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.
Main: i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-M, Asus GTX660 TOP, 500GB Crucial BX100, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 16GB 1600MHz G.Skill @1.25V, Silverstone PS07B
HTPC: A8-5600K, MSI FM2-A75IA-E53, 4TB Seagate SSHD, 8GB 1866MHz G.Skill, Hand-Built Wood Case