Storage Solutions QLC SSD reliability

G

guest_999

Adept
enthusiast29 said:
500TBW is enough. Even if you write 100GB per day the drive is going to last 13+ years.
Click to expand...
Never make the mistake of co-relating a ssd reliability with its TBW rating. TBW rating is purely a number agreed upon by technical & marketing team & has nothing to with reliability of a ssd. Though ssd failure rate is typically lesser than hdd but when they fail they do so suddenly & without any warning so always keep backup of important data in another drive/cloud storage.
 
guest_999 said:
Never make the mistake of co-relating a ssd reliability with its TBW rating. TBW rating is purely a number agreed upon by technical & marketing team & has nothing to with reliability of a ssd. Though ssd failure rate is typically lesser than hdd but when they fail they do so suddenly & without any warning so always keep backup of important data in another drive/cloud storage.
Click to expand...
Let's not make this a debate here. I didn't say anything about reliability here. Didn't even use the word.
People say QLC is bad just because of low TBW rating and less speed when heavy write scenarios but it totally depends on your use-case. I didn't read any spec sheet but have calculated myself

1696877288704.png


This drive is not good for video production use case but is totally fine as a normal storage OR a game drive.
 
guest_999 said:
Though ssd failure rate is typically lesser than hdd but when they fail they do so suddenly & without any warning so always keep backup of important data in another drive/cloud storage.
Click to expand...
Dam you reminded me of my primary SSD failure where I lost important company data few years back. At the time it was in warranty but didn't took a chance for RMA for possible data leak.
Anyways I just copied important data from one of my SSD to another drive as backup, thanks for reminder :)
 
enthusiast29 said:
Cheap and a good game drive. Using it personally since more than a year.
500TBW is enough. Even if you write 100GB per day the drive is going to last 13+ years.
Click to expand...
I agree but QLC is slower and usually have less cache. When TLC SSDs are not much expensive than QLC then I don't think it makes sense to buy QLC unless the difference is large.
 
enthusiast29 said:
Let's not make this a debate here. I didn't say anything about reliability here. Didn't even use the word.
People say QLC is bad just because of low TBW rating and less speed when heavy write scenarios but it totally depends on your use-case. I didn't read any spec sheet but have calculated myself
Click to expand...
It wasn't my intention. All I was saying was TLC/QLC/TBW, it doesn't matter as long as your usage scenarios match with performance of the drives.
 
Ir0nMerc said:
I agree but QLC is slower and usually have less cache. When TLC SSDs are not much expensive than QLC then I don't think it makes sense to buy QLC unless the difference is large.
Click to expand...
The question is not which has better specs. The question is is it worth spending extra for a GAME DRIVE and does it make a practical difference.

For a game drive it doesn't matter if you have:
  • enterprise SLC drive
  • TLC + SLC cache
  • QLC + small SLC cache
  • and with/without DRAM
Heck you won't even be able to tell if it's just a SATA SSD. So there's no benefit to spending extra for a dedicated game drive.

SLC cache filling up is really only a concern when moving large amounts of data. When was the last time you copied a file to a game drive that and filled the cache? If you are a normal gamer, downloading games will never saturate that cache since your write speed will be limited by your internet speed. If you are transferring game library from HDD to SDD, again you won't fill up the cache.

TLDR: choose a component based on the need, not just looking at specs.
  • If you need a general purpose secondary drive, get TLC.
  • If you need a game drive specifically, get a bigger QLC "for a little bit more" (Oh how the turn tables...)
 
Back
Top