Unfortunately, this deal is no longer valid
Crucial CT2000MX500SSD1 (Z) Internal SSD MX500 (2TB) @ Amazon.fr
397° Expired

Crucial CT2000MX500SSD1 (Z) Internal SSD MX500 (2TB) @ Amazon.fr

33
Posted 14th Jul

This deal is expired. Here are some options that might interest you:

Probably one of the best SSD's out there. Lowest price I've seen it. This is the Amazon currency converter price and includes P&P. Use fee free card to get another few quid off.
Community Updates

Groups

33 Comments
Oh wow... I was waiting for 1Tb Samsung Evos to drop below £150... But a 2Tb for not much more is a steal!?
Is this QLC? I would not get it then...
Ahmed.Shumayal14/07/2019 23:52

Is this QLC? I would not get it then...



If you are going to make ridiculous comments then at least check you are posting correctly. If you need a storage drive for storing files or games then QLC drives are EXACTLY what you want to buy.
smckirdy15/07/2019 00:32

If you are going to make ridiculous comments then at least check you are …If you are going to make ridiculous comments then at least check you are posting correctly. If you need a storage drive for storing files or games then QLC drives are EXACTLY what you want to buy.


QLC is lower quality/lasting than TLC, MLC, or SLC. It is also generally cheaper. You'd likely not want it as an OS drive.
Bought this for a 100 quid more before Xmas. No regrets, been superb.
Amazon.fr currently have 6 for 60 euro gift top up, mine came in immediately as a code via e-mail, and applied to this order.
antispam24615/07/2019 01:32

Amazon.fr currently have 6 for 60 euro gift top up, mine came in …Amazon.fr currently have 6 for 60 euro gift top up, mine came in immediately as a code via e-mail, and applied to this order.


amazon.fr/b/r…031
Conditions of the promotion1. The first 6,000 members of the Amazon Prime program who recharge their Amazon.fr account at once by at least $ 60 in one go between Monday, July 15, 2019 (00:00) and Tuesday, July 16, 2019 ( 23:59), will receive a promotional code by e-mail within 48 hours, allowing them to benefit from a discount of € 6 valid upon receipt and until August 31, 2019 included according to the conditions below.
2. Offer reserved to members of the Amazon Prime program.
3. The promotional code of 6 € is valid on your next Amazon.fr order of a minimum amount of 30 €, excluding delivery costs, and is limited to items sold and shipped by Amazon. Promotional codes do not apply to items sold by third-party sellers on the amazon.co.uk marketplace or for the purchase of books (printed or ebooks, including Kindle subscription), infant formula, electronic cigarettes, promotional items Reconditioned and gift certificates.
4. The "Add to Cart" option must be used in order to apply the promotional code when placing your order. The purchase option in "1-Click" does not allow to add promotional code.
5. The promotional code can not be combined with other current promotions and is not applicable to an order already in process.
6. The promotional code can not be redeemed for cash.
7. This offer is limited to one promotional code per Amazon.fr customer account. The promotional code can only be used at one time.
8. This offer is valid on our site amazon.fr only, can not be used on any other site accessible from ours.
9. The General Conditions of Sale of the site amazon.fr apply to promotional codes.
Edited by: "Whammerhead" 15th Jul
How are people dealing with needing to be a Prime member in France?
Nate149215/07/2019 00:46

QLC is lower quality/lasting than TLC, MLC, or SLC. It is also generally …QLC is lower quality/lasting than TLC, MLC, or SLC. It is also generally cheaper. You'd likely not want it as an OS drive.


Indeed, hence why I said storage. Tools for the right job! Although OS drives don't get written that much for most users and the capacity compensates as the wear is spread across the whole drive so if you only ever use half the capacity you get double the endurance.

It's also not lower quality. The density is a function and the endurance has nothing to do with quality as it's an inherent issue with the higher density.

