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

By: Les Tokar

Les Tokar — Tue, 21 Jul 2020 02:52:04 +0000

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.

By: Lazlo Hollyfeld

Lazlo Hollyfeld — Tue, 21 Jul 2020 01:32:43 +0000

In reply to Les Tokar.

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.

By: Les Tokar

Les Tokar — Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:17:20 +0000

In reply to Lazlo Hollyfeld.

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.

By: Lazlo Hollyfeld

Lazlo Hollyfeld — Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:29:13 +0000

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.