Conclusion

The sheer capacity alone is enough to make the 8TB Sabrent Rocket Q and 8TB Samsung 870 QVO impressive and groundbreaking products. But reaching this new capacity point for consumer SSDs has required significant tradeoffs. These two drives rely on QLC NAND flash memory with worse performance and write endurance than the TLC NAND used by mainstream consumer SSDs. Thankfully, the sheer high capacity of these drives offsets some of the downsides of QLC NAND, but it does not eliminate all of them.

The result is a pair of drives that blur the lines between low-end and premium products. The price tags are unquestionably premium territory, and even on a per-GB basis these drives aren't the cheapest. Rather than offering economies of scale, the niche status of such high-capacity SSDs carries a bit of a price premium. This is especially true of the 8TB Sabrent Rocket Q: it is currently at its cheapest-ever price, but is still 45% more expensive than the 8TB Samsung 870 QVO. The Rocket Q's use of an NVMe controller (rather than a SATA controller) only accounts for a few dollars of this vast difference. Sabrent is probably paying more to buy Micron's QLC on the open market than it costs Samsung to use their own QLC, but a large portion of this price disparity can simply be blamed on lack of competition. The Sabrent Rocket Q was the first 8TB consumer NVMe SSD, and only one competitor has showed up since: the Corsair MP400, based on the same basic formula as the Rocket Q.

While its price tag certainly appears exorbitant next to the cheaper Samsung 870 QVO, there's no question that the 8TB Rocket Q deserves more premium pricing. The Samsung 870 QVO is slow even by SATA SSD standards, and is best used as a secondary drive for bulk data with low performance requirements. Ignoring the price, it looks great in comparison to an 8TB hard drive: silent, faster (usually), more compact. But compared against other SSDs it is lackluster. The fact that it's no faster than the 2TB and 4TB models is another disappointment, and a clear sign that 8TB is far beyond the sweet spot of the SSD market.

The Rocket Q on the other hand is fast enough to provide a good experience as a primary drive, even if it gets loaded down with several TB of data. It won't always match the performance of a smaller high-end drive, but it doesn't suffer as much from the worst-case performance problems that plague most QLC SSDs (and likely the smaller capacities of the Rocket Q as well). At its worst, the Rocket Q only degrades down to a bit slower than mainstream SATA drives. Rocket Q doesn't quite manage to provide that magical combination of maximum capacity and maximum performance, but comes surprisingly close.

High-Capacity Consumer SSD Price Comparison
December 4, 2020
  1TB 2TB 4TB 8TB
ADATA XPG SX8100
TLC
$119.99 (12¢/GB) $229.99 (11¢/GB) $499.99 (12¢/GB)  
Addlink S92
QLC
$145.88 (15¢/GB) $277.88 (14¢/GB) $649.99 (16¢/GB)  
Corsair MP400
QLC
$137.00 (14¢/GB) $288.00 (14¢/GB) $662.00 (17¢/GB) $1498.00 (19¢/GB)
Corsair MP510
TLC
$142.99 (15¢/GB) $289.99 (15¢/GB) $744.99 (19¢/GB)  
Inland Platinum
QLC
$94.99 (9¢/GB) $191.99 (10¢/GB) $499.99 (12¢/GB)  
Sabrent Rocket Q
QLC
$109.98 (11¢/GB) $219.98 (11¢/GB) $599.98 (15¢/GB) $1299.99 (16¢/GB)
Sabrent Rocket Q 4.0
QLC, PCIe Gen4
$149.98 (15¢/GB) $279.98 (14¢/GB) $689.98 (17¢/GB)  
Sabrent Rocket
TLC
$129.98 (13¢/GB) $249.98 (12¢/GB) $699.99 (17¢/GB)  
WD Black AN1500
TLC, PCIe Gen3 x8
$299.99 (30¢/GB) $549.99 (27¢/GB) $999.99 (25¢/GB)  
SATA SSDs:
Samsung 870 QVO
QLC
$89.99 (9¢/GB) $199.99 (10¢/GB) $419.99 (10¢/GB) $899.99 (11¢/GB)
Samsung 860 EVO
TLC
$99.99 (10¢/GB) $199.99 (10¢/GB) $540.99 (14¢/GB)  
WD Blue 3D
TLC
$104.99 (10¢/GB) $179.00 (9¢/GB) $499.99 (12¢/GB)  

Looking at the overall state of pricing in the SSD market, among NVMe drives, the current 8TB options are the Sabrent Rocket Q and the Corsair MP400, which use almost identical hardware. The Sabrent Rocket Q currently has better pricing than the more recently-released MP400. Dropping down to less extreme capacities, neither product is the best option. Microcenter's Inland Platinum is their version of the Phison E12 with QLC, and it's cheaper than the Rocket Q at 1TB, 2TB and 4TB. There's also the ADATA XPG SX8100, by far the cheapest multi-TB NVMe SSD with TLC NAND. It uses Realtek's RTS5762 controller so it's really not a high-end drive even by PCIe 3 standards, but it's definitely a step up from the QLC drives, especially for heavier workloads. The 4TB SX8100 is currently $499 and was recently on sale for $399.