The constant don't by QLC posts are stupid. Most consumer users won't notice the difference in endurance at all. And if they do so what, they paid a lot less for it. You don't get people constantly posting on CPU deals about how it's more CPU than 99% of users need or that it will cost more money to run.
smckirdy15/07/2019 09:08

Indeed, hence why I said storage. Tools for the right job! Although OS …Indeed, hence why I said storage. Tools for the right job! Although OS drives don't get written that much for most users and the capacity compensates as the wear is spread across the whole drive so if you only ever use half the capacity you get double the endurance.It's also not lower quality. The density is a function and the endurance has nothing to do with quality as it's an inherent issue with the higher density. The constant don't by QLC posts are stupid. Most consumer users won't notice the difference in endurance at all. And if they do so what, they paid a lot less for it. You don't get people constantly posting on CPU deals about how it's more CPU than 99% of users need or that it will cost more money to run.


What do you call something that dies faster than something else? QLC takes less writes to die, doesn't offer any performance increase (it's usually slower).

That is, without question, a lower quality product. Density is a function, the result is lower endurance though.

If you make 5LC or 6LC, it'd reduce the endurance even further. You are further reducing the lifespan, speed, and cost of the drive. Of course it's lower quality, that's the epitome of that concept.
Stu.C15/07/2019 07:58

How are people dealing with needing to be a Prime member in France?



I was lucky enough to be offered free 30 days at checkout.

Also still had to pay delivery so comes to EUR - 178.99

Still this is the lowest price for a TLC SSD around and will likely last at least twice as long as the Samsung QVC!
Ditto. Offered 30 day trial when I added item to basket.
Nate149215/07/2019 09:33

What do you call something that dies faster than something else? QLC takes …What do you call something that dies faster than something else? QLC takes less writes to die, doesn't offer any performance increase (it's usually slower).That is, without question, a lower quality product. Density is a function, the result is lower endurance though.If you make 5LC or 6LC, it'd reduce the endurance even further. You are further reducing the lifespan, speed, and cost of the drive. Of course it's lower quality, that's the epitome of that concept.


Lower endurance, quality is a function of how well something is made or how well it meets the specification of what it should be. QLC drives aren't made less well than TLC drives and they don't work less well than they should, the extra layer of storage per bit inherently reduces endurance and that is a physical limit with no impact from quality. Your definition of quality is not correct, you are talking about VALUE.

The read performance is really only lower in drives that are designed that way to use a cheaper controller to drive the price down further. It's nothing inherent to QLC particularly.

The important aspect is cost per GB. That's the quality that is aimed for and achieved. If you need capacity and price then that's good value. They make high performance low capacity high bandwidth drives for use with operating systems and high throughput use cases. But if you buy those to store games or 4k.video on you are wasting your money. If you want to start replacing old fashioned spinning disks with SSDs then these are exactly what you want and exactly what you need. Also if you are a low use user and want more space and low cost it's also the right drive.
I'm gradually getting bits together for a new gaming PC build currently and was previously thinking of getting a small SSD to use as a boot drive and for whatever programs I can fit on it and a regular 2tb HDD to store games and music on. This is a very tempting price to simplify things to just one drive and far less extra cost than I was expecting.

Is there any reason besides cost not to go for this instead? Any known issues with this drive or hidden drawbacks I might not know about? Any other drives you would recommend consider over this?

I'm woefully out of touch with SSD tech unfortunately so could do with any advice people have in this area. One thing I will say is I'm not worried too much about benchmarks and transfer speeds. I'm coming from the position of using a 5400rpm HDD for 5+ years now so literally any SSD is going to be a massive improvement for me and unless there's going to be worthwhile noticeable gains in day to day use I'd rather keep the cost lower.
Battenberg15/07/2019 10:56

