Miglior M.2 prezzo/prestazioni

[marcosaurus]

Ciao!
Dovendo prendere un M.2 senza spendere un patrimonio, su cosa vi orientereste?
Sarei tentato dal Samsung 960 evo da 500gb, perché la versione pro costa troppo e la 250 non sembra così performante.
Ma non conosco ancora la disponibilità.

Su cosa vi orientereste?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[virgolanera]

Entro pochissimi giorni si dovrebbe iniziare a trovare sul web una recensione decente del Samsung 960 EVO 500GB con i driver Samsung NVMe 2.0. Se le prestazioni rilevate non saranno troppo distanti da quelle espresse dal modello da 1TB ti conviene prenderlo. Se invece assomiglierà più al modello da 250GB allora lascia stare e prendi seriamente in considerazione l'RD400 di OCZ.

[marcosaurus]

grazie Virgola. RD400 è versione 256, giusto?
Altrimenti il 960 PRO, che parte da 512.

[virgolanera]

L'RD 400 lo fanno fino a 1TB. Scegli quello che più ti è congeniale.

[giostark]

Qui pare gli abbiano dato un'occhiata:
Samsung SSD 960 Evo 500GB Review: The king of the TLC hill - TechSpot
Ma tanto e' stata data che il primo commento di qualcuno interessato per davvero sulla longevita' del prodotto, ha lamentato perplessita'.

BSim500 The 960 Pro 512GB model for example sports an endurance rating of 400 terabytes written and that figure has been halved for the 500GB Evo model. As such, the warranty period offered by Samsung has been reduced from five years to three.
Wait a minute, wasn't the warranty for the 850 EVO's (TLC) 5-years vs 10-year for PRO (MLC)? So is this shorter 3 year warranty now an admission of the 960 EVO's being even less durable than the 850 EVO's? What cell size does it use, still 40nm or has that been shrunk? Why no mention of this stuff?
In as little as 8 weeks, many people saw the read speeds of the Crucial BX200 (TLC) halving (like the Samsung 840's) and yet none of the tech sites that reviewed it on freshly written data even noticed:-

^ The issue with TLC based drives is no longer "you probably won't wear it out" (as in maximum lifespan writes), it's measurable TLC-related read speed slowdowns of "stale" data over several weeks / months as processes shrink. Samsung 850's avoided it by using large 40nm cells, but if they're shrinking those to match the "race to the bottom" rat race of 15-16nm planar drives (that are dirt cheap for a reason), then it could rear its ugly head again.
We are way overdue for another serious long-term SSD roundup test measuring this stuff, especially given the same tech sites pumping "the death of the HDD" clickbait can't figure out how unsuitable the cheapest drives are for 99% unpowered backup drives. Tech sites all benchmark on 5 minute old data, and yet in real life SSD's for both system and backup drives are used in the exact opposite way - a lot of stuff gets written in the first week that starts degrading over time (due to the nature of the tech), which is why it's important to measure it and related countermeasures (ie, does the firmware constantly rewrite old data, if so how much does that reduce endurance. If not, how much do the files slow down), etc.
^ The first tech site that does this stuff will get permanently ad-block white-listed for life. CrystalDiskMark charts showing one drive 4x faster [link] . Nor does "real world" benchmarks which involve reading back only 5 minute old data convey that one drive may then sustain those read speeds over a year whilst another drive completely fall apart after 3 months (which is exactly what's happening to some TLC vs MLC drives in "the real world").

• Reply

1 hour ago Staff
Steve TechSpot Editor
Wait a minute............................
WOW what a rant, that was a real work out for the first comment. FYI we condition all SSDs before testing, which is why the BX200 sucks so bad in our tests.

• Reply

48 minutes ago BSim500
WOW what a rant, that was a real work out for the first comment. FYI we condition all SSDs before testing, which is why the BX200 sucks so bad in our tests.
It's more of an expression of frustration, Steve, than a rant. Most sites that said "it sucked" did so not for the reasons mentioned (most of the same sites also gave glowing reviews to the Samsung 840 EVO's during launch month too). There have been large threads on other tech sites posting images of slowdowns over time of various TLC drives, there's a widespread "sour taste" in many people's mouths after the 840 debacle, and wanting long-term TLC reliability tests done as a response (not just SSD's but flash drives too) is hardly outrageous...
Easy to "shoot the messenger" but I notice the questions still remain unanswered : Why have all the warranties on the 960 drives almost halved vs the 850's (3yr TLC and 5yr MLC vs previous 5yr and 10yr)? Why is the 960 EVO now being treated by Samsung themselves as having "840 EVO Class reliability" based on warranty length (the ultimate "confidence litmus test")? What has changed technologically to cause this? What size process is the drive based on, 40nm? 25nm? Something else? Are we heading back downward in a "shrinking cell, reduced durability" trend again?
As you said yourself in your 850 PRO review "Power users concerned about the write limitations of any SSD will be pleased to learn that Samsung offers an incredible 10-year warranty with the 850 Pro SSD series and that right there is a very big deal." What's changed?

[marcosaurus]

Vediamo la review di nexthardware, comunque tra RD400 512 e 960 PRO 512, mi sembra che non ci sia molta differenza di prezzo, o sbaglio?
Il problema è che il 960 ancora non si trova.

Vorrei capire se il salto tra RD400 e 960 è importante o solo marginale.

[virgolanera]

Vorrei capire se il salto tra RD400 e 960 è importante o solo marginale.

Nell'uso normale quotidiano non ti accorgeresti di nulla.
Per quel che concerne la durata del drive (960 EVO 512GB) non c'è nulla da temere, a meno che tu non debba scrivere decine e decine di GB al giorno.

[marcosaurus]

Grazie, il problema è che i 960 (PRO o EVO) ancora non sono disponibili mentre OCZ sì.
Devo capire se usciranno a breve e a che prezzi.

[virgolanera]

I Samsung 960 EVO e PRO da 500GB e 512GB li danno disponibili entro il 15 Dicembre ad un prezzo, rispettivamente, di circa 290€ e 370€.

[marcosaurus]

Da quello che capisco l'RD400 512 è allineato al 960evo come prezzo, penso che posso prendere OCZ senza aspettare metà dicembre.

Per quanto riguarda installazione, vedo che OCZ fornisce anche una scheda PCI su cui montare ssd. Ma si tratta di una scheda per chi non ha M.2 sulla scheda madre?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk