SSD flash: TLC vs. MLC vs. SLC

All things storage here: hard drives, DVD RW drives, little wicker baskets.

Moderators: morphine, Steel

Re: SSD flash: TLC vs. MLC vs. SLC

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:46 pm

Wicked Mystic wrote:Samsung did same. While 830 was good, 840 is not.

Oh you mean the same Samsung 840 that is still kicking it after 600TB worth of torture? I've had my 830 for more than 2 years now and barely even written 5TB to it. My needs would have easily been met with a Samsung 840 at a far lower price point.
Firestarter
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:12 am

Re: SSD flash: TLC vs. MLC vs. SLC

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:07 pm

Firestarter wrote:
Wicked Mystic wrote:Samsung did same. While 830 was good, 840 is not.

Oh you mean the same Samsung 840 that is still kicking it after 600TB worth of torture?

... and has passed the 3-week data retention test, along with the other SSDs.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
morphine
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9932
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: SSD flash: TLC vs. MLC vs. SLC

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:02 pm

morphine wrote:
Firestarter wrote:
Wicked Mystic wrote:Samsung did same. While 830 was good, 840 is not.

Oh you mean the same Samsung 840 that is still kicking it after 600TB worth of torture?

... and has passed the 3-week data retention test, along with the other SSDs.

what a terrible, HORRIBLE SSD
Firestarter
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:12 am

Re: SSD flash: TLC vs. MLC vs. SLC

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:05 pm

Yeah man, a few bad blocks after 600 terabytes of writes. Useless, I say.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
morphine
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9932
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: SSD flash: TLC vs. MLC vs. SLC

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:56 pm

Only 3 weeks, need the data retention to be at least 3 decades! Anything less is "crap".
Image
The Model M is not for the faint of heart. You either like them or hate them.

Gerbils unite! Fold for UnitedGerbilNation, team 2630.
Flying Fox
Gerbil God
 
Posts: 24284
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am

Re: SSD flash: TLC vs. MLC vs. SLC

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:42 pm

morphine wrote:... and has passed the 3-week data retention test, along with the other SSDs.

To be fair, there's no way a 3-week test is long enough.

Not that TR can do anything different, but this says nothing about the long-term stability of the data on the drive.
Z68XP-UD4 | 2700K @ 4.4 GHz | 16 GB | 770 | PCP&C Silencer 950 | XSPC RX360 | Heatkiller R3 | D5 + RP-452X2 | HAF 932 | 1 TB WD Black w/ SRT
Waco
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm

Re: SSD flash: TLC vs. MLC vs. SLC

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:48 pm

I disagree - keep in mind that the drives have been getting constantly hammered and the data retention test came positive after 600 (500?) TB.

If the drives weren't being hit hard during all this time, then yes, it wouldn't say much.
Last edited by morphine on Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed typo
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
morphine
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9932
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: SSD flash: TLC vs. MLC vs. SLC

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:31 pm

What I learned today is that they should have renamed MLC into DLC. For the lulz err consistency!
jihadjoe
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:34 am

gonna just lay this out there

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:56 pm

A good SSD* model on average is more reliable than a hard drive, its been long enough and shown with real world use.

Some hard drives from a sample may last longer, but given tech improvements data is always moving forward onto newer hardware. (in enterprise 5+ year retention policies are done with tape and not really relevant to the comparison)

(*for starters, non-OCZ brands, but some others are suspect as well)
blah blah blah signature blah blah blah
Bauxite
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: electrolytic redox smelting plant

Re: First Build

Postposted on Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:09 am

Wicked Mystic wrote:...we do know that MLC > TLC, that is a fact. So why spend more on worse TLC product? If TLC stuff is cheaper, it's OK. Now it's more expensive. So?

I hate to poke a sleeping bear, but the reason the 840 EVOs are not cheaper than competing MLC SSDs is because there's no price competition. TLC is inherently cheaper to manufacture, but Samsung only has to compete with the existing market, which is still mostly MLC. In the meantime, Samsung enjoys higher profit margins.
Also, the reason the 840 EVO isn't the cheapest SSD on the market is because of Samsung's brand recognition and reputation. Because of this, they don't need to beat everyone on price. As long as they're close to the bottom, many people will spend a few extra bucks for a Samsung drive. That's marketing.

I don't disagree with any of your statements regarding NAND longevity (even though your wording is a bit apocalyptic). Problem is, your claims are too technical-focused. There are many other factors that affect buyer decisions. As long as the NAND can withstand typical consumer/enthusiast workloads for (warranty) years and then some, I'm not sure anyone is going to care. Heck the 840 (non-EVO) lasted through 300TB of writes before it's first fail and is still going strong at 600TB (retention test longevity notwithstanding). The 840 EVO has an additional layer of SLC NAND to reduce write amplification so it would predictably fare better than the 840.
Last edited by DPete27 on Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-m, Asus GTX660 TOP, 120 GB Vertex 3 Max IOPS, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 8GB G-Skill @1.25V, Silverstone PS07B
DPete27
Gerbil Jedi
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Re: SSD flash: TLC vs. MLC vs. SLC

Postposted on Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:18 pm

I can confidently say that for 99.999% of consumers, TLC vs MLC is irrelevant.

The whole concept of SSDs could well be extinct by the time you wear out the NAND. Far more likely is a controller failure caused by manufacturing defect, poor firmware, power surges etc.
I think the reason Samsung TLC drives are more expensive than MLC alternatives is because people recognise Samsung's manufacturing quality, QC, validation testing and regular firware updates to improve the (already excellent) stability.
<insert large, flashing, epileptic-fit-inducing signature (based on the latest internet-meme) here>
Chrispy_
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1751
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm

Previous

Return to Storage

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest