Samsung 860 QVO Internal SSD 2.5 "- 1TB £84.32 (£80.75 with fee free card) delivered @ Amazon France
1619°

Samsung 860 QVO Internal SSD 2.5 "- 1TB £84.32 (£80.75 with fee free card) delivered @ Amazon France

£84.32£101.9817%Amazon France Deals
44
Posted 3rd Nov
Feels like a good price here from Amazon France.

As always you can use your Amazon UK details to order.

Use a fee free card to get it slightly cheaper - around the £80 mark.

Make sure the coupon is applied
3323658.jpg
Comparison price based on Amazon UK

Below indicative price using Amazon's Calculators
3323658.jpg
Specifications
  • Application Client PCs
  • Form Factor 2.5 inch
  • Interface SATA 6 Gb/s Interface, compatible with SATA 3 Gb/s & SATA 1.5 Gb/s interface
  • Dimension (WxHxD)100 X 69.85 X 6.8 (mm)
  • Weight Approx. 51.0g Weight
  • Storage Memory Samsung V-NAND 4bit MLC
  • Controller Samsung MJX Controller
  • Cache Memory Samsung 1 GB Low Power DDR4 SDRAM

Hope it helps someone.
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
you might aswell pay the extra ~£10 for the EVO which uses MUCH! better flash

if you missed out on the samsung 860 evo 1tb at ~£96 i would suggest waiting until blackfriday where it will drop once again
Edited by: "freddy12" 5th Nov
Decent entry level SSD but I would go for an EVO over the QVO.

Comparison
44 Comments
QLC technology should be deleted IRL.
you might aswell pay the extra ~£10 for the EVO which uses MUCH! better flash

if you missed out on the samsung 860 evo 1tb at ~£96 i would suggest waiting until blackfriday where it will drop once again
Edited by: "freddy12" 5th Nov
Decent entry level SSD but I would go for an EVO over the QVO.

Comparison
Meh QLC so only good for storage ... maybe okay for making an external SSD for backups or something ... probably

Seriously people just buy the EVO
Edited by: "Neostar" 3rd Nov
abhijitdash12303/11/2019 23:37

Decent entry level SSD but I would go for an EVO over the QVO.Comparison


keep in mind QLC flash is much slower than TLC

38896071-DaSWD.jpg
38896071-Fgqgl.jpg
Nice
These QLC drive deals will keep on getting hot as people don’t generally understand the limitation of the technology and thinking it is the same as SSDs gone before it.

This is actually a rip off price considering you are actually paying for the price of a 250gb SSD...
If you find yourself regularly transferring large sequentially written files to the drive (>12GB) this will be slower, but for day-to-day use it's hardly a deal breaker. As for the life span, I 100% guarantee, unless you are the 0.01%of people who hammer a disk this will out last your computer and probably the one after that as well.

Is ~£80 a good price for a 1TB SSD? It is certainly not a terrible price, although I feel others may end up being way cheaper over BF.
Got a nvme m2 ssd as my main drive so I'm hoping black Friday will at least have that 2tb sandisk that regularly gets posted for Germany gets posted on the UK sale too
Do all laptops take 2.5” ssd?
I have a Sony vaio f22
it's standard.
Anyone have the link for the 1TB Evo as mentioned above in the thread? Price comes up as 130ish Euros which seem more than £10 more than this as suggested.
bmbratz04/11/2019 13:07

Do all laptops take 2.5” ssd?


Very much the vast majority (newer super thin laptops might just have msata or m.2 (looks more like a circuit board)).

Just double check on the thinness (thickness) of the drive the SSD is replacing (although if it's a hdd, SSD will generally be comfortably thinner).

YouTube or Google can usually help you double check what's in your laptop and the thickness of it. (Or look into device manager to scope out your HDD and look the serial or model number up (on Google).
bmbratz04/11/2019 13:07

Do all laptops take 2.5” ssd?



