This was posted 2 years 10 months 27 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Samsung 4TB 870 QVO 2.5" SATA SSD (MZ-77Q4T0BW) $386.10 Delivered + Surcharge @ Computer Alliance

410
Samsung 4TB 870 QVO 2.5" SATA SSD (MZ-77Q4T0BW) $386.10 Delivered + Surcharge @ Computer Alliance
Go to Deal
XZT on 27/12/2021 - 23:13 computeralliance.com.au (775 clicks)
Last edited 29/12/2021 - 10:19 by 2 other users
CA10

This is a QLC drive with DRAM.

Apply the 10% off code "CA10".

Limit 4 per customer.

This is also eligible for Samsung's bonus Far Cry 6 offer.
https://www.samsung.com/au/offer/ssd-farcry6-2021/
Promotion period ending 11:59 PM AEDT, Friday, 31 December 2021. Redemption period ending 11:59 PM AEDT, Saturday, 22 January 2022.

Note: 1% surcharge for payment with credit card or PayPal. Other payment options do not incur a surcharge. The price with surcharge is $389.96.
https://www.computeralliance.com.au/help/ordering-payment-op…

Computing 4TB Computer Component Samsung SSD

Related Stores

Computer Alliance
Computer Alliance

closed Comments

  • te5s3rakt on 27/12/2021 - 23:36
    +1

    Any good for a storage / game drive for SeriesX?
    (X1 titles, not XSX titles)

    • meeowth on 27/12/2021 - 23:57
      -3

      The 870 QVO is considerably slower than most SSDs (hence the low price even at high capacities), and you would have to use it with a USB adapter to have it as an external drive on a Series X. The Xbox One used a spinning rust drive though, so I guess this drive would be fast enough for those games.

      • Butt Scratcher on 28/12/2021 - 02:25
        +9

        QVO isn't considerably slower than "most" SSD's. Its read speed (which is the main thing that matters for games) is about as fast as it gets for SATA SSD's.

        It's cheaper because it uses cheaper materials. QVO lineup uses QLC which allows them to basically squeeze in 33% more data into a single cell (compared to TLC's), so you use less materials

        • AlienC on 28/12/2021 - 07:00
          +1

          Lifespan wise how does this match up?

          • Butt Scratcher on 28/12/2021 - 09:42
            +2

            @AlienC: It should be a bit over 33% less durable too. Most manufacturers readily disclose the durability of the cells, though if you are just storing game it should be a none issue.

            I'd imagine even if you use it as a primary drive, it should take yonks to wear out too (since it is so large). I did some rough maths on my 1tb 970 evo plus a year ago, based on my usage it would take about 40 years to wear out… I put my computer on hibernate constantly too, which should wear it out more than normal. A 4tb drive like this should be more than 2x more durable than that…

            Personally, I'd be more concerned about the controller crapping out way before the cells wears out. I have had a bunch of SSD's in the past that die because their controller crapped out (Kingston, sandisk, patriot, micron), so I only trust samsung nowadays

        • meeowth on 28/12/2021 - 12:40

          For ideal reading scenarios the QVO is indeed the same speed as the ozbargain favourite the MX500, but for non-sequential reads is falls "considerably" behind, at least according to every review I can find.

          Of course, I did say that it would be fine for XB1 games, which never used SSDs to begin with, and I admit my pointing out it isn't the best 2.5 inch SSD isn't really relevant to the answer.

      • jace88 on 28/12/2021 - 11:40
        +1

        I think that's misrepresenting it especially given the question was in relation to a storage/game drive for Series X in which case the limitations of a QLC drive regarding endurance and write speeds once cache is fully used are not really applicable. Furthermore if it's a 4TB drive, it has the larger write cache than the 1TB models which is what a lot of the initial reviewers were using.

