TLC SSD == garbage?

[PliotronX]

Some are quite good. Beware Toshiba though. I cant think of a single product they have that is better than mediocre.

My Q-Series was the first SSD I bought, it was a NE shellshocker in 2013 and it performs just fine. No hangups during long transfers, hitches, crashes, "missing drive" BIOS issues. It's been better than mediocre. They just tend to overcharge for their Q-Series. I jumped on it because it was $80 for 120GB when the bottom of the barrel drives like Kingston V300s were $90-110.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I wouldn't say they're trash, however 840EVO has documented history of problems and since I value my data integrity I'd rather pay a little extra MLC. There is not that much difference price difference between TLC and MLC to justify the savings.

 

[coercitiv]

since I value my data integrity I'd rather pay a little extra MLC. There is not that much difference price difference between TLC and MLC to justify the savings.

since I value my data integrity I'd rather pay a little extra for SLC. There is not that much difference price difference between MLC and SLC to justify the savings.

People who value their data integrity use backups. Its both cheaper and safer.

 

[PliotronX]

since I value my data integrity I'd rather pay a little extra for SLC. There is not that much difference price difference between MLC and SLC to justify the savings.

People who value their data integrity use backups. Its both cheaper and safer.

Apples and oranges because SLC is not just a little more expensive. Agree on backups though.

 

[Beer4Me]

Didn't Western Digital purchase Hitachi Global Storage Tech (HGST)? HGST owned Toshiba's storage assets, so now WD owns HGST which in turns owns Toshiba. WD, of course, also owns Sandisk. But everyone knows this, it was one of the largest tech buy-outs evar\111!!!!

Edit: Sorry for thread derail...

 

[coercitiv]

Apples and oranges because SLC is not just a little more expensive.

Moving from SLC to MLC you gain 100% more storage space.
Moving from MLC to TLC you gain 50% more storage.

How is that apples and oranges?

 

[PliotronX]

Moving from SLC to MLC you gain 100% more storage space.
Moving from MLC to TLC you gain 50% more storage.

How is that apples and oranges?

SLC is in an entirely different pricing field, it's not just "a little more expensive," it's to the point of impracticality.

 

[arandomguy]

I don't understand the above argument. Are you saying you feel that, as a generality, TLC products are actually offering significant price savings for the end consumer compared to MLC products?

Competition will likely/hopefully eventually drive the larger share of savings to the consumer but right now it seems the producers benefit from the savings more.

I think the recent Sandisk Ultra II sales have been the first time TLC has given the consumer large savings compared to MLC alternatives. Well arguably the 850 EVO as well now with price drops in the V-NAND space but Samsung is really just competing against itself with V-NAND at the moment.

Didn't Western Digital purchase Hitachi Global Storage Tech (HGST)? HGST owned Toshiba's storage assets, so now WD owns HGST which in turns owns Toshiba. WD, of course, also owns Sandisk. But everyone knows this, it was one of the largest tech buy-outs evar\111!!!!

Edit: Sorry for thread derail...

I think Toshiba's flash business was always separate. WD also let Toshiba require it's hard drive assets. Toshiba later then purchased OCZ while WD purchased Sandisk. So the only relation would still be the joint flash business venture with Toshiba and Sandisk

 

[Magic Carpet]

since I value my data integrity I'd rather pay a little extra for SLC.[/B]

I don't see SLC-based drives in the market. Can you name a few modern ones?

 

[coercitiv]

SLC is in an entirely different pricing field, it's not just "a little more expensive," it's to the point of impracticality.

I don't see SLC-based drives in the market. Can you name a few modern ones?

And why do you think that is? What do you think will happen when TLC reaches current MLC endurance? Hint: 2-bit MLC in enterprise solutions only while this forum debates whether 4-bit MLC is garbage.

 

[PliotronX]

And why do you think that is? What do you think will happen when TLC reaches current MLC endurance? Hint: 2-bit MLC in enterprise solutions only while this forum debates whether 4-bit MLC is garbage.

I don't follow, your original statement was that SLC models were a little more expensive than MLC equivalent capacities, then followed up with a 50% statement. I'm not sure what your definition of a little more expensive is, but SLC has been relegated to the enterprise sector where the cost is 800% more for equivalent capacities. I'm saying your original statement is false and does not belong in the discussion, not about the merits of SLC longevity.

 

[coercitiv]

I don't follow, your original statement was that SLC models were a little more expensive than MLC equivalent capacities, then followed up with a 50% statement. I'm not sure what your definition of a little more expensive is, but SLC has been relegated to the enterprise sector where the cost is 800% more for equivalent capacities. I'm saying your original statement is false and does not belong in the discussion, not about the merits of SLC longevity.

My original statement was a mirror copy of you statement, with reversed terms for NAND tech terms. It was meant to highlight a rather superficial way of evaluating this technology.

