Your Next SSD Might Be Slower (Thanks to QLC Flash)

RainbowPride said:

My current MB has a slot for it, I just don't have the money to get one, or I would already be using it. I'm going to end up getting the Asus Crosshair VIII Hero, and that one has 2 M.2 slots.

When you get it, you'll love it.

ignatzatsonic said:

I don't see any reason not to use QLC for storage in most home user situations. If money were no object, sure, go for SLC or MLC. Price is an object for me.

Price check large capacity (at least 1 TB) NVMe SSDs and see what you can find. QLC is a LOT cheaper at the 2 TB size.

At the 250 GB size, the price difference between the fastest and slowest m2 NVMe drives might be 30 bucks (circa 50 versus circa 80), so maybe you spend the extra 30 on the boot drive.

The Samsung 970 Evo and Evo Plus both use MLC.

I think WD SN750 may use TLC?

Intel 760p is TLC

Intel 660p is QLC

You will see complaints about relatively low TBW (total writes in TB) on QLC drives---but if you write say 10 TB per year, why would you be concerned about a TBW of 200?

I've written an average of under 5 TB per year on my boot drive over the last 3 years. And I write under 3 TB per year to my data drive.

Your points are valid. As an archival storage device, the larger (2/4TB QLC) are very Byte to Buck competitive. I would not use one as boot device or as a heavy use daily on-demand drive. Example, putting my User folders and the like on one. They have a niche..... inexpensive (relatively) off-line storage or in a situation on-line where the vast majority of use is reads. It's the writes on these QLCs that'll kill 'em. They have a market, as do the SLC/MLC 250GB/500GB boot SSDs.