I'm gradually getting bits together for a new gaming PC build currently …I'm gradually getting bits together for a new gaming PC build currently and was previously thinking of getting a small SSD to use as a boot drive and for whatever programs I can fit on it and a regular 2tb HDD to store games and music on. This is a very tempting price to simplify things to just one drive and far less extra cost than I was expecting.Is there any reason besides cost not to go for this instead? Any known issues with this drive or hidden drawbacks I might not know about? Any other drives you would recommend consider over this?I'm woefully out of touch with SSD tech unfortunately so could do with any advice people have in this area. One thing I will say is I'm not worried too much about benchmarks and transfer speeds. I'm coming from the position of using a 5400rpm HDD for 5+ years now so literally any SSD is going to be a massive improvement for me and unless there's going to be worthwhile noticeable gains in day to day use I'd rather keep the cost lower.



Sandisk or Lexar at lower cost. Personally I'd keep the OS and other programs on a separate SSD from general storage such as games, music etc. 240GB should be more than sufficient for OS & programs (or x2 in RAID as a precaution though not essential) 480-500GB if you intend to install multiple larger programs eg Adobe suites etc
Edited by: "Whammerhead" 15th Jul
Whammerhead15/07/2019 11:07

Sandisk or Lexar at lower cost. Personally I'd keep the OS and other …Sandisk or Lexar at lower cost. Personally I'd keep the OS and other programs on a separate SSD from general storage such as games, music etc. 240GB should be more than sufficient for OS & programs (or x2 in RAID as a precaution though not essential) 480-500GB if you intend to install multiple larger programs eg Adobe suites etc


In that case is it worth looking at M.2 instead for the OS? Any programs that went on would be small, no video editing or adobe suites for example. As I understand it I wouldn't need to worry about heatsinks or extra components for an M.2 drive that doesn't get put any particularly heavy load, would I see any difference in boot times though?
Battenberg15/07/2019 12:34

In that case is it worth looking at M.2 instead for the OS? Any programs …In that case is it worth looking at M.2 instead for the OS? Any programs that went on would be small, no video editing or adobe suites for example. As I understand it I wouldn't need to worry about heatsinks or extra components for an M.2 drive that doesn't get put any particularly heavy load, would I see any difference in boot times though?



M2 2280 NVMe will be faster for read and write but in real world use you'll need to ask yourself is it worth the price difference against the standard 2.5 SSD? What spec are you looking at for your build and the budget? What mobo?
Whammerhead15/07/2019 12:48

M2 2280 NVMe will be faster for read and write but in real world use …M2 2280 NVMe will be faster for read and write but in real world use you'll need to ask yourself is it worth the price difference against the standard 2.5 SSD? What spec are you looking at for your build and the budget? What mobo?


Ryzen 2600, 16gb DDR4, mobo and gpu are both a bit up in the air. I'm weighing up a £175 sapphire nitro 590 against a £260 sapphire pulse vega 56 (trying to decide if the extra £85 is worth it or if spending less now and upgrading again sooner is better). For the mobo I'm looking at B450 for sure, ideally the MSI Carbon or Tomahawk but it'll depend on offers coming up for them.

Really the main thing for an SSD, assuming I just get a small one primarily for the OS, is going to be start up time. The startup time on my current PC is abysmal (it can easily take 10 minutes to actually get logged in and ready to use properly due to some very dated components). At smaller capacities the price difference between SSDs is pretty minimal compared to my overall budget (assuming I look out for decent deals) so it really comes to just how much quicker it would be. As far as programs running on startup it would maybe a couple of game clients and Discord at most, possibly not even that.

