What is the TBW on your current SSD(s)?

My case is exceptional.
I have 3 Samsung 970 PRO 1TB, 2-bit MLC V-NAND SSDs in RAID_0, each of the 3 drives having a warranty of 1200TBW (3600TBW combined).
I can use those for a few decades 😄

 

[USAFRet]

I have 3 Samsung 970 PRO 1TB, 2-bit MLC V-NAND SSDs in RAID_0

No comment....

 

[USAFRet]

Hello!

Here are the links of two charts.
Please look at the random reads/writes.

The 860 PRO 1TB:
samsung 860 pro 1tb crystaldiskmark

The 980 PRO 1TB:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/samsung-980-pro-1tb-nvme-ssd-review,14.html

Unfortunately, this is not an “apples to apples” comparison.
So, I can’t prove anything because they’ve used different versions of CrystalDiskMark.
(I couldn’t find a clear comparison between the two drives).

PS: My initial statement might be wrong!

It absolutely needs to be apples to apples.

CDM has apparently changed their algorithm between versions.

Here, the same drive, 1TB Intel 660p.
v6.0.0 on the left, v8.0.4 on the right.

(and there is no link for your 860 info)

 

[Endre]

Just to clairfiy in your previous post you was not talking about warranty or estimated longevity of the drive, you was referencing speed.

"
For instance, Samsung 860 PRO 1TB (2-bit MLC V-NAND, SATA SSD) will be faster than the Samsung 980 PRO 1TB (3-bit TLC V-NAND, M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 x4 SSD)!
The 980 PRO will be very fast as long as your transfers don't exceed the 1GB (LPDDR4) of its cache! "

The 980 pro has 144GB cache not 1gb. Do you have have any benchmarks of a 860 beating the 980 in write or read tests (this would be speed). Cause I can't find any, and based on the specs it seems impossible the 860 PRO would never beat the 980 PRO in speed (read/write).

Remember TBW is not when the drive will just die, its an estimate and more to do with warranty. MLC is generally more durable than TLC yes (we never did talk about this until now)

Like I said I agree in general MLC is better than TLC, but were not talking about warranty, TBW written you brought up speed, now your moving the goal posts of the conversation.


I guess that leaves me overall confused of the point of your posts. Back to the OP's original question, I don't' think most people are going to tell him to get an 860 PRO at this point in time.

Hello!

Yeah, I couldn’t find a direct “apples to apples” comparison between the 2 drives either.

 

[Endre]

It absolutely needs to be apples to apples.

CDM has apparently changed their algorithm between versions.

Here, the same drive, 1TB Intel 660p.
v6.0.0 on the left, v8.0.4 on the right.

(and there is no link for your 860 info)

I agree with you 100%.
It must be an “apples to apples” comparison.

 

[USAFRet]

And my 860 EVO, between the two versions, 6.0.0. and 8.0.4.
Both tests in the lest 15 minutes:

 

[Endre]

And my 860 EVO, between the two versions, 6.0.0. and 8.0.4.
Both tests in the lest 15 minutes:

I think that the weak spots on all NAND based drives are the random transfers.

3D X-Point (Intel Optane / Crucial) SSDs would’ve solved that, but they’ve kinda stopped making them for consumers.

 

[USAFRet]

3D X-Point (Intel Optane / Crucial) SSDs would’ve solved that, but they’ve kinda stopped making them for consumers.

Not enough market. The vast majority of people would never know Optane or no Optane.

In a blind test, most people can't tell between SATA III SSD and PCIe 4.0 SSD.
Even self proclaimed 'experts'.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DKLA7w9eeA



We are way into diminishing returns.

 

[Endre]

Not enough market. The vast majority of people would never know Optane or no Optane.

In a blind test, most people can't tell between SATA III SSD and PCIe 4.0 SSD.
Even self proclaimed 'experts'.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DKLA7w9eeA


We are way into diminishing returns.

I guess, it depends on who you ask.
I, personally, was able to distinguish the difference between the Samsung 970 PRO 1TB and the Samsung 970 EVO Plus 250GB SSDs.
You can “feel” the speed upgrade in daily usage (downloading drivers, installing programs, using sound libraries, copying ISO images or large files, etc.)

 

[USAFRet]

I guess, it depends on who you ask.
I, personally, was able to distinguish the difference between the Samsung 970 PRO 1TB and the Samsung 970 EVO Plus 250GB SSDs.
You can “feel” the speed upgrade in daily usage (downloading drivers, installing programs, using sound libraries, copying ISO images or large files, etc.)

And in my personal system, in a timed repeated test between the Intel 660p and various SATA III SSD's.....zero timed difference in my usual workflow with Adobe Lightroom.

Even though the Intel benchmark numbers are 3-4x that of a SATA III SSD.

15 seconds with Drive A == 15 seconds with Drive B.
Raw drive speed is only one part of the chain of events.

 

[DSzymborski]

I guess, it depends on who you ask.
I, personally, was able to distinguish the difference between the Samsung 970 PRO 1TB and the Samsung 970 EVO Plus 250GB SSDs.
You can “feel” the speed upgrade in daily usage (downloading drivers, installing programs, using sound libraries, copying ISO images or large files, etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

[Pextaxmx]

While I agree that TLC drives got faster so much to the point we don't miss MLC drives anymore, we cannot say MLC is no longer superior to TLC drives. Modern TLC drives use so many complicated tricks to cover the slow NAND performance. Obviously more chances of failure compared to simpler control of MLC drives. Not to mention shorter longevity of NAND itself.

970 Pro is likely the last consumer MLC drive ever. Check ebay occasionally and when you see unopened 970 Pro 1Tb for under 170, buy a couple.

 

[Mandark]

Yeah the difference is imagination