Chrrye04/11/2019 17:35

Very much the vast majority (newer super thin laptops might just have …Very much the vast majority (newer super thin laptops might just have msata or m.2 (looks more like a circuit board)).Just double check on the thinness (thickness) of the drive the SSD is replacing (although if it's a hdd, SSD will generally be comfortably thinner).YouTube or Google can usually help you double check what's in your laptop and the thickness of it. (Or look into device manager to scope out your HDD and look the serial or model number up (on Google).


As Chrrye said, if you're not sure check your laptop's model no.

Typically if your laptop's 10 years old or younger and not an ultra portable (which measure in height 18mm or less with the lid shut) you should have the space to swap over your SATA HDD for a SATA SSD. Battery life will become slightly improved due to lower power consumption of SSD's, & your machine will feel like a bullet train in comparison when launching windows or copying/loading files.
Edited by: "TopTrump" 4th Nov
Pioneer 3D NAND Internal SSD 1TB - 2.5” / SATA 3/6 GB/s Solid State Drive (APS-SL3N-1T) amazon.co.uk/dp/…ZZY

Can somebody post this for me
ung
bmbratz04/11/2019 18:24

Pioneer 3D NAND Internal SSD 1TB - 2.5” / SATA 3/6 GB/s Solid State Drive ( …Pioneer 3D NAND Internal SSD 1TB - 2.5” / SATA 3/6 GB/s Solid State Drive (APS-SL3N-1T) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07KWWFGRX/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_IqcWDbQQS3ZZYCan somebody post this for me


Cheap at £79.44 with the 20% off, but since when have Pioneer produced SSD's?
A few too many very negative reviews, talk of Chinglish instructions, plastic case. Its sounds like a cck product rebranded with a more western friendly brand to try and shift some stock.

Sort of tat TK Maxx would stock.
Edited by: "TopTrump" 4th Nov
RickyWong04/11/2019 00:37

These QLC drive deals will keep on getting hot as people don’t generally u …These QLC drive deals will keep on getting hot as people don’t generally understand the limitation of the technology and thinking it is the same as SSDs gone before it.This is actually a rip off price considering you are actually paying for the price of a 250gb SSD...


QLC is perfectly fine for 99% of people. It's very rare someone is constantly moving large files back and forth on the drive, most peoples work flows only include reading/writing small files. So the deal is perfectly acceptable.
Uncommon.Sense04/11/2019 10:15

If you find yourself regularly transferring large sequentially written …If you find yourself regularly transferring large sequentially written files to the drive (>12GB) this will be slower, but for day-to-day use it's hardly a deal breaker. As for the life span, I 100% guarantee, unless you are the 0.01%of people who hammer a disk this will out last your computer and probably the one after that as well.Is ~£80 a good price for a 1TB SSD? It is certainly not a terrible price, although I feel others may end up being way cheaper over BF.


You say that...

reneelab.com/dif…tml

But QLC has, at *best*, 1,000 write cycles.

I don't consider 'pounding' my hard drive using it twice a day. I certainly would be annoyed if my drive died after 2 years if all I did was 2 read write ops on (a portion of it).

And guess what loves to do *way* more than 2 read write cycles in a day? A PAGE file. Yeah, if you ever put your page file on a QLC SSD, you are absolutely going to burn that drive out.

You know who would put their Page File on a QLC hard drive? Someone who doesn't know what a page file is, and just gets an SSD and let's the OS choose. The OS doesn't care if it's a QLC drive.

If you want to just store pictures and files, don't get a QLC ssd, get a much cheaper spinning metal disk, 4TB for 60 or something like that.

I see a niche market for a 10 quid savings, and if you are in that niche, you probably know. If not, get the Evo, it's just hands down a better drive. Or go for a cheaper TLC drive from another brand, such as crucial or kingston.
freddy1203/11/2019 23:16

you might aswell pay the extra ~£10 for the EVO which uses MUCH! better …you might aswell pay the extra ~£10 for the EVO which uses MUCH! better flash


100% pay the extra for the Evo!
Nate149204/11/2019 20:34

You say that...https://www.reneelab.com/difference-slc-mlc-tlc.html#qlcBut …You say that...https://www.reneelab.com/difference-slc-mlc-tlc.html#qlcBut QLC has, at *best*, 1,000 write cycles.