        To put it in perspective, even Digital Foundry used an 870 QVO as their drive for testing/comparing back-compat (X1 and older) game read speeds between consoles: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-xbox-…

        For this price of <$400, this is a great value SSD for this use case of storing games (limited writes, plenty of reads), and the write speed was going to be limited by the download speed/internet speed of the Xbox (unless you're moving back and forth between local storage drives - but even then, unlikely to exceed the faster write cache regularly).

    • Shenannigoat on 28/12/2021 - 19:27

      Digital Foundry used the 8TB version in their speed tests and they found it acceptable. I personally use a 2TB Samsung T5 and it’s just fine for non-Series titles, I’m sure this would be as well.

      • FireRunner on 29/12/2021 - 11:32

        T5 is a better drive but yeah, QVO is fine for games

  • Jiv on 28/12/2021 - 00:03
    +1

    Genuinely curious. Does it make sense that SSD prices (flash memory?) keep falling while the rest of the world complains about semiconductor shortage; from GPU to controller chips used in cars? I must be missing something…

    • meeowth on 28/12/2021 - 00:15
      +2

      Different semiconductors are made in different factories. Even so, SSD manufacturers have indeed been caught using different (lesser) controller chips than originally advertised in some models due to maxing out their supply from their preferred supplier.

      Not that a sale on the slowest mainstream 2.5 inch 4tb SSD is a harbinger of "SSD prices falling". SSD and HDD prices have been annoyingly stubborn this year and sales have been less aggressive than they have been in previous years. Chia is partly to blame for this

    • netsurfer on 28/12/2021 - 02:01
      +1

      WD and Samsung both have made cost cutting measures on their mainstream NVMe SSDs. They switched to more cost effective NAND flash while using newer controller (to beef up the dynamic SLC cache amount) so most consumers cannot tell, especially when using standard benchmark software (which measures the SLC cache).

      With less and less mainstream Web sites doing extensive SSD tests and they don't re-test popular models, we are currently knowing these through some Chinese youTubers. I am not sure how they managed to upload them to youTube (I thought Chinese government would block them access to youTube by default). Anyway, WD was shrewd in their response to SN550. The response where WD would swap it if you are not happy turns out to be a total BS and WD even had the nerve to introduce SN570 (and leaving the SN550 with "cost effective" NAND).

      The situation on Samsung's 970 Evo Plus is more complicated. Anyway, the trend is cost cutting is being employed.

      • jace88 on 28/12/2021 - 11:44

        I was lucky as the 970 Evo+ 2TB I ordered on a recent deal here last month was still the original (at least based on packaging/serial numbers against Reddit threads).

        • netsurfer on 28/12/2021 - 12:18

          How much did you pay for that one? I think that one is more expensive. My guess is newer batch (due to using more cost effective NAND) is cheaper.

          However, the new controller is better and the improved dynamic turbo write is quite useful, especially on the 2TB. 1TB has dynamic SLC up to 110GB, so if 2TB has 220GB, that's pretty good. The new revision generally performs better (due to that dynamic SLC cache). Yes, once the SLC cache is exhausted, the older revision is certainly better (or as the SSD is close to full, the older batch is clearly better).

          The current pricing is a bit out of whack. 980 (non pro) seems to cost more than 970 Evo Plus (new batch) despite the new batch of 970 Evo Plus, with the new controller, consistently outperforms 980 (and still have better TLC NAND than the one in 980 (non pro)). Obviously, the older batch of 970 Evo Plus has the best TLC NAND performance, but nowadays, general use, the faster reads (from the newer controller) and much larger dynamic SLC cache (it's kind of cheating, but everyone is doing it now) do complicate the matter.

          • jace88 on 28/12/2021 - 16:49

            @netsurfer: Think it was $269 at Computer Alliance during Black Friday sales. Not the cheapest but it seemed to be the standard pricing at the time for BF.

            I did read up on the newer revision being better at some things than the older, and some differences in heat/power usage/etc.

