The Samsung 860 QVO (1TB, 4TB) SSD Review: First Consumer SATA QLC
by Billy Tallis on November 27, 2018 11:20 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.
The Samsung 860 QVO has no trouble with the Light test when it is run on an empty drive, and the full-drive performance loss is not too bad: the 1TB 860 QVO remains ahead of the DRAMless TLC drive even when the drives are full.
The average and 99th percentile latency scores from the 860 QVO are no problem when the test is run on a full drive. They're substantially higher when the drives are full, but the latency is better-controlled than on the Intel/Micron QLC drives.
The average read and write latency scores from the 860 QVO are clearly different from the TLC drives for the full-drive test runs, but they don't stand out as significantly worse than what we've seen from some of the slower TLC drives.
The 99th percentile read latency on the 860 QVO is a sore spot when the drive is full, but the 99th percentile write latency doesn't get too far out of control, especially compared to the other two QLC drives.
All of the QLC drives use more energy than the TLC drives during the Light test, and especially when the drives are full and have more background work to do.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
stanleyipkiss - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link
Sell me a 8 TB QLC SSD for $400 and I'll bite. That's what QLC is for: moving off of spinning rust and onto SSDs with my bulk storage. Until then, this is useless without MASSIVE price drops. They are trying to milk saps who can't tell the difference between SSDs (i.e. normal consumers) by not dropping prices... yet.The race to the bottom for SSDs is coming. The manufacturers are just greedy enough not to want it to happen too soon.
But give me an 8TB or bigger SSD for $400 and I'll be the first to buy it. I'll even buy two!
R0H1T - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link
Yeah no one's selling you 8TB for $400 anytime soon. Aside from the fact that the R&D costs for QLC need to be recuperated first & companies need to reinvest an increasing amount for future development, there's also a point after which it doesn't make sense for the SSD, or NAND, maker to sell these at a loss.If you really want something that big, for dirt cheap, try spinners instead.
shabby - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link
How will they recoup the price when no one is going to buy this? The evo 860 is cheaper.R0H1T - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link
So you think the 860 QVO will stay at 15c/GB for the rest of it's time on the market or have you not seen high prices at launch, for any other product before this?shabby - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link
Obviously no, but why launch it at this price from the start. Should of launched it at $99 for 1tb that would probably get it some fanfare.R0H1T - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link
Early adopter tax? Samsung is usually the first to launch "one of a kind" products in the retail market & they get the ball rolling for many of the innovations in this industry. The prices would come down sooner if the competitors launch their SATA QLC drives quickly.shabby - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link
I doubt anyone will be rushing to the store to buy these.Ironchef3500 - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link
+1Jad77 - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link
"I doubt anyone will be rushing to the store to buy these."That is the perfect one-line review!
moozooh - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link
Yeah, the problem here is that the QVO is not a "one of a kind product"—in every possible aspect and scenario it's either the same as the EVO or worse, sometimes very substantially so, without being substantially cheaper. Right now there is exactly zero reason to choose it over the EVO. In order to compete with it favorably the QVO needs to be at least 25% cheaper to offset the disadvantages. In other words, under 11 c/GB. Until then nobody would be willing to give this inferior product the time of the day.