3 ms·
From the Tom's article you linked to "Although the new version's SLC cache is 173% bigger, it offers 47% lower sustained write performance." So depending on y
by biaachmonkie 5y ago
From the Tom's article you linked to
"Although the new version's SLC cache is 173% bigger, it offers 47% lower sustained write performance."
So depending on your use case it can be a significant performance difference. Did you read your source?
What Samsung should have done it change the name and call it the "971 Evo Plus SSD" or "970 Evo Gold SSD" or some such change that distinguishes this new product with different performance characteristics than the actual "970 Evo Plus SSD".
But no they want to benefit from the good name and customer perception of the "970 Evo Plus SSD" while selling a substantially different product under that name. That is fraudulent behavior!
- BuckRogers 5y agoAnd the actual context from your quote- "As per the result, the old version started at 1,750 MBps and eventually dropped down to 1,500 MBps after the 40GB mark. On the new version, the drive steadily performed at 2,500 MBps, but once the 115GB SLC cache was exhausted, the SSD fell to 800 MBps." If you're unhappy about 1,750MBps->2,500MBps performance increases for <=115GB transfers, by all means, be upset. For me, and I think any reasonable person, this is an improvement for most users that don't typically work with >115GB contiguous transfers. And in their own test with a 154GB video file- "At the end of the day, everything balanced out and the new version finished the copying process just a hairline faster than the old version." Now I'm just having to repeat myself. Everyone can make their own determination. I don't really care what you buy honestly. If you find their SKU update and changes as fraudulent, file a lawsuit or wage an online crusade against Samsung. I don't see it, believe it's unfounded and won't be joining you in your quest. Good luck to you.