Wicked Mystic wrote:
19nm class will probably be even less durable than predecessors.
There have been many faulty hard drive and also SSD series. Samsung Evo is only one that uses TLC chips. Why take risk with untested technogy?
I've been saying this for ages (usually to a massive chorus of downvotes).
Samsung claims 1000-3000 write cycles for its 2x nm TCL flash (original 840), yet the TR endurance test drive started wearing out blocks and accumulating errors after only 400 write cycles (average). This is 5 times worse than the median projected endurance! I'm surprised more eyebrows haven't been raised at this.
They also claim the same 1000-3000 write cycle endurance for the 19 nm 840 EVO, which I find even less believable seeing as smaller process usually leads to smaller electron wells and thus earlier denaturing. Granted, the 840 EVO has less write amplification, but I'm talking about cell-level endurance here, which would likely be worse.
While the average user will probably never hit the 100 TB write mark for their SSD, TLC is still a less reliable technology than MLC, and since there are equivalently performing MLC drives from $120-140 for 240-256 GB models, I just don't see why anyone would pay $153 for the 840 EVO.
Remember that when the 840 came out, it was slower *and* less reliable than the 830 that it replaced. This is Samsung being complacent and coasting on the reputation they had built up on past products (which, admittedly, have been excellent).
To this date, no one else has used TLC on their desktop SSDs other than Samsung, not even Toshiba, which fabs TLC NAND for other applications (EDIT: Toshiba also fabs toggle level NAND, which is not to be mistaken with TLC (Tri-level cell) NAND).
Wind, Sand and Stars.