Edit: This caught my eye. Silicon Power 256Gb M.2 for £26. More than enough capacity for what I need and decent reviews but I haven't even heard of that brand so don't know what their reputation is like.
Edited by: "Battenberg" 15th Jul
Battenberg15/07/2019 13:01

Ryzen 2600, 16gb DDR4, mobo and gpu are both a bit up in the air. I'm …Ryzen 2600, 16gb DDR4, mobo and gpu are both a bit up in the air. I'm weighing up a £175 sapphire nitro 590 against a £260 sapphire pulse vega 56 (trying to decide if the extra £85 is worth it or if spending less now and upgrading again sooner is better). For the mobo I'm looking at B450 for sure, ideally the MSI Carbon or Tomahawk but it'll depend on offers coming up for them.Really the main thing for an SSD, assuming I just get a small one primarily for the OS, is going to be start up time. The startup time on my current PC is abysmal (it can easily take 10 minutes to actually get logged in and ready to use properly due to some very dated components). At smaller capacities the price difference between SSDs is pretty minimal compared to my overall budget (assuming I look out for decent deals) so it really comes to just how much quicker it would be. As far as programs running on startup it would maybe a couple of game clients and Discord at most, possibly not even that.Edit: This caught my eye. Silicon Power 256Gb M.2 for £26. More than enough capacity for what I need and decent reviews but I haven't even heard of that brand so don't know what their reputation is like.


amazon.co.uk/MSI…1-1

Go NVMe then with that mb. That SP NVMe looks decent for the money and should be more than enough. I built a Ryen 2700x build, asus xhair x370 mb with 256gb nvme and 256gb ssd (RAID) setup.
Edited by: "Whammerhead" 15th Jul
Whammerhead15/07/2019 13:14

https://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-B450-TOMAHAWK-Motherboard-Processors/dp/B07FQ9ZJD9/ref=sr_1_1?fst=as:off&qid=1563192592&refinements=p_n_feature_two_browse-bin:12724454031&rnid=12724453031&s=computers&sr=1-1Go NVMe then with that mb. That SP NVMe looks decent for the money and should be more than enough. I built a Ryen 2700x build, asus xhair x370 mb with 256gb nvme and 256gb ssd (RAID) setup.


Thanks for the help!
smckirdy15/07/2019 10:25

Lower endurance, quality is a function of how well something is made or …Lower endurance, quality is a function of how well something is made or how well it meets the specification of what it should be. QLC drives aren't made less well than TLC drives and they don't work less well than they should, the extra layer of storage per bit inherently reduces endurance and that is a physical limit with no impact from quality. Your definition of quality is not correct, you are talking about VALUE.The read performance is really only lower in drives that are designed that way to use a cheaper controller to drive the price down further. It's nothing inherent to QLC particularly.The important aspect is cost per GB. That's the quality that is aimed for and achieved. If you need capacity and price then that's good value. They make high performance low capacity high bandwidth drives for use with operating systems and high throughput use cases. But if you buy those to store games or 4k.video on you are wasting your money. If you want to start replacing old fashioned spinning disks with SSDs then these are exactly what you want and exactly what you need. Also if you are a low use user and want more space and low cost it's also the right drive.


QLC is inherently slower. QLC is inherently less reliable. QLC is inherently lower life span. Because you reduce the amount of margin separating the states, you increase errors.

If you do not equate that to quality, then I don't know what you can equate to quality.

If I told you a car was more expensive, but you could drive it for more miles, and you could drive it faster... Would you not consider that a better car?

en.wikipedia.org/wik…ell

(Your words here)

The important aspect is cost per GB. That's the quality that is aimed for and achieved.

This is not an aspect of quality, this is an aspect of value. You seem to equate 'cost per GB' with quality? How is that even possible? Obviously that is an aspect of value, not quality.
Nate149215/07/2019 22:03

QLC is inherently slower. QLC is inherently less reliable. QLC is …QLC is inherently slower. QLC is inherently less reliable. QLC is inherently lower life span. Because you reduce the amount of margin separating the states, you increase errors.If you do not equate that to quality, then I don't know what you can equate to quality.If I told you a car was more expensive, but you could drive it for more miles, and you could drive it faster... Would you not consider that a better car?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell(Your words here)The important aspect is cost per GB. That's the quality that is aimed for and achieved. This is not an aspect of quality, this is an aspect of value. You seem to equate 'cost per GB' with quality? How is that even possible? Obviously that is an aspect of value, not quality.



