Please explain the practical difference betwee MLC and TLC ssd's...

Please explain the practical difference betwee MLC and TLC ssd's. Heard on Sup Forums MLC is more durable but then why majority prefers samsung's 850 evo model?

Other urls found in this thread:

anandtech.com/show/9451/the-2tb-samsung-850-pro-evo-ssd-review/4
anandtech.com/show/10754/samsung-960-pro-ssd-review/5
anandtech.com/show/8747/samsung-ssd-850-evo-review
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

There are no practical differences, the life is similar.

Bumping 4 interest

Requesting ssd power rankings

buy tlc bro, it's cheaper, mlc is just a meme, the ssd equivalent of "high-tech" audio (diamond cabels n shit) for retards

TLC is mostly only in USB flash drives, it's cheap and slow.

>Heard on Sup Forums MLC is more durable but then why majority prefers samsung's 850 evo model?
The 850 Evo is MLC, what do you mean?

>but then why majority prefers samsung's 850 evo model?
Because they're fucking idiots, and it'll bite them in the ass when something like Spotify gobbles up writes. Also MLC's generally a better performer in both SATA and NVMe and also more power efficient: anandtech.com/show/9451/the-2tb-samsung-850-pro-evo-ssd-review/4 anandtech.com/show/10754/samsung-960-pro-ssd-review/5
MLC over TLC or GTFO, unless your budget dictates otherwise.
>is MLC
Did you mean 850 PRO?

The difference between MLC and TLC (and SLC, but that's far gone now) is how many bits are stored per cell. MLC stores 2 bits per cell if I recall correctly and TLC stores 3. The pro with storing more bits per cell is you get higher data densities and faster read/writes, at the cost of lifetime expectancy and also overwear-provisioning.

Most enterprise solid states are currently MLC as they have higher lifetime expectancies and can read/write more data per cell, at the expense of speed. Still far faster than a mechanical hard drive.

Also the 850 Evo/Pro are V-NAND drives, so TLC stacked vertically.

brand name

>The pro with storing more bits per cell is you get higher data densities and faster read/writes, at the cost of lifetime expectancy and also overwear-provisioning.
No, TLC is slower, to get the 3 bits out of it, it has to do 3 cycles.

>and SLC, but that's far gone now
Still used...

>Also the 850 Evo/Pro are V-NAND drives, so TLC stacked vertically.
Where do you people take that information? Samsung's V-NAND is MLC. Only the cheapest and shittiest SSDs use TLC.

>itt: people with tlc ssds try to justify their cheap crap

850 Evo's are TLC V-NAND m8. The 850 Pro is MLC V-NAND, and I'd say Samsung's server grade V-NAND ssd's are MLC V-NAND too.

anandtech.com/show/8747/samsung-ssd-850-evo-review

So should you get the evo or pay more for the pro?

Do you want a faster speed? You'll only notice the jump from a hard drive, and if you're changing from a hard drive you could jump to the shittiest chinkiest solid state you could find and still have a significant speed boost.

Only buy the 850 Pro over the 850 Evo for bragging rights.

>not using SLC

It's like you want your data to disappear.

>MLC and TLC ssd's
TLC is cheaper
MLC lasts way longer

Whatever you buy, make sure it's at least 240GB or better. You may not need the space at first, but you will eventually.

>but then why majority prefers samsung's 850 evo model?


It's because they read about it on Reddit

It's Reddits favorite SSD

Then what's Sup Forums's favorite SSD?

The same, because most of Sup Forums are Redditors

Then, what's your fav SSD? And is the EVO bad?

The same, because I am a Redditor

I don't have a favorite personally. That said I did buy a few 500GB 850 EVO from Jet when they were 100 bucks a pop back in Jan or Feb. Worst SSD's I've tried are the cheap chink ones like Kingdian (slow) and OCZ's which love to just fail in true Seagate fashion.

What's the advantage of a 850 EVO over a 750 EVo?

I should've added that I had good price and performance with Adata and had a good price but mediocre performance from Kingston.

MLC is faster to write to since it only has half the charge states that it needs to recognize over TLC. It is about twice as fast as TLC to write to, but TLC SSDs use a mix of SLC, faux-SLC, or volatile flash to compensate for this and gives you a small pocket of high performance. MLC normally doesn't have to resort to such trickery, thus have far more consistent performance.

MLC lasts longer because electron tunneling and charge bleed in the NAND cells have less of an impact on being able to read the cell's charge state (higher tolerances for charge bleeding onto the cell itself), thus each cell can remain in service for longer over TLC, which is much more susceptible to charge state difference.

But the controllers in the SSDs seem to play much more of a role in SSD performance these days. Back when TLC first came out, none of the SSD controller manufacturer had dedicated controllers for TLC and had to make do with converted or repurposed MLC-designed controllers. That led to a host of performance inconsistencies, power drain, and reliability issues. Samsung's 850 Evo was the first to arrive on the market with its non-shitty MGX controller that had TLC NAND and 3D NAND optimizations that made it perform almost as well as MLC drives. Nowadays, it's harder to recommend the drive when other manufacturers have similarly performing TLC SSDs for much less, which is why Samsung had to respond with the 750 Evo with cheaper planar NANDs. Even the shittiest SSD manufacturer now has TLC-specific controllers in their drives, so it's more of a "do you trust this manufacturer's limited warranty" decision than a performance one.

Look at the spec sheet for any differences. Check the write and read speeds. There might not be a difference.

>the controllers in the SSDs seem to play much more of a role in SSD performance these days
Intel's product line at least back when I was looking seemed to be proof of that.

850 Evo will last slightly longer due since it uses a more resilient 3D-NAND and will perform better over longer periods of time (compare their performance consistencies on Anandtech's SSD reviews/benchmark). The 750 Evo is not really meant for a production environment and is mostly aimed at prebuilt users who will install programs on it once and leave it as is. The 850 Evo can kind of hold its own as a scratch drive or an SSD cache, but the TLC's durability is still not good enough to last more than five years in such a situation. You'd need an MLC drive for direct video editing/previewing or using as a long-term SSD cache.
Basically
>750 Evo - Install programs on, occasionally delete and install new programs, no heavy writes onto drive
>850 Evo - Light media work in conjunction with a conventional hard drive array, moderate write loads over the drive's lifetime

Intel was focusing on their controller long before other SSD manufacturers realized how important they were to ensuring proper SSD performance and endurance. Samsung got them on a slump and bounded past Intel in 2014 with the 850 EVO, and even now Intel doesn't have a comparable cheap controller to compete with Samsung because of their fabrication timeline. They're using a Sandforce controller in their current TLC drive, which doesn't even use Intel's own TLC NAND because they don't have one ready for consumer use yet. Again, Intel's stubbornness to stick to a strict production timeline has kind of fucked them in the short term.

Any way to do a health test on an SSD?
To see how much life is left in it

All right thx man.

Give me your IP and I'll hack it for you.

please do :3
127.0.0.1

Sent ;)

Buy Samshit Pro.

i have the 850 pro 512GB. 10 year sexy warranty.

its the fastest disk available in daily windows usage. the only thing its missing is the sequential reads of the m.2 drives. but for booting, loading games/apps. it makes no difference to run it over sata or m.2

MX300 750GB or 1TB version
It's fucking cheap

I have my OS and applications on a 840 Pro
Record games to a 850 EVO
When the EVO blows up I'll buy another
Good stuff where appropriate, cheapo where no more is needed

>Tfw 960 EVO
When are you going to join the m.2 masterrace?