Did you even read that article?
Uncommon.Sense04/11/2019 20:40

Did you even read that article?


Yes. And I re-read their numbers and realized the words they used were incorrect! Try it, you'll see that 3000-5000 is indeed bigger than 1000 ;-)

I think what you are missing here is that both TLC and QLC were re-evaluated at the same time.

TLC initially was thought to last for 500-1000 writes and QLC 100-150.

They were both upgraded, 3000-5000 and up to 1000, respectively.

Basically, they were a factor of 10 off for both.
Edited by: "Nate1492" 4th Nov
Nate149204/11/2019 20:41

Yes. And I re-read their numbers and realized the words they used were …Yes. And I re-read their numbers and realized the words they used were incorrect! Try it, you'll see that 3000-5000 is indeed bigger than 1000 ;-)


Personally I would have just referred to the table inc the conclusion, it is either a junk article or one of the worst written "factual" pieces you could have linked, might as well have linked a Daily Fail article or a Donald Trump tweet, would carry the same credibility.
Uncommon.Sense04/11/2019 20:46

Personally I would have just referred to the table inc the conclusion, it …Personally I would have just referred to the table inc the conclusion, it is either a junk article or one of the worst written "factual" pieces you could have linked, might as well have linked a Daily Fail article or a Donald Trump tweet, would carry the same credibility.


Cool. But still, there is enough out there to realize that TLC>QLC in write cycles and there are plenty of other articles that agree with the basic numbers of 3000-5000 and up to 1000.

I'm also contesting the accuracy of the table.
Edited by: "Nate1492" 4th Nov
can anyone link a well priced enclosure for this to use as a portable hard drive
thanks
freddy1203/11/2019 23:16

you might aswell pay the extra ~£10 for the EVO which uses MUCH! better …you might aswell pay the extra ~£10 for the EVO which uses MUCH! better flash


Link? Thanks
Nate149204/11/2019 20:47

Cool. But still, there is enough out there to realize that TLC>QLC in …Cool. But still, there is enough out there to realize that TLC>QLC in write cycles and there are plenty of other articles that agree with the basic numbers of 3000-5000 and up to 1000.I'm also contesting the accuracy of the table.


Pretty rubbish article to link if a lot of it is incorrect then.

1000 P/E cycles, using a the wear levelling algorithm built into the firmware of the drive would mean on a 1TB SSD, with a 32GB page file, you'd need to write the same file 32 times to cover one cycle before the same cell is re-used.
Haha almost bought it, thanks for the all the flash reminders.
Uncommon.Sense04/11/2019 20:55

Pretty rubbish article to link if a lot of it is incorrect then. 1000 P/E …Pretty rubbish article to link if a lot of it is incorrect then. 1000 P/E cycles, using a the wear levelling algorithm built into the firmware of the drive would mean on a 1TB SSD, with a 32GB page file, you'd need to write the same file 32 times to cover one cycle before the same cell is re-used.


hmmm.... page files in SSD. Lovely way to wear the cells out.
People talking about writing large files as a rarity please. Do none of you game? Games can easily have 12 GB patches for a start.
Uncommon.Sense04/11/2019 20:55

Pretty rubbish article to link if a lot of it is incorrect then. 1000 P/E …Pretty rubbish article to link if a lot of it is incorrect then. 1000 P/E cycles, using a the wear levelling algorithm built into the firmware of the drive would mean on a 1TB SSD, with a 32GB page file, you'd need to write the same file 32 times to cover one cycle before the same cell is re-used.


I assume you don't realize how frequently the page file is written while doing relatively normal things, like having 50 tabs in Chrome, a game open, a stream open, maybe some music?

Also, you are assuming most people haven't put 500+ GB of stuff on the HD. Who has a 1 TB SSD just for the page file?

Be more realistic here, I imagine someone has 300 GB free on their SSD. I've had a 1 TB NVME drive that I've had for half a year, it's not even the OS Drive and it's sitting at 475 GB free. I've got a 250 SSD for my OS, half is free, but I'm fine with that, it's a Samsung 830 Evo. Been working for donkies and I expect no issues for a while still.