            … but realistically, outside of theoretical use cases/benchmarking, I'm not afraid to admit I doubt I would be able to tell the difference between the revisions in my daily use case as this is my new boot drive for a fresh Win 11 installation which I just did as part of my holiday activity plans for myself! The drive is being used for the OS, my OneDrive (1TB) and then the rest will just be for some core programs I use regularly.

            (in case anyone asks, I'm using the boot drive for OneDrive because remapping/moving things to a different drive can sometimes cause random issues down the track from experience particularly with Bitlocker, and I thought it'd be nice to have it all on C drive for once)

            • netsurfer on 28/12/2021 - 17:03
              -1

              @jace88: $269 - that's a great price, especially for the pre-NAND swap batch. Yeah, other than fancy benchmark software charts to trick our brains, we really cannot benefit from sequential read/write of the SLC that much. It's just silly to write from one 970 Evo Plus to another 970 Evo Plus all the time.

              Better NAND is still better NAND.

  • dfg555 on 28/12/2021 - 00:44
    +1

    good enough as an alternative to hdd dump drive, not good enough for constant sustained writing onto for a day to day basis. performance becomes of a hdd once you've consistently written 80GB of data to it.

    • UFO on 28/12/2021 - 09:02
      -1

      " performance becomes of a hdd once you've consistently written 80GB of data to it"

      Yeah I'm going to need a citation on that.

        • UFO on 28/12/2021 - 09:15
          -1

          wow, thank you!

          Samsung can suck it!

          • Nom on 28/12/2021 - 09:19
            +2

            @UFO: It's a complete none-issue - the number of times you copy over 80GB in one go from another SSD is approximately zero.

            80GB write buffer is absolutely fine for normal use 👍

            • UFO on 28/12/2021 - 09:26
              +2

              @Nom: Not for me. I'm constantly moving around very large files on my HTPC and backing up drives. 80Gb wouldn't even backup a small Win10 environment, let alone more than a single 4k rip.

              • Nom on 28/12/2021 - 10:51
                +1

                @UFO: Except this is an SSD - you're going to be using mechanical drives for your backups, and even if for some reason you do want to backup to this SSD you'd need to pump 500MB/s into the drive to fill the 80GB before the speed drops to 160MB/s - which is still absolutely fine for a basic 1Gb or 2.5Gb network … and if you're using networking of this speed, you're never going to fill the 80GB cache anyway 🤷🏼‍♂️

                It's a none issue. I use three 860 QVO 4TB drives in daily workflow and I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually noticed the buffer-full slowdown.

                Yes if you're connected at 10Gb between your machines and you have SSDs everywhere and you're moving gigantic files around every day then you might run into the limitations - this is not a scenario for 99% of the people reading this thread.

                • UFO on 28/12/2021 - 11:36

                  @Nom: lots of assumptions there mate, but none of them apply to me. To get maximum data rates I physically connect the drive to the system I'm backing up from (not via network).

                  In any case thanks for your time. It works for you, great. But it won't work for me.

                  • jace88 on 28/12/2021 - 11:43
                    +3

                    @UFO: In that case then spend a bit more and get a TLC drive… if you're someone who needs the high endurance and write speeds (within the confines of the SATA speed limitations) then you'll know it, and that seems to apply in this case.

                    Personally I still use a combination of TLC drives (860 EVO 2TBs) and QLC drives (870 QVO 4TB) in my setup as it depends on what I'm using it for, and then I keep my NAS populated with large hard drives for bulk storage.

                    • UFO on 28/12/2021 - 11:48

                      @jace88: yep, sounds similar to me. I have about 45Tb on my HTPC NAS, and whilst I'm happy to back up most of that on old clunkers for size/$ and not too worried about time, there's about 5-10Tb I want done more frequently and efficiently. I'd love to back up the lot on SSD's, but I'm not Rockafeller :).

