Conclusion

QLC NAND flash memory is still something of a novelty, even for entry-level consumer SSDs. It provides cheaper, denser storage than mainstream TLC NAND, but building a well-rounded QLC SSD is a tougher challenge. In the same way that Samsung's EVO SSDs are usually the TLC drives to beat, the 870 QVO is the QLC SATA drive to beat. But most manufacturers aren't even trying, preferring to cut different corners when designing entry-level SSDs. Far more popular than using the relatively recent development of QLC NAND is the technique of using a DRAMless SSD architecture, eliminating the RAM buffer that Samsung instead splurges on to implement with the latest and greatest LPDDR versions.

So it should come as no surprise that the strengths and weaknesses of the 870 QVO fall in different areas that are typical for entry-level drives. The most acute performance problems occur when the drive is asked to write more data than can fit in its SLC cache, and then the abysmal write performance of QLC NAND is laid bare. By contrast, many entry-level DRAMless SSDs that use TLC NAND have decent sustained write performance, and most tend to suffer worst on random IO workloads.

Overall, it's hard to say whether the 870 QVO offers a better performance profile than other typical entry-level SATA SSDs. Its best-case performance is better but its worst case performance is worse. The 870 QVO does have the advantage that its weaknesses are a bit more predictable, since they almost all stem from the poor write speed of QLC NAND. DRAMless SSDs can be quite variable, as shown by the pair included in this review.

Compared to the 860 QVO, the original QLC SATA consumer SSD, the 870 QVO is an improvement in almost all respects, but only a modest incremental improvement. It smooths over some of the rough edges of the 860 QVO and doesn't bring too many new surprises. Samsung has definitely proven that consumer QLC SSDs are viable, even if they don't have a clear winner.

SATA SSD Price Comparison
(June 30, 2020)
  0.5 TB 1 TB 2 TB 4 TB
Samsung 870 QVO   $129.99
(13¢/GB)
$249.99
(12¢/GB)
$499.99
(12¢/GB)
Samsung 860 QVO   $124.99
(12¢/GB)
$249.99
(12¢/GB)
$479.99
(12¢/GB)
ADATA SU750/SU760 $54.99
(11¢/GB)
$94.99
(9¢/GB)
   
ADATA SU800 $64.98
(13¢/GB)
$109.99
(11¢/GB)
$219.98
(11¢/GB)
 
Crucial BX500 $59.15
(12¢/GB)
$99.99
(10¢/GB)
$199.99
(10¢/GB)
 
Mushkin Source $62.99
(13¢/GB)
$109.99
(11¢/GB)
   
         
SK Hynix Gold S31 $60.99
(12¢/GB)
$113.67
(11¢/GB)
   
Samsung 860 EVO $77.99
(16¢/GB)
$139.99
(14¢/GB)
$323.54
(16¢/GB)
$619.99
(15¢/GB)
WD Blue 3D NAND/
SanDisk Ultra 3D
$64.99
(13¢/GB)
$114.99
(11¢/GB)
$226.88
(11¢/GB)
$539.99
(13¢/GB)
Crucial MX500 $69.99
(14¢/GB)
$114.99
(11¢/GB)
$229.99
(11¢/GB)
 
NVMe
Sabrent Rocket Q $69.99
(14¢/GB)
$119.98
(12¢/GB)
$249.99
(12¢/GB)
$719.99
(18¢/GB)
Crucial P1 $59.99
(12¢/GB)
$104.99
(10¢/GB)
$299.99
(15¢/GB)
 
Intel 660p $72.99
(14¢/GB)
$119.99
(12¢/GB)
$263.99
(13¢/GB)
 
Intel 665p   $129.99
(13¢/GB)
$309.99
(15¢/GB)
 

The 870 QVO probably shouldn't be judged solely as a competitor among entry-level consumer SSDs. It has a better business case focused on the niche of high-capacity SSDs, where there are fewer competitors and the cost savings of QLC NAND are more significant. Samsung has often been on the leading edge of consumer SSD capacity increases, having introduced 2TB and 4TB models when those still sounded a bit outrageous for a consumer-oriented product line. The most important new thing about the Samsung 870 QVO is the 8TB model that isn't actually here yet.