Capacity per cost is the objective, quality is the measure of how well they achieve it. If the drives had a high failure rate, but met the capacity then they would have poor quality. If something is inherent to the technology itself then it's not quality to compare it to something else where you aren't paying for the difference.

Quality is a specific function of how well you achieve something either in a process or a physical property inherent within the scope of the object. You are using the incorrect use of the word quality that's often used by consumers incorrectly as it only applies to oranges to oranges comparisons and QLC drives to TLC drives don't apply due to the significant cost differential.

To borrow your car example if you buy two identical cars made in two seperate factories if one was more reliable or had better fit and finish than the other then that would be a higher quaility car. Consumers often use this to equate things of similar value i.e. a Volvo vs. a Ford, this isn't quite right, but if you compare price and type closely enough it's spliiting hairs as what you are commenting on is how WELL it was made not the function of the end products in their own right. But if you are comparing say a Ford with a Ferrari that's not a difference in quality as you aren't comparing like for like as it's a different manufacturing process and you are paying signfiicantly more. Generally if you are using the word Quality for anything other than a process at the core you are probably using it wrong, if you think about all the examples of using quality as a word you are actually talking about process i.e. how a thing was made, not what the thing is made of. You are conflating value and function with quality and that isn't correct.

QLC does NOT have a lower life span. It has lower write endurance, it's read endurance is just the same as any other form of memory. It's not particularly less reliable either, it needs a bit more ECC than TLC drives, but not so much it'll be an issue and it's not actually more volatile than any other kind of flash memory.

And the core rub here is these drives aren't low quality, in many cases they are made with equal if not better quality as that is a neccesary component in manufacturing and using what is a more sophisticated technology. There is also no way that you could make a QLC drive better with the current technology and have it perform better, the limitation are purely physical in it's nature and so there is no real difference in the capabilities even from different manufacturers of the raw memory(software and controllers do change). If what you need is a write once read often drive with good performance (this is a SATA drive so it's irrelevent), then you absolutely want a QLC drive because it will give you more Gb per $. If you are doing high intensity data modelling or content creation then this isn't the technology for you, but that's not 99% of users and with wear levelling those 90% of users really aren't going to notice a difference in functional lifetime of the drive and will get plenty warning when it's near failure thanks to the advanced software needed to run these drives. But that's all talking about function and value, not QUALITY.
smckirdy15/07/2019 23:28

Capacity per cost is the objective, quality is the measure of how well …Capacity per cost is the objective, quality is the measure of how well they achieve it. If the drives had a high failure rate, but met the capacity then they would have poor quality. If something is inherent to the technology itself then it's not quality to compare it to something else where you aren't paying for the difference.Quality is a specific function of how well you achieve something either in a process or a physical property inherent within the scope of the object. You are using the incorrect use of the word quality that's often used by consumers incorrectly as it only applies to oranges to oranges comparisons and QLC drives to TLC drives don't apply due to the significant cost differential. To borrow your car example if you buy two identical cars made in two seperate factories if one was more reliable or had better fit and finish than the other then that would be a higher quaility car. Consumers often use this to equate things of similar value i.e. a Volvo vs. a Ford, this isn't quite right, but if you compare price and type closely enough it's spliiting hairs as what you are commenting on is how WELL it was made not the function of the end products in their own right. But if you are comparing say a Ford with a Ferrari that's not a difference in quality as you aren't comparing like for like as it's a different manufacturing process and you are paying signfiicantly more. Generally if you are using the word Quality for anything other than a process at the core you are probably using it wrong, if you think about all the examples of using quality as a word you are actually talking about process i.e. how a thing was made, not what the thing is made of. You are conflating value and function with quality and that isn't correct.QLC does NOT have a lower life span. It has lower write endurance, it's read endurance is just the same as any other form of memory. It's not particularly less reliable either, it needs a bit more ECC than TLC drives, but not so much it'll be an issue and it's not actually more volatile than any other kind of flash memory. And the core rub here is these drives aren't low quality, in many cases they are made with equal if not better quality as that is a neccesary component in manufacturing and using what is a more sophisticated technology. There is also no way that you could make a QLC drive better with the current technology and have it perform better, the limitation are purely physical in it's nature and so there is no real difference in the capabilities even from different manufacturers of the raw memory(software and controllers do change). If what you need is a write once read often drive with good performance (this is a SATA drive so it's irrelevent), then you absolutely want a QLC drive because it will give you more Gb per $. If you are doing high intensity data modelling or content creation then this isn't the technology for you, but that's not 99% of users and with wear levelling those 90% of users really aren't going to notice a difference in functional lifetime of the drive and will get plenty warning when it's near failure thanks to the advanced software needed to run these drives. But that's all talking about function and value, not QUALITY.