                      • netsurfer on 28/12/2021 - 14:03
                        +1

                        @UFO: (dfg555) quoting 1TB result on a 4TB QLC SSD appears to be misinformation. After turbo write, due to more NAND blocks per channel, 2TB or above for 870 QVO speed drops to 160MB/s, not 80MB/s. Perhaps jace88 might be willing to test it for us on his 4TB 870 QVO to confirm.

                        So, it comes down to the source device, if the source device is NAS, RAID/SHR, 2.5Gbps LAN or better, then sure, 160MB/s is not fast enough. But if it is just gigabit ethernet, then are you really going to get 160MB/s?

                        I get you guys manage and use big data. However, for general public, this 4TB QVO is already a luxury item. Of course for you Pro guys, it's too slow to your likings. But, most of us are not like you guys. We are general users, not prosumers.

                        • jace88 on 28/12/2021 - 21:17

                          @netsurfer: Currently the drive is already half full so probably not a great benchmark of the 870 QVO 4TB but enough reviews/specs call out that the write speed is 160 MB/s after the cache is exhausted.

                          eg. Anandtech review of 870 QVO 1TB & 4TB models

                          The 870 QVO product line still starts at 1TB, the minimum size needed to put 8 controller channels to work when using 1024Gbit NAND dies. That smallest capacity model comes with some significant performance deficits relative to the multi-TB models, in much the same fashion as 256GB TLC drives fall behind their larger counterparts, or 512GB capacities for high-performance NVMe SSDs. The most notable limitations of the 1TB 870 QVO are the post-cache write speed of 80 MB/s compared to 160 MB/s, and the cache size that is almost halved. Together that means the 1TB model is more at risk of exhibiting unacceptable performance when the SLC write cache runs out, but at 42GB this model's cache can still handle more writes than many users perform in an entire day of desktop usage.

  • drprox on 28/12/2021 - 08:30

    Cheers op. New steam(ing) dump obtained!

  • magic8ballgag on 28/12/2021 - 12:15
    +2

    The price is actually $389.96 as it includes a 1% online payment surcharge.

    • XZT on 28/12/2021 - 17:15

      I thought there were other payment options that didn't attract a surcharge, e.g. Bpay?
      https://www.computeralliance.com.au/help/ordering-payment-op…

      • drprox on 28/12/2021 - 17:41
        +1

        Yeah but…noone is using that!
        (Also imagine most ozb-ers including me use a credit card that generates circa 1% rewards anyway).

        • XZT on 28/12/2021 - 17:55
          +2

          Fair point, thought the price without surcharge was consistent with the last time this was posted.
          I guess it's technically attainable for those not using a credit card.

          • jace88 on 29/12/2021 - 01:50

            @XZT: It should be the lowest attainable price (which in this case includes Bpay, zip, etc…). This is consistent with other deals (and other merchants/etc) where if there's a fee-free option to pay (often it's bank transfers) then that's the price I'd use in the deal title, but adding context helps.

  • Alzori on 28/12/2021 - 14:54
    +2

    Got a 4tb 860 Evo as a game drive and it has been flawless.

    • jace88 on 28/12/2021 - 16:50
      +4

      860 EVO 4TB is in a higher tier than a QVO 4TB… but as others have commented in this thread, is probably not going to make much difference in everyday use for a Steam/game drive.

  • drprox on 04/01/2022 - 19:21

    Unsure if anyone had any luck with the Far Cry claim but i'm getting "the selected gift is fully redeemed".
    Those pricks..

    • Radar on 05/01/2022 - 17:54

      No luck yet. So far they've complained that a photo of the Computer Alliance tax invoice for this SSD isn't a suitable document for proof of purchase, and asked for a picture of the SSD instead of the box serial#.

      • drprox on 05/01/2022 - 19:53

        hrmm i hit them up on facebook as mine just wouldn't work through the portal, will see how we go

      • drprox on 06/01/2022 - 12:21

        Declined at my end due to an exhausted allocation. I'll be complaining some more.
        There is no reason their website could not have clearly stated the allocation was exhausted prior to entering actual details of the purchase.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join