Samsung 870 QVO V-NAND SATA 3 SSD Review (1/2TB)


SSD testing at TSSDR differs slightly, depending on whether we are looking at consumer or enterprise storage media. For our Samsung 870 QVO SATA 3 SSD testing today, our goal is to test in a system that has been optimized with our SSD Optimization Guide. To see the best performance possible, the CPU C states have been disabled, C1E support has been disabled, and Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST) has been disabled.


The components of this Test Bench are detailed below.  All hardware is linked for purchase and product sales may be reached by a simple click on the individual item. As well, the title is linked back to the individual build article where performance testing can be validated.


PC CHASSIS: Corsair Graphite 760T Arctic White Window Chassis
CPU: Intel Coffee Lake Core i7-8770K
CPU COOLER: Corsair Hydro Series H110i GTXblank V.2
POWER SUPPLY: Corsair RM850x 80Plus
MEMORY: Corsair Vengeance RGB 32GB DDR4 3600Mhz C18
STORAGE: Intel Optane 900P 480GB SSD
KEYBOARD: Corsair Strafe RGB Silent Gaming
MOUSE: Corsair M65 Pro Gaming
OS Microsoft Windows 10 Pro 64 Bitblank


Let’s start by saying that both the 1TB and 2TB versions of the QVO 870 have the same specs so we will not be posting twice. This report will only show that of the 2TB version.

The software in use for today’s analysis is typical of many of our reviews and consists of Crystal Disk Info, ATTO Disk Benchmark, Crystal Disk Mark, AS SSD, Anvil’s Storage Utilities, AJA, and TxBench. Our selection of software allows each to build on the last and to provide validation to results already obtained.


Crystal Disk Info is a great tool for displaying the characteristics and health of storage devices. It displays everything from temperatures, the number of hours the device has been powered, and even to the extent of informing you of the firmware of the device.


Crystal Disk Info validates that our SSD is running in SATA 3 (6Gbps), and also that its features include SMART, NCQ, TRIM and DevSleep.


ATTO Disk Benchmark is perhaps one of the oldest benchmarks going and is definitely the main staple for manufacturer performance specifications. ATTO uses RAW or compressible data and, for our benchmarks, we use a set length of 256mb and test both the read and write performance of various transfer sizes ranging from 0.5 to 8192kb. Manufacturers prefer this method of testing as it deals with raw (compressible) data rather than random (includes incompressible data) which, although more realistic, results in lower performance results.


Listed specifications for the Samsung 870 QVO are 560MB/s read and 530MB/s write.  These results are pretty much bang on, but just as importantly, there is a very steady speed progression with data size increase.


  1. blank

    Not sure why Les focused on the warranty period (which is essentially meaningless) and doesn’t point out the higher endurance of Samsung’s latest QLC drive (which is actually important). For example, the Crucial P1 has a 200TBW at 1TB / 400TBW at 2TB vs. the Samsung 870 QVO at 360TBW at 1TB / 720 TBW at 2TB. By any estimation, regardless of the warranty period, the 870 QVO has a better warranty than the equivalent capacity Crucial P1. Same with the Adata SU630 / SU635. Seagate does a little better at 280TBW on their 960GB BarraCuda Q1, but still not as good as the Samsung drive. And it’s also a little strange that he would compare the 3-year warranty period on a QLC drive to the 10-year warranty period on an MLC drive, when every manufacturer has lower ratings on QLC and TLC, than MLC.

    • blank

      Appreciate your comment. I focused on this because 5-years is gaining alot of traction as the industry standard. In my opinion at least, it is a bit ironic since Samsung was the only to have a 10-year warranty some time ago. The great part of owning my own website is I can provide my thoughts without influence I guess. I also tied in my warranty concern with pricing thoughts as well. To qualify your examples, I was hoping for similar. The P1 is an m.2 NVMe drive with a five year warranty and cheaper. The SU630 is last gen and you would be lucky even finding a 1TB. The SU635…currently unavailable and again, old stock. Barracuda Q1 960GB is much much cheaper.

      Now…warranty. I can guarantee anyone who has ever had to address a warranty issue wouldn’t agree with your thought that it is essentially meaningless. I actually left warranty support out of the report for the benefit of Samsung.

      At the end of the day, I can live with a more expensive SSD OR a lesser warranty, but don’t think that both should be present, especially when the industry standard has been to show confidence in new NAND through warranty. Again thank you for your input.

      • blank

        The TBW for a Crucial P1, as an example is 5 years at 0.1 DWPD vs. the 870 QVO at 3 Years at 0.3 DWPD.

        It’s the reason why businesses ignore warranty length in favor of TBW or DWPD (which is essentially warranty period / TBW). Its a more accurate determinant of drive endurance.

        Curiously, I don’t find a lot of examples of 5 year warranties on QLC drives. A check on Amazon indicates there aren’t many straight QLC-based client SATA drives for consumers to choose from. Adata is 3 years. Seagate is 3 years. Team Group is 3 years. Addlink is 3 years. Inland is 3 Years. So, if you think 5 years is the standard, you should indicate what products you’re comparing it to.

  2. blank

    First off, warranty has always been based on NAND flash memory for the most part. I thought I might check my previous reviews and, of the last 15, 13 were 5-year warranties. The only 3-year warranties were this review and Samsung’s last portable… a 3-year being the norm but not exclusive as we are seeing portables with 5-years now as well. 13 of 15…. There ya go. Further, this is not a business or enterprise SSD.

    Lastly DWPD/TBW means absolutely nothing at three years and one day. 99% of consumers buying this drive won’t ever have need to watch either because they would never do anything that might bring either into question. I am certain they are a bit more comfortable with those two extra year warranty though… the industry standard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *