3 ms·
QLC is the new standard and shouldn't matter much for high capacities. Both depend on running a SLC write cache, once that's full the performance drops signifi
by Numerlor 2y ago
QLC is the new standard and shouldn't matter much for high capacities.
Both depend on running a SLC write cache, once that's full the performance drops significantly, a bit less so on TLC. Consumer ssds just aren't made for writes that cover a large portion of their capacity
- sgc 2y agoDoesn't that feel like theft though? The drive should be advertised as its fully useful capacity, with x Gb of overage - like turbo in a car or on my electric blower. I know I can't use it all the time, but it's there in a pinch. Then people who have specific use cases can oversaturate their drives like they overclock their processors.
- wtallis 2y agoSSDs get this cheap exactly by sacrificing excess performance and endurance. You can get some of that back by treating your 2TB drive as a 1.5TB drive. For most people, the tradeoffs chosen by the manufacturer make more sense.
- supertrope 2y agoIf a regulation like that is passed it would just result in asterisks and small print (* burst write speed 6500MB/sec, if SLC cache is filled due to non-stop bulk writing decreases to 1700MB/sec).
- gruez 2y agoThat's already the case today. All speeds are caveated with an "up to".
- torginus 2y agoNot really - I feel like vendors are pushing towards stacking more chips on top of each other rather than stuffing more data into a cell. QLC feels like a step too far - data retention, TBW lifetime and write speed after running out of SLC cache is horrible compared to TLC, for a 33% increase of capacity. When SSDs are literally cheap as chips, I'd gladly pay the premium for TLC.