You then proceeded to define SLC tech as prohibitively expensive, which it only is because we are comparing consumer vs. enterprise products. Consumer SLC drives are extinct, and consumer 2-bit MLC drives are likely next.

 

[redzo]

Consumer SLC drives are extinct, and consumer 2-bit MLC drives are likely next.

I would add: SLC enterprise is almost at its last heart beat. It will probably live long and prosper in some specific industrial storage application.

 

[Topweasel]

I agree.



I don't know how you've come to this conclusion. There are a number of TLC drives that perform quite well. The SanDisk Ultra II, and 850 Evo...heck even the older 840-non-pros perform well!

That's all controller performance. The fact that all manufacturers had space and price competitive MLC drives compared to the TLC drives you listed. A MX100 or M550 was right there with the 840 Evo in price, so why get a drive with less write tolerance and a drastically lowered cold storage allowance. The fact that the 840 and 840 evo had data integrity issues with stale data even in a constant powered state just compound the issue.

TLC requires more work to perform faster, data lasts less time, and has less writes. On top of that there has been nearly no consumer savings between TLC and MLC drives except when comparing them within brand where they can charge more for the "pro" version. So even in a perfect world there just isn't a strong case to go TLC over MLC. On top of that 3dnand removes the need for it. If Samsung can go back to 40nm and add upwards of 40 layers (they won't move off of 40nm until after 2020). Then there is not almost no need, there is no need to offer TLC other than to create a feature difference between two offerings. Even if the move to 40nm removes the data retention and write worries.

 

[Topweasel]

Deleted. Someone already Responded with the same response.

 

[Topweasel]

My original statement was a mirror copy of you statement, with reversed terms for NAND tech terms. It was meant to highlight a rather superficial way of evaluating this technology.

You then proceeded to define SLC tech as prohibitively expensive, which it only is because we are comparing consumer vs. enterprise products. Consumer SLC drives are extinct, and consumer 2-bit MLC drives are likely next.

Consumer SLC drives got rapidly passed up by MLC in storage space and cost that then relegated it to enterprise usage. MLC hasn't had that happen and TLC has been out for a while now. It seems like their should be a larger price difference but there hasn't been. Maybe Samsung for example has been eating up all the Margin there. My guess would have been the other way around if it wasn't for v-nand and the like. As processes continued to shrink they would have had to stick with MLC and eventually moved back the SLC for integrity sake.

I get what you are saying though. SLC was passed up for a configuration that had less data stability in a powered off state, less write allowance, for the sake of holding more information. Eventually you hit diminishing returns sadly at 14nm that is TLC. Any smaller a process and it just wouldn't have worked.

 

[ViRGE]

Consumer SLC drives got rapidly passed up by MLC in storage space and cost that then relegated it to enterprise usage. MLC hasn't had that happen and TLC has been out for a while now. It seems like their should be a larger price difference but there hasn't been. Maybe Samsung for example has been eating up all the Margin there. My guess would have been the other way around if it wasn't for v-nand and the like. As processes continued to shrink they would have had to stick with MLC and eventually moved back the SLC for integrity sake.

I get what you are saying though. SLC was passed up for a configuration that had less data stability in a powered off state, less write allowance, for the sake of holding more information. Eventually you hit diminishing returns sadly at 14nm that is TLC. Any smaller a process and it just wouldn't have worked.

Also, keep in mind that SLC is still with us to this day, just not as dedicated SLC drives. Instead SLC is used as a cache for TLC, because TLC is too slow to write to directly.

 

[StrangerGuy]

They are garbage because the obvious intent is to replace MLCs SSDs with TLC SSD while phasing the former out and keeping the prices the same. Let's not pretend one bit that corporations are greedy assholes that will sell their proverbial moms to save a buck.

 

[coercitiv]

They are garbage because the obvious intent is to replace MLCs SSDs with TLC SSD while phasing the former out and keeping the prices the same.

Are you saying prices have stayed the same in the last year?

 

[Vanex]

Hi,
I'm running on a 840 evo and here are the results after 4279 power on hours and 7292 GB written.

my planar TLC SSD is running at HALF speed and even worse.. this after "Performance Restoration" tool and new firmware update via Magician (DB6Q).

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

That looks a bit odd.

You could run DiskFresh to see if that brings the speed up to where it should be.

And have you checked how fast the SSD can read old files manually, as in transferring files from it?
Because I had an issue with HD Tach and HDTune showing low read speeds for an SSD even though those files had been written just minutes before testing.
When I transferred files from that SSD to another SSD however, read speeds were exactly as they should have been.
And a few weeks later maybe, HDTune and HD Tach started to show accurate read speeds for it.

Don't know if I think it is likely that would be the cause for your results but it might be worth trying at least.