So, let's give a reasonable 33% free space, so that's 10 cycles to fill the cache. You load in/out of cache a few times per day, easily. Not even remotely unreasonable.

Here's a fun, better, article btw.

techreport.com/rev…ad/

And before you say the Samsung sucked, it was the only TLC in the bunch, it held its weight very well. The Pro was insane too.
All this talk about lifespan, I've had an evo 850 in my laptop for 4yrs and it sees around 50hrs use per week. Is it about to die? Are there any utils to check it out?
Nate149205/11/2019 01:10

I assume you don't realize how frequently the page file is written while …I assume you don't realize how frequently the page file is written while doing relatively normal things, like having 50 tabs in Chrome, a game open, a stream open, maybe some music?Also, you are assuming most people haven't put 500+ GB of stuff on the HD. Who has a 1 TB SSD just for the page file?Be more realistic here, I imagine someone has 300 GB free on their SSD. I've had a 1 TB NVME drive that I've had for half a year, it's not even the OS Drive and it's sitting at 475 GB free. I've got a 250 SSD for my OS, half is free, but I'm fine with that, it's a Samsung 830 Evo. Been working for donkies and I expect no issues for a while still.So, let's give a reasonable 33% free space, so that's 10 cycles to fill the cache. You load in/out of cache a few times per day, easily. Not even remotely unreasonable.Here's a fun, better, article btw.https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead/And before you say the Samsung sucked, it was the only TLC in the bunch, it held its weight very well. The Pro was insane too.


You assume wrong, but the entire file is not re-written and the O/S does not control the location that it is written to the wear levelling algorithm does that, and it is based on a cell by cell basis not a sector based one.

Also I didn't assume there was no other data on the drive, but I do 'know' that data gets moved, and does not stay static, again this is done by the wear levelling algorithm to ensure the cells on the NAND are used equally over time. So you might leave what you think is permanent data on the drive, but it gets moved to allow the cells to wear at an even rate. To many people seem to think like they are using an old IDE hard drive, SSD's firmware was designed to make a limited life product (NAND) last as long as possible.

The article linked just goes to prove exactly why people thinking their drives will die quickly are wrong, you can easily grab an application to show just how much data is written to your drive, and figure out what sort of life span you have left. If something has 1000P/E cycles then it will be able to be used at least 1000 times, so in this case you have 1 million TB of write capability (1000 x 1000), if you filled the drive every single day it would still take 3 years to reach that. I know of no standard user that hits a 1000GB a day usage cycle.

I'm not sure how much data, you use per week, or day or your experience with SSD's but as that article shows, the lifespan of the NAND is way greater than expected, and if you look the drive size used was a typical ~240GB, which means you already have an advantage with a drive this size, albeit it not quite 4x due to the QLC nature of the cells. The Samsung 840 (non-Pro) did 300TB of writes before hitting an issues with 240GB of NAND available, but didn't die until after 800TB+ That means the entire drive was re-written ~3,333 times.

So in conclusion is QLC worse than TLC, yes. Is TLC worse than MLC, yes. Is MLC worse than SLC yes. Have you even, ever had a drive die from being written to, I haven't, and I work in the IT hardware industry, had plenty die from corrupt firmwares, and dodgy controllers, bad solder joints, power surges, the list goes on, but I've yet to have a report back saying NAND failed due to excessive wear.
Uncommon.Sense05/11/2019 08:16