QLC has a lower read write count, some say it is as low as 100, realistically it appears more like 1,000 read/write cycles.

You are trying VERY hard to equate a lower read/right drive with quality. I do not agree and no 2000 word essay will convince me (or MANY) otherwise.

Quality is not as you define it.

You want to call quality 'low write cycle, but cheap'. No.

I'll edit in a real counter example.

If you make a cabinet out of Oak, it is more expensive and lasts longer than if you make a cabinet out of Pine. The quality of the wood used is better.

QLC is pine. TLC is Oak.

The quality of the NAND type matters. The only benefit you get from going with QLC is it is cheaper, just like the pine. You now have a lower quality cabinet because the sum of the parts cannot match the sum of Oak.

You could also have a good quality paper versus a standard sheet. When the base materials you are working with are of lower standard, grade, character, make up, worth, value, classification..... Quality.... You simply can't have the same level of... of Quality.

Qualis is the Latin route of Quality and it means 'of what kind. of such kind'.

TLC is better than QLC in every measurable way. It costs more money though.
Edited by: "Nate1492" 16th Jul
Nate149216/07/2019 00:15

QLC has a lower read write count, some say it is as low as 100, …QLC has a lower read write count, some say it is as low as 100, realistically it appears more like 1,000 read/write cycles.You are trying VERY hard to equate a lower read/right drive with quality. I do not agree and no 2000 word essay will convince me (or MANY) otherwise.Quality is not as you define it.You want to call quality 'low write cycle, but cheap'. No.I'll edit in a real counter example.If you make a cabinet out of Oak, it is more expensive and lasts longer than if you make a cabinet out of Pine. The quality of the wood used is better.QLC is pine. TLC is Oak.The quality of the NAND type matters. The only benefit you get from going with QLC is it is cheaper, just like the pine. You now have a lower quality cabinet because the sum of the parts cannot match the sum of Oak.You could also have a good quality paper versus a standard sheet. When the base materials you are working with are of lower standard, grade, character, make up, worth, value, classification..... Quality.... You simply can't have the same level of... of Quality.Qualis is the Latin route of Quality and it means 'of what kind. of such kind'. TLC is better than QLC in every measurable way. It costs more money though.


I'm not making up a definition of quality I'm using THE definition of quality as it applies to a technical object (rather than a person).

In your cabinet example the quality differential is applicable only to the manufacture i.e. how finely it's made. As I say you are using the word incorrectly(as many people do).

And the core point was your original intervention is idiotic and really irellevant to your poor use of English. If you don't have more money then or don't want to spend more because you don't need read write cycles then what difference does it make. If it's good enough then it's good enough, you are on a deals site literally saying "I don't think this is good so regardless if it's good for you, you should spend more".
smckirdy16/07/2019 09:20

I'm not making up a definition of quality I'm using THE definition of …I'm not making up a definition of quality I'm using THE definition of quality as it applies to a technical object (rather than a person).In your cabinet example the quality differential is applicable only to the manufacture i.e. how finely it's made. As I say you are using the word incorrectly(as many people do).And the core point was your original intervention is idiotic and really irellevant to your poor use of English. If you don't have more money then or don't want to spend more because you don't need read write cycles then what difference does it make. If it's good enough then it's good enough, you are on a deals site literally saying "I don't think this is good so regardless if it's good for you, you should spend more".