At 1TB and 2TB, there's usually a mainstream TLC drive to be found for less than the 870 QVO or 860 QVO. At 4TB, there are very few competitors, though at the moment the WD Blue/SanDisk Ultra 3D does appear to be a very compelling 8-12% premium to get TLC NAND. When the 8TB 870 QVO arrives, it will occupy a unique market position as the first consumer SATA SSD in that capacity class. (It is possible to buy a grey-market Micron enterprise QLC SATA drive for roughly similar pricing to what we expect for the 8TB 870 QVO, but that forfeits SLC caching and a manufacturer's warranty.)

The biggest problem with the 870 QVO is that Samsung is still using SATA. That's a shrinking market segment, but high-capacity drives are probably going to be one of the last areas where SATA still makes sense—secondary storage and NAS drives don't need the benefits of NVMe as badly. For primary storage duty, the 870 QVO is easily beaten by NVMe QLC drives that offer similar capacities and prices but much better performance overall. Here again, the 870 QVO fares better when looking at higher capacities, because the Sabrent Rocket Q is half again as expensive for 4TB (and probably also for the 8TB).

I can't really recommend the smaller two capacities of the 870 QVO given the plethora of alternatives. The larger models can almost win by default due to lack of competition, but it's hard to recommend them when so few consumers can justify buying so much SSD in the first place.

Mixed Read/Write Performance & Power Management
Comments Locked

64 Comments

View All Comments

  • ksec - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    You get additional 5% off on Newegg as well. Soon I will have this in my NAS.
  • Slash3 - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link

    I have two of the 2TB MX500 SSDs. They're fantastic drives, and I paid ~$220 each for them... eighteen months ago. The market hasn't stagnated, it's ceased movement entirely. :(
  • eek2121 - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link

    This was due to a conscious movement of NAND manufacturers to “preserve profitability”. We need some fresh blood in the industry.
  • scineram - Friday, July 3, 2020 - link

    That makes sense. We wouldn't want any of them to go bankrupt.
  • damianrobertjones - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    "That's a shrinking market segment, but high-capacity drives are probably going to be one of the last areas where SATA still makes sense"

    I put together an mAtx system today and it only had 1x m.2 slot. Sata SSD for storage (games) it is then.
  • Great_Scott - Thursday, July 2, 2020 - link

    I see this "SATA is dead!?!?!12" on a lot of sites, and it makes no sense at all.

    Most motherboards, even full size ones, as of 2020, have an average of 2 M.2 slots. And on a lot of boards the second slot isn't PCIe(!)

    The plain fact of life is that if you intend to have multiple game drives (and a lot of people do) or a smaller SSD for storage, you're going to HAVE TO use SATA. No other choice.

    I'm sorry, but in this particular case, Anandtech Editors, SATA is not and can not "go away". Not for at least another 2 PC replacement cycles at that.
  • Lolimaster - Monday, July 6, 2020 - link

    Fact is theres almost zero difference between sata and the fastest nvme ssds. Even on the most open world/huge map load the diffetence is between zero or 1sec on a 10-15sec loading screen.
  • Lucky Stripes 99 - Saturday, July 4, 2020 - link

    If you don't mind eating up a PCIe slot, you can get PCIe M.2 adapter cards for fairly cheap from Chinese resellers. Single slot cards are around $10 while dual slot cards are around $13. I picked one up because the M.2 slot on my H97 board was restricted to X2 and my 970 EVO was saturating the link.
  • Sivar - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    "The 1TB QVOs (both old and new) are prone to write latencies that are worse than the 5400RPM hard drive."

    ... This means the following sentence is a valid argument, in reality, in 2020: "I replaced my 1TB SSD with a 7200RPM hard drive to reduce write latencies, improve durability, and save more than 50% in costs."
  • Billy Tallis - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    Just make sure to keep in mind that write latency matters a lot less than read latency for general consumer usage, because your OS is happy to do a lot of write buffering in RAM if the software isn't specifically requesting otherwise (eg. databases).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now