MLC better for sata 2, then TLC?

[Brado78]

Hey Guys, I have a question. I have a Kingston V300 and a Samsung 850 evo, I am getting a more advanced board later on, My question is based on the following benchmarks, would it be safe to assume that MLC handles SATA 2 better than TLC?

KINGSTON V300

http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=...c#.VQDWpuEYG6Q

SAMSUNG 850 EVO

http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=...c#.VQDW4OEYG6Q

thanks guys

 

[Hulk]

SATA 2 is simply acting as a bottleneck. Both of those drives are "faster" than the SATA 2 interface for sequential transfers. Your results are close enough to pretty much be due to variation in runs.

It's really not worth more investigation but the V300 might be better at some random reads or writes that are below the SATA 2 "speed limit" while the 850 EVO might be better at some things above the SATA 2 "speed limit." So while the 850 EVO is the on average faster SSD, more of what makes it faster is above the SATA speed limit.

But really the scores are so close as the be statistically equivalent.

 

[Berryracer]

I wouldn't touch any TLC drive even if you paid me! utter junk

 

[VirtualLarry]

I wouldn't touch any TLC drive even if you paid me! utter junk

Yep!

 

[hojnikb]

I wouldn't touch any TLC drive even if you paid me! utter junk

Care to elaborate that ?

Cous TLC is not just a buzzword related to poor reliablity.

 

[Hulk]

I think they are referring to *all things being equal* the inherent lower endurance and data retention of TLC vs. MLC NAND. While one would assume manufacturers have designed their TLC products to be sufficient for consumer use the recent read issue of the 840EVO does lend some creedence to their opinion.

Of course all things are never equal and in this case the 40nm 3D NAND the 850EVO uses may be more robust than the much smaller process of the 840EVO.