You assume wrong, but the entire file is not re-written and the O/S does …You assume wrong, but the entire file is not re-written and the O/S does not control the location that it is written to the wear levelling algorithm does that, and it is based on a cell by cell basis not a sector based one.Also I didn't assume there was no other data on the drive, but I do 'know' that data gets moved, and does not stay static, again this is done by the wear levelling algorithm to ensure the cells on the NAND are used equally over time. So you might leave what you think is permanent data on the drive, but it gets moved to allow the cells to wear at an even rate. To many people seem to think like they are using an old IDE hard drive, SSD's firmware was designed to make a limited life product (NAND) last as long as possible.The article linked just goes to prove exactly why people thinking their drives will die quickly are wrong, you can easily grab an application to show just how much data is written to your drive, and figure out what sort of life span you have left. If something has 1000P/E cycles then it will be able to be used at least 1000 times, so in this case you have 1 million TB of write capability (1000 x 1000), if you filled the drive every single day it would still take 3 years to reach that. I know of no standard user that hits a 1000GB a day usage cycle.I'm not sure how much data, you use per week, or day or your experience with SSD's but as that article shows, the lifespan of the NAND is way greater than expected, and if you look the drive size used was a typical ~240GB, which means you already have an advantage with a drive this size, albeit it not quite 4x due to the QLC nature of the cells. The Samsung 840 (non-Pro) did 300TB of writes before hitting an issues with 240GB of NAND available, but didn't die until after 800TB+ That means the entire drive was re-written ~3,333 times. So in conclusion is QLC worse than TLC, yes. Is TLC worse than MLC, yes. Is MLC worse than SLC yes. Have you even, ever had a drive die from being written to, I haven't, and I work in the IT hardware industry, had plenty die from corrupt firmwares, and dodgy controllers, bad solder joints, power surges, the list goes on, but I've yet to have a report back saying NAND failed due to excessive wear.


Have I ever had a drive die to being written to? Absolutely.

How many QLC drives do you own? How many QLC drives does your company own?

If the answer isn't 0 for your company I would be appalled. If you have bought one, I'd still be shocked, but I'd love to hear you say you bought a QLC drive.

Recall where I said TLC can last 3000-5000 write cycles, then linked to an article that proved exactly that? Albeit a single sample size.

Who said about the data 'not moving around' or 'staying static'. The point is that once the drive gets more full, that entire process becomes more frequent, adding a 'write cycle' to the entire drive to move the more frequently used bytes around.

The 'SMART' controller does it all in the background, at no point have I claimed otherwise, I simply said your example wasn't accurate as you aren't considering drives with data on them. Think about it. If the SMART controller activates and moves stuff around every 100 times a partition is written, it would take inverse exponential writes to a drive as it fills up to trigger the SMART controller. Hopefully the SMART controller has some threshold where it stops moving the entire drive around, and maybe just targets a few sectors, but there are increased writes as the drive gets smaller.

You'll also see that the Samsung drive had a chunk 'die' well before the rest of it, suggesting that the SMART controller isn't doing that great of job of arranging the writing blocks in such a way to give 'even wear and tear'.
snatch_master05/11/2019 07:52

All this talk about lifespan, I've had an evo 850 in my laptop for 4yrs …All this talk about lifespan, I've had an evo 850 in my laptop for 4yrs and it sees around 50hrs use per week. Is it about to die? Are there any utils to check it out?


You'll be fine, it's not a QLC drive. We're talking about the difference between QLC (the QVO brand) and TLC (The EVO brand).
Nate149205/11/2019 08:49

You'll be fine, it's not a QLC drive. We're talking about the difference …You'll be fine, it's not a QLC drive. We're talking about the difference between QLC (the QVO brand) and TLC (The EVO brand).


Cool, I just checked and it has 6.5TB total writes and 7600hrs use so should be ok for a while.
snatch_master05/11/2019 08:52

Cool, I just checked and it has 6.5TB total writes and 7600hrs use so …Cool, I just checked and it has 6.5TB total writes and 7600hrs use so should be ok for a while.


Yeah, you good for at least another lifetime or two, you can always pass your drive to your grandchildren's children, should be a fully working antique by then.

If you'd bought this drive with the same usage pattern you might have only managed a single lifetime.
Edited by: "Uncommon.Sense" 5th Nov
This is amazon France posted on a uk site...
I have a high spec Samsung evo 1tb and works amazingly
Uncommon.Sense04/11/2019 20:46

Personally I would have just referred to the table inc the conclusion, it …Personally I would have just referred to the table inc the conclusion, it is either a junk article or one of the worst written "factual" pieces you could have linked, might as well have linked a Daily Fail article or a Donald Trump tweet, would carry the same credibility.


lolz
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text