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

  • Jorgp2 - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    That HDD is also CMR.

    A normal HDD would perform much better.
  • Daeros - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    CMR is Conventional Magnetic Recording - you're thinking of SMR (Shingled Magnetic Recording), which this drive does not use.
  • Sivar - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    Valid argument in 2020: "I replaced my 1TB SSD with a 7200RPM hard drive to reduce write latency, improve durability, and reduce costs by half."
  • ballsystemlord - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    Spelling and grammar errors:

    "All of the QLC drives require substantially more energy to complete The Destroyer than mainstream TLC drives, and one of the DRAMless TLC drives comes out wa"
    You were saying?

    "Some of the big differences in write speed shown for the 1TB QVOs here may be an artifact of this test's size and duration, but even so it is clear that the smallest QV"
    You were saying?
  • zachj - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    Why not compare to the 4TB Western Digital Red WDS400T1R0A SATA SSD? That would seem to be a somewhat reasonable comparison...
  • Billy Tallis - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    The WD Red SSD is basically the WD Blue SSD with SLC caching turned off, which makes it a less relevant point of comparison. And I don't have a 4TB sample of either of those products.
  • zachj - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    The WD Red ssd has an endurance rating (terabytes written) literally 4x higher--2500 versus 600--than the WD Blue drive. I don't have any data on which to disagree with your assertion that red and blue drives are mechanically identical but I think the difference in endurance is highly relevant given that one of two major pitfalls of QLC drives is endurance...
  • NoSoMo - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link

    As tests have shown the endurance rating is for the most part hot air -- SSDs can easily exceed that threshold many times over. Sure you can pay more in a drive to get a warranty, but you can also just buy the same drive w/ cache for less....... Warranties after all are BIG business with profits in the 80+ percentile range.
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link

    QLC is the kind of product that companies like and consumers shouldn't.

    It's one of the instances where the product serves the seller more than the buyer.

    Another example is the fiction known as the contemporary console (really a PC with a rubbish walled garden so everyone has to pay extra for extra drawbacks).
  • eek2121 - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link

    It’s mostly due to the Samsung tax. I expect that, with some effort, it is possible to put out a decent performing 4TB QLC drive for $200. However, that means broad adoption of QLC. Thus far it seems TLC is the favorite.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now