 

In the consumer SATA SSD market, there are far fewer options for very large drives. The 870 QVO is unopposed at the 8TB capacity, and the only 4TB alternatives are TLC drives. However, the 4TB WD Blue at 20% more than the 4TB 870 QVO seems like a pretty good upgrade. At 1TB and 2TB the 870 QVO is uncompetitive: the 860 EVO is currently only $10 more at 1TB, and the same price at 2TB.

 

Looking Forward

For most consumers, 8TB SSDs will not become a realistic proposition for several more generations of 3D NAND technology. These drives are an early preview of that future, and highlight what else needs to improve aside from just the price. Even though QLC NAND has a reputation for poor performance, both of these 8TB drives are often bottlenecked instead by the controller: partly a result of putting 64 NAND flash dies behind 8 channel controllers. The consumer SSD market is unlikely to reverse direction and start moving towards wider controllers, so in order for 8TB drives to go mainstream without the limitations of today's models, we'll need to see higher per-die capacities and much higher IO speeds per channel.

Higher die capacities will go hand in hand with cost reductions in future generations of 3D NAND flash memory, and by the time 8TB drives are mainstream we'll probably see 1TB drives as the same kind of baseline that 256GB drives are today. Movement toward higher interface speeds between the NAND and controller is already underway, spurred on by the arrival of PCIe 4.0. There's now demand for 4-channel NVMe SSD controllers capable of several GB/s, which requires NAND interface speeds far in excess of what the Sabrent Rocket Q's Phison E12 is capable of.

We will soon be continuing our exploration of newer QLC SSDs with a look at the 1TB Corsair MP400, which should be very similar to the 1TB Rocket Q. At lower capacities, the limitations of QLC NAND are a bigger challenge, and there's more competition from entry-level TLC drives. We're also testing the Sabrent Rocket Q4, the PCIe 4.0 successor to the Rocket Q—another hybrid of high-end and low-end features. However, this one currently only goes up to 4TB.

Power Management
Comments Locked

150 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kevin G - Friday, December 4, 2020 - link

    At 1 Gbit easily sure, but 2.5 Gbit is taking off in the consumer space and 10 Gbit has been here for awhile but at a price premium. There is also NIC bonding which can increase throughput further if the NAS has multiple active users.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Saturday, December 5, 2020 - link

    A single seagate ironwolf can push over 200MB/s read speeds. 2.5 Gbit will still bottleneck even the most basic raid 5 arrays.
  • heffeque - Friday, December 4, 2020 - link

    I want a silent NAS.
    Also SSD last longer than HDD.
    I'm hoping for a Synology DS620Slim but with AMD Zen inside (like the DS1621+), and I'll fill it up with 4TB QVO drives on SHD1 with BTRFS.
  • david87600 - Friday, December 4, 2020 - link

    Re: SSD lasts longer than HDD:

    Not necessarily. Especially with high volumes of writes. We've had more problems with our SSDs dying than our HDDs. We have several servers but the main application runs on an HDD. We replace our servers every four years but the old servers go into use as backup servers or as client machines. Some of those have been running their HDDs for 15 years now. None of our SSDs have lasted more than 2 years under load.
  • heffeque - Saturday, December 5, 2020 - link

    The Synology DS620Slim is not even near an enterprise server. Trust me, the SSDs won't die from high volume writes on a home user.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Saturday, December 5, 2020 - link

    Completely different use case. Home users fall under more of the WORM style of usage, they are not writing large data sets constantly.

    I also have no clue what you are doing to your poor SSDs. We have our SQL databases serving thousands of users reading and writing daily on SSDs for 3 years now without a single failure. Of course we have enterprise SSDs instead of consumer, so that makes a huge difference.
  • Deicidium369 - Saturday, December 5, 2020 - link

    I have far more dead HDDs than dead SSDs. The 1st SSD I bought was an OCZ midrange, 120GB - that drives has been used continuously for several years - about a year ago, wiped it and checked it - only a few worn cells. On the other hand - I had had terrible luck with anything over 8TB mechanical - out of the close to 300 14TB Seagates - over 10% failure rate - about half of those died during the 48 hour burn in - and the rest soon after.

    The Intel Optane U.2 we used in the Flash array have had no issues at all over the 3 year period - we had one that developed a power connector failure - but no issues with the actual media.

    as with most things tech YMMV
  • GeoffreyA - Sunday, December 6, 2020 - link

    Just a question. Between Seagate and WD, who would you say is worse when it comes to failures? Or are they about the same?
  • Deicidium369 - Sunday, December 6, 2020 - link

    I have not used WD in some time - so I can't comment I tend to use Backblaze failure rates - https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-driv...
  • GeoffreyA - Monday, December 7, 2020 - link

    Thanks

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now