Jump to content

Samsung Caught Cheating SSD Buyers


Larry Shelby

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, cclarry said:

Actually the QVO's already have the QLC grade memory in them I believe...so no change there..
it's the EVO's that are supposed to have the TLC and were being made with the QLC grade

QVO, QLC, EVO, TCL...

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, the 970 EVO Plus (500GB) is 40% off at Amazon and I bought one before this was posted to replace my C drive. It should arrive tomorrow, so I will check the part number on it and benchmark it when I put it in the machine (probably this weekend). The specs on Amazon are pretty straightforward, so this should be an easy return if it isn't the real one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that the article on ExtremeTech is a bit misleading. The differences in real life scenarios are mostly either not noticeable or in favor of the new model.

According to some discussion on Hacker News, the new model is

Quote

[...] faster on every scenario but very long sequential writes where, after 115 GB your performance drops from 2.5GB/s to below 1 GB/s. The older drives dropped earlier (40 GB) from 1.75 to 1.5 GB/s.

An article on Tom's Hardware says:

Quote

While synthetic results showed a significant difference, the two revisions performed similarly in a real-world copy test with a 154GB video file.

Another article on Hexus says:

Quote

[...] new SSD is faster in workloads that involve transfers of 115GB of lower, which will be most of the time for most people [...]

Also, Samsung has made changes to the packaging, part numbers and the spec sheets, so you should be able to tell the models apart once you know what to look for.

If I was planning to buy a new SSD I'd go for the newer model.

Edited by Pseudopop
typo
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick feedback on the above. The 500GB EVO Plus I ordered didn't arrive till yesterday, and I just cloned/installed it (the PN from the above article only works on the 1TB model, so I blew it off and not sure if the article above also applies to the 500GB model anyway). The old drive was a WD Black 256 GB, but was throwing security errors (if rebooting, but not from a cold boot) and the Recovery partition was 453MB/500MB which was flagging it red in Macrium Reflect. I have two M.2 slots so pulled the F drive and used that as the clone slot. Cloned with Macrium Reflect and bumped up the Recovery partition to 1GB, and the Main partition to fill the rest of the drive. This video shows how to clone/reset partition size (I time stamped it at the partition size part if anyone is interested). Be sure to power down/unplug the machine when swapping any hardware!

Swapped drives, put the F back in and booted to the UEFI. Fast Boot was enabled, so disabled that (to ensure nothing was remembered from last boot), and the boot was already set to the new EVO Plus. Restarted and the machine ran identical as with the old drive (so far nothing has asked to re-register, etc.).

Now to the benchmarks. Samsung's Magician won't benchmark competitor drives anymore (used to), so could only test those two drives.

C Drive: 970 EVO Plus - Sequential Read: 3494 MB/s, Write: 3065 MB/s, Random Read: 125,732 IOPS, Write: 105,468 IOPS

F: 970 EVO (NOT Plus) was in x2 Mode - Sequential Read: 1764 MB/s, Write: 1707 MB/s, Random Read: 132,080 IOPS, Write: 111,572 IOPS

Didn't realize that drive was in x2 till the benchmark, so went back into UEFI and set to x4 mode (disables SATA 5/6 connections)

F: 970 EVO (NOT Plus) in x4 Mode - Sequential Read: 3502 MB/s, Write: 2536 MB/s, Random Read: 134,033 IOPS, Write: 115,478 IOPS

Bottom line: even in X4 mode, the EVO is not noticeably faster than the EVO Plus in the main drive slot and was actually slower for sequential writes.

That WD Black 256GB was actually a bonus item when I built the machine, and not exceptional to begin with. I may consider that one the "first SSD I toasted," since running SFC/DISM checks the past few months was throwing repairable errors.

 

Edited by mettelus
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...