Similar to this deal but you don't need to buy two. Single price is a lot cheaper.
No it doesn't work with PS5, no you shouldn't use it for your OS, yes it is great cheap storage. Even better if, like me, you got a $15 Amazon coupon recently thanks to Westpac.
CamelCamelCamel.
Dramless QLC drive. Total waste of money.
its not a total waste of money. if you've got a decent ssd for your OS, this would be perfect for a steam library. few years ago, a good combo was nvme for OS and a 2.5" SSD for storage, i'd swap my 2tb sata ssd for one of these without any dramas
If you're doing any sort of sustained write, these will go to absolute crap (worse than HDD): https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xVNom88Sz2LN3auVEAq3Rc-970…
If you're almost exclusively reading, then I guess it's OK. I would still not recommend.
@jztilly: I guess, however I've found with similar drives when I've had to move games in a steam library to, for example, my HDD, it really struggles. What I'm trying to say is that personally I think it's worth spending a bit more :)
@BarneyKB: Yep those write speeds are trash, had no idea QLC drives were this bad. Why even bother they're not even that much cheaper than TLC drives.
@neomoz: In burst benchmarks where it's only SLC cache being used, the speeds are the same. Therefore the manufacturer can put crazy speeds on the product and most consumers wont dig deeper.
Saves the manufacturer a few bucks and consumers wont understand why their ssd sucks with sustained writes
Also they probably won't notice a problem until down the line when they have filled up their drive and there is no space for SLC cache anymore.
you can use it for your OS drive, but i think they're suggesting that you should probably use a more premium (with dram, pci-e 4.0 etc) nvme ssd for your OS.
If its the cheapest 2TB SSD available, and its still faster than a BX500, why not…. nvme drives still have some merit to them even if bottom of the barrel.
Higher failure rates (if applicable) is a good reason tho to not use the drive.
afaik, DRAM only helps in sustained large writes, and OS drives dont do that? someone break it down.
DRAM helps with random read/writes quite a lot, because the drive mapping table is on super fast DRAM rather than the QLC itself. It's why you'll see TLC dram-less drives that can be quite fast, as well as QLC drives with DRAM, but QLC DRAM-less tends to be pretty bad on every measurement.
It's still better than spinning rust for an OS drive though, but it's slow enough that there is actually a visible difference between it and slightly faster SSDs.
Definitely a useful drive, personally I'm buying one to stick in my second m.2 slot.
@freefall101: Would access times for DRAM-less QLC nvme be slower than say a BX500 SSD (which i think is also QLC and DRAMless because SATA?), on par or better?
@kehuehue: I've benchmarked this exact drive against a BX500, see my post below. TLDR it's much faster than a BX500, but in real world use I never noticed the difference
@freefall101: The reason why some QLC DRAMless SSDs have issues is because drive makers cut cost to the bone. The cheapest / low end controller is used (so 4 channels controller, instead of 8) and that adds insult to injury for QLC. You need at least 8 channels and 2TB minimum for QLC to not suffer severe penalty.
Random read/write low queue depth isn't something TLC is good at. You cannot use high queue depth TLC random read/write to hammer QLC DRAMless (and if your figures are actually based on SLC cache, that's not even objective). That's double standard. If you want to point out the issue of DRAMless, then point out the main usage patterns where DRAMless SSDs failed miserably. Even DRAMless TLC is not able to save you from those situations. Don't sell people TLC DRAMless can overcome DRAMless problems, that's just not true.
There are el cheapo TLC DRAMless SSDs as well. It's mostly about knowing the SSDs and how to utilise them. Don't make it sound like TLC SSDs are all so great, some of them have shocking sustained write (sure, this QLC is worse, but junk TLCs are not much better either).
The main issue with QLC isn't its performance, but cost. It is not being priced at the cost saving level we want. If this one is $100, then a lot of us will be tempted.
The reason why some QLC DRAMless SSDs have issues is because drive makers cut cost to the bone. The cheapest / low end controller is used (so 4 channels controller, instead of 8) and that adds insult to injury for QLC. You need at least 8 channels and 2TB minimum for QLC to not suffer severe penalty.
What penalty are we talking about here? that would make it a bad OS drive.
@kehuehue: Well, with this SSD as a system drive, you want to keep it utilising SLC cache, so you don't want to fill it up too much and don't move a huge chuck of data to it too often.
The main issue with this SSD is likely sustained write after SLC cache runs out. However, there is no report on how slow that is (checking 500GB version is not accurate). It also depends on your PC / laptop setup. If you have PCIe gen 4 slots, you wouldn't put one of these in there.
This one is more ideal for older PCs (i.e. for example, if you have a B450 system, the chipset m.2 slot is PCIe gen 2 x4, so you are not going to get the benefit of PCIe gen 3 x4). Likewise for external SSDs. I have some external SSDs (from WD) for USB 3.2 gen 2, the sustained write speed is subpar for TLC and the SLC cache is tiny. The main issue with this is still price, $185.15 for an OS drive that you need to watch out isn't ideal. As a data drive, it might make more sense.
