6 ms·
The important quote: > The models that never lost data: Samsung 970 EVO Pro 2TB and WD Red SN700 1TB. I always buy the EVO Pro’s for external drives and use T
by hughrr 5y ago
The important quote:
> The models that never lost data: Samsung 970 EVO Pro 2TB and WD Red SN700 1TB.
I always buy the EVO Pro’s for external drives and use TB to NVMe bridges and they are pretty good.
- Trellmor 5y agoThere is a 970 Evo, a 970 Pro and a 970 Evo Plus, but no 970 Evo Pro as far as I am aware. Would be interesting what model OP is actually talking about and if it is the same for other Samsung NMVe SSDs. I also prefer Samsung SSDs because they are reliably and they usually don't change parts to lower spec ones while keeping the same model number like some other vendors.
- hughrr 5y agoSorry I should have said EVO plus there in my original post. I’ll leave the error in so your comment makes sense.
- fuzzybear3965 5y agoHow do you know the model? People are asking the same question in Twitter and OP doesn't seem to have supplied an answer, then.
- zargon 5y agoThe "EVO Pro" error was made by the OP. So it would be nice to know which drive OP actually tested.
- qwertox 5y agoI mostly buy Samsung Pro. Today I put an Evo in a box which I'm sending back for RMA because of damaged LBAs. I guess I'm stopping my tests on getting anything else but the Pros. But IIRC Samsung was also called out for switching controllers last year. "Yes, Samsung Is Swapping SSD Parts Too | Tom's Hardware"
- RachelF 5y agoAnd watch out with the 980 Pro, Samsung has just changed the components. Samsung have removed the Elpis controller from the 980 PRO and replaced it with an unknown one, and also removed any speed reference from the spec sheet. Take a look here for what's changed on the 980 PRO: https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=news&action=file&id=4489 https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=news&action=file&id=4489... It's OK for them to do this, but then they should give the new product a new name, not re-use the old name so that buying it becomes a "silicon lottery" as far as performance goes.
- Trellmor 5y agoLink seems to be broken, shows a picture of the note 10 for me. I guess you wanted to link this one [1]. I knew about the changed controller in the 970 Evo Plus, but I wasn't aware they also changed the 980 Pro. That's disappointing. Is there anyone left that isn't doing those shenanigans? [1] https://i.imgur.com/YJShyLR.jpg https://i.imgur.com/YJShyLR.jpg
- xenadu02 5y agoSorry, it was the 970 Evo Plus. Here are the exact model and date codes from the drives: Samsung 970 Evo Plus: MZ-V7S2T0, 2021.10 WD Red: WDS100T1R0C-68BDK0, 04Sept2021
- hughrr 5y agoThanks for confirming - appreciated!
- willis936 5y agoWhich drives were tested/confirmed to lose data? Did a Samsung Pro drive have this behavior?
- xenadu02 5y agoThese two drives never lost FLUSH'd writes in any test I ran.
- willis936 5y agoWhat drives did you test?
- fulafel 5y agoIn the Twitter thread it's explained they don't want to name the vendors who failed the test ATM.
- MageSlayer 5y agoPerhaps, it's the author does not want to name vendors which fail giving them time to contact him with some attractive suggestions. Or I am too suspicious? :)
- willis936 5y agoI see they don't want a "thing", but that hardly seems to be a reason to not name names. Is there some special status of companies that the non-conformant status of their devices should be private? It turning into a "thing" sounds like a net win for consumers.