My poor English? You are trying to sit here and tell me quality doesn't refer to a material that can be directly compared.

the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
"an improvement in product quality"

TLC is better in every physical sense. It is faster, it lasts longer. The difference between TLC and QLC is QLC is cheaper. That is, by definition, lower quality.
Nate149216/07/2019 09:35

My poor English? You are trying to sit here and tell me quality doesn't …My poor English? You are trying to sit here and tell me quality doesn't refer to a material that can be directly compared.the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something."an improvement in product quality"TLC is better in every physical sense. It is faster, it lasts longer. The difference between TLC and QLC is QLC is cheaper. That is, by definition, lower quality.


Of a similar kind is the key aspect. It's wrong to conflate things when discussing quality when they aren't comparable. Also there is a difference in when you describe qualities and quality comparison.

It's pretty pointless to continue this as every example you give I've got several reasons why you've not used it correctly and at this point given it several times. Clearly we aren't going to agree and that's really irrelevant to the point.
I enjoy a good argument about semantics Quality.
Nate149216/07/2019 09:35

My poor English? You are trying to sit here and tell me quality doesn't …My poor English? You are trying to sit here and tell me quality doesn't refer to a material that can be directly compared.the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something."an improvement in product quality"TLC is better in every physical sense. It is faster, it lasts longer. The difference between TLC and QLC is QLC is cheaper. That is, by definition, lower quality.


No not inherently. To use your example of oak Vs pine a pine wardrobe made by a fine furniture maker using the best wood and built to fit the desired function is not better quality than say an IKEA do it yourself kit even if it's made of Oak.

As I said you are conflating the wrong things. You think you understand what quality means, but you don't. The closest example I can think of is it's like you are saying a petrol car is lower quality than a diesel because it's diesel lasts longer and is more fuel efficient per litre. But that's not the same at all as you aren't comparing quality. To compare quality in a comparison there has to be a degree of equality.
smckirdy16/07/2019 13:41

No not inherently. To use your example of oak Vs pine a pine wardrobe made …No not inherently. To use your example of oak Vs pine a pine wardrobe made by a fine furniture maker using the best wood and built to fit the desired function is not better quality than say an IKEA do it yourself kit even if it's made of Oak.As I said you are conflating the wrong things. You think you understand what quality means, but you don't. The closest example I can think of is it's like you are saying a petrol car is lower quality than a diesel because it's diesel lasts longer and is more fuel efficient per litre. But that's not the same at all as you aren't comparing quality. To compare quality in a comparison there has to be a degree of equality.


You are emphatically wrong, I just want to make sure you don't think I accepted your point. I don't want to continue the discussion though as you are going to repeat yourself.

If you jump in a thread about QLC saying it's just as good as TLC, if I see it, I'll be sure to make the same, or similar, point that QLC has lower quality than TLC. You can call it what you want, but TLC is a better quality material used.

Samsung 860 EVO versus Samsung 860 QVO. The TLC is higher quality. Same manufacturer, same process, different material. Higher quality. Invent a word to use to compare the EVO and the QVO, please.
Nate149222/07/2019 01:39

You are emphatically wrong, I just want to make sure you don't think I …You are emphatically wrong, I just want to make sure you don't think I accepted your point. I don't want to continue the discussion though as you are going to repeat yourself.If you jump in a thread about QLC saying it's just as good as TLC, if I see it, I'll be sure to make the same, or similar, point that QLC has lower quality than TLC. You can call it what you want, but TLC is a better quality material used.Samsung 860 EVO versus Samsung 860 QVO. The TLC is higher quality. Same manufacturer, same process, different material. Higher quality. Invent a word to use to compare the EVO and the QVO, please.



OK, cool story bro.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text