Most people aren't keen on this as a system SSD because nowdays, new systems have PCIe gen 4 slots (with some featuring PCIe gen 5 slots) and it seems silly to buy a PCIe x1 card to run this (x4 card - this SSD is not worth it). The chance of low end, low cost PCIe gen 4 NVMe SSD 2TB reaching $200 or less is getting higher, making this unattractive.
IMO it's just not worth the hassle of a crap SSD. Would just get something good (MX500, 870 Evo, etc) and spend a bit more.
It's perfectly fine for an OS drive - I have a 1TB one as my OS drive and it boots quickly, everything is snappy, never had any issues.
I use samsung 980 pro 1tb for os… Am i wasting money ? I should not use?
Yes, you are wasting your money, you should change to 990 Pro, SN 850X or Seagate 530 and get the 2TB version to get faster performance.
I am kidding of course. PCIe gen 4 NVMe SSDs are overkill for most of us. However, considered the cost of 980 Pro and SN850 lately, if you have a board that supports PCIe gen 4, they are good choices.
Nah . I have gen 3 laptop. But i just bought just in case if i need in future as gen 4.
But honestly, i dont see any improvements at all.
you won't see any real world difference between a SATA SSD vs NVME SSD Gen 4 - maybe a few seconds at most, let alone gen 3 vs gen 4.
If you transfer files frequently then yes. Other than that, booting, app opening and game loading time will be similar across all types of SSD drive.
never noticed another big performance jump ever since i upgrade from HDD to first my first SSD 9 years ago (intel 240, 240GB).
all this sequential reading writing is only good for video editor or movies copier lol
Similar to this deal but you don't need to buy two. Single price is a lot cheaper.
You didn't need to buy 2 on that deal either - you just had to add another cheap item (could be $1 or so)
ah crap, you're right, I totally misread it. Well, this deal is a bit rubbish then.
Can I set this up as an external storage device? If yes, how?
You need to buy drive cassette, install this drive in it. Then use it with a usb cable as an external drive
yes interested to know which case is suitable, looks way more complicated than buying normal standard bigger size SSD and any cheap cases on aliexpress, plenty of that.
this, i guess ?
https://computers.mwave.com.au/electronics/Nvme-Enclosure
good selection of choices
This drive is perfectly fine for a boot drive
I have benchmarked the Crucial P2 against the BX500 - a slow SATA drive, the Seagate EXOS - a fast HDD drive, and the WD SN850 - a premium NVME drive.
The synthetic benchmarks run by tomshardware do not represent real world use in any way. I ran all my tests with 64gb transfers, which is still a very exaggerated workload, and even the cheap BX500 sata drive is many many times faster than a HDD.
This drive has 135 GB of fast SLC cache, that's more than enough to write an entire windows installation without slowing down.
You're right, it's fine, it will be faster than a SATA or HDD for anyone on a very tight budget build (although if anyone has a nvme slot and is thinking about going a HDD they need their computer taken away from them). But it's also the slowest nvme drive around and the price/performance is right down there.
Crystaldiskmark isn't a real world benchmark either, I simply like the snappier feeling with a faster drive. And maybe it's because I'm the kind of person who hits the elevator button more than once, and hate 2 seconds worth of a video caching while streaming, but snappiness is nice. Particularly gaming as we move into a DirectStorage, loading textures on the fly world with gaming, IMO it'll be worth it in the long run.
Granted, could just be I have a very serious issue with impatience!
The point I am trying to make is this drive is snappy unless you do a continuous write of more than 135gb.
If there are better drives for similar money of course people should buy them instead, but the alternatives are significantly more expensive. For a gaming pc you won't be having 2 seconds lag, there will be no noticeable difference - ever
People are greatly misinterpreting benchmarks and saying ridiculously things like a nvme drive without DRAM is a waste of money, or slower than a hdd (a statement made in the tomshardware review). I have usb sticks that outperform my $800 hdds. People need a reality check
If you want a 'snappy' feeling drive sustained transfer speed is irrelevant, look at random 4k read/write. This is the cheapest nvme on the market and very close to the performance of the most expensive nvme
I simply like the snappier feeling with a faster drive. And maybe it's because I'm the kind of person who hits the elevator button more than once, and hate 2 seconds worth of a video caching while streaming, but snappiness is nice. Particularly gaming as we move into a DirectStorage, loading textures on the fly world with gaming, IMO it'll be worth it in the long run.
This doesn't make any sense - I can guarantee that you will not "feel" the difference in snappiness between a fast and slow NVMe SSD.
On the topic of loading in-game assets, this is a valid point, but not anywhere near around the corner at this stage.
Granted, could just be I have a very serious issue with impatience!
Not really, it's just that you are buying into the placebo effect - purchasing a faster drive with bigger numbers makes you feel like you are getting snappier performance, just like pushing the elevator button more than once makes you feel like you are going to get to your level faster.
I got one from last deal, didn't have time to install on my Son's build as game drive.
The price went up to $245 now :(
price went up?
![[Back Order] Crucial P2 2TB M.2 NVMe SSD $185.15 Delivered @ Amazon UK via AU](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/70/721870.jpg?h=b5ab86cf)
Genuine question, why?