AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The Samsung 860 QVO has no trouble with the Light test when it is run on an empty drive, and the full-drive performance loss is not too bad: the 1TB 860 QVO remains ahead of the DRAMless TLC drive even when the drives are full.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores from the 860 QVO are no problem when the test is run on a full drive. They're substantially higher when the drives are full, but the latency is better-controlled than on the Intel/Micron QLC drives.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

The average read and write latency scores from the 860 QVO are clearly different from the TLC drives for the full-drive test runs, but they don't stand out as significantly worse than what we've seen from some of the slower TLC drives.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency on the 860 QVO is a sore spot when the drive is full, but the 99th percentile write latency doesn't get too far out of control, especially compared to the other two QLC drives.

ATSB - Light (Power)

All of the QLC drives use more energy than the TLC drives during the Light test, and especially when the drives are full and have more background work to do.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
POST A COMMENT

109 Comments

View All Comments

  • R0H1T - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    >moozooh
    QVO is the first SATA QLC drive, so yeah first of it's kind unless we're being pedantic. As for the price ~ it should & will likely come down soon enough.

    >Right now there is exactly zero reason to choose it over the EVO.

    The 500GB EVO costs about $130 US where I'm from, there's very little incentive for me to buy it given the "inflated" price.
    Reply
  • moozooh - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    > "QVO is the first SATA QLC drive, so yeah first of it's kind unless we're being pedantic."
    The fact that it's the first or the only doesn't matter to anyone who's buying things based on anything resembling a performance/price ratio. It's the first to be inferior to an already existing product. Who would be the early adopter of something that's clearly worse than something else that costs more or less the same?

    > the price ~ it should & will likely come down soon enough
    So why didn't Samsung recommend a lower price to begin with, considering how badly this products needs it? I'm sure they follow the market close enough to see this series competes with their own EVO (and loses hands-down).

    > The 500GB EVO costs about $130 US where I'm from, there's very little incentive for me to buy it given the "inflated" price.
    Yet this makes the QVO more attractive for you, especially considering it doesn't even feature a 500 GB model? I don't understand your argument. The point is this drive needs to be much, much cheaper than the EVO to be attractive at all. The downsides of the QLC NAND are numerous and significant; they need to be offset using the price. It's also clear this is where the multi-bit madness should end, because QLC is already encroaching onto the HDD territory in certain aspects (except the price, sadly) and scenarios. If PLC were a thing, I'd most likely stay away from it even if it were cheaper than hard drives. That's just asking for trouble, like those glass platters in IBM's Deskstar 75GXP (one of the most disastrous HDD series of all time).
    Reply
  • R0H1T - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    >The fact that it's the first or the only doesn't matter to anyone who's buying things based on anything resembling a performance/price ratio.

    The fact is you quoted me when I said first of a kind, which holds true for this drive, end of!

    >So why didn't Samsung recommend a lower price to begin with, considering how badly this products needs it?

    I dunno, how about you ask Samsung why didn't they sell the 860 EVO for $130 at launch?

    >Yet this makes the QVO more attractive for you, especially considering it doesn't even feature a 500 GB model?

    Yes because the QVO model, when it launches here, should be cheaper ($/GB) than the EVO drives. It's not like I can't afford $130 drive, but the 1TB or 2TB would be better VFM for me, considering I'm looking to replace some HDDs permanently. The EVOs would probably still be 40~60% more expensive.
    Reply
  • moozooh - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    > The fact is you quoted me when I said first of a kind, which holds true for this drive, end of!
    Once again, the fact that I'm pointing out is that it is a non-argument. Early adopter premium only exists for something that such an early adopter would want to have NO MATTER THE COST. Such as a new feature or better performance with existing features. Here, the cost is the ONLY thing an early adopter would want about it and the only potential advantage, period. Why do you not see how you're not making sense? "One of a kind" is an idiotic argument to use for the product that's intended to be cheaper, not better.

    > I dunno, how about you ask Samsung why didn't they sell the 860 EVO for $130 at launch?
    They launched the 860 EVO at the same time with the 860 Pro with a significant enough difference in MSRP that one didn't cannibalize the other, and the EVO was also fast enough to overtake most of the competition widely available at that price point. So the pricing made sense at the time, not so much here.

    > The EVOs would probably still be 40~60% more expensive.
    Hopefully so, but Samsung's lack of aggression and insight in undercutting their own existing product is disappointing. They are well aware of the going price of the EVO.
    Reply
  • R0H1T - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    >moozooh

    We're forgetting arguably the most important thing ~ yields. There were some (unconfirmed) reports that QLC yields were below par, so it's quite possible that these products being priced so close to TLC drives is a result of that.
    Reply
  • moozooh - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    I don't really think yields are important. It's not an attribute for customer to base their decisions on, it's not something that can be tested or seen, and needn't be either—it's the manufacturer's problem. After all, customers aren't altruists and aren't out there to help Samsung or any other vendor do their business—what they need to care about is that the products they buy are priced fairly. Samsung won't convince anyone to overpay for QLC because the yields are too low to justify a fair price.

    Two possible ways to handle this launch better would be either to bite the bullet and suggest a sensible MSRP from the get go or stabilize the technology before coming out with the product and selling it at a healthy margin. Either way there won't be many people buying this until it's sufficiently cheap so the difference isn't as big as it might feel.
    Reply
  • FullmetalTitan - Thursday, November 29, 2018 - link

    'Yields don't matter to initial consumer product pricing' is a pretty spicy take.
    It doesn't matter whether the consumers want to be altruistic (definitely not the correct usage here), this is the price if you want high density SSD storage in a single unit, like it or not. You clearly don't, so kindly shut up and move on.
    Reply
  • Manch - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    If the 500GB EVO is double the going price in your area, what makes you think the 860 QVO won't be?

    Me thinks, you've dug a hole. Stop digging LOL
    Reply
  • R0H1T - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    >double the going price

    Double the what? Do you know the price 860 EVO debuted in every country of the world, now can you guess the price QVO would retail for?

    How about you stop assuming $130 US (1TB) is the normal EVO price everywhere around the world? Then stop reaching.
    Reply
  • s.yu - Saturday, December 1, 2018 - link

    If you're knowingly buying from an expensive source, you're buying it wrong. If you insist on buying it wrong, then stop wasting other people's time with your BS.
    Time to hit eBay, nowadays Taobao may help.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now