Originally Posted by EniGma1987
It has to be limited to slow speeds, otherwise you fill up the SLC cache in no time and then you get 30MB/s write speeds from the QLC. Because it is sata, you are less likely to find out how slow this drive really is.
Even if a QLC SSD is SATA, it will have slower writes than a TLC, especially as the drive approaches half full.
Originally Posted by Baasha
What is the difference between the Rocket and Rocket Q? I have 2x of the 4TB Rocket NVMe's in RAID-0 - they were $850 each. In real world performance, will the 8TB Rocket Q perform similarly to the 'regular' Rocket series?
No. QLC is slower than TLC or MLC and keeps getting slower the more the drive fills up. Adding insult to injury, the cells in QLC SSDs have 16 voltage stated crammed into each one which can cause charge leaskage that will cause data corruption and loss as the write count on the cell accumulate, which is one reason why QLC SSDs have shorter warranties.
QLC is currently at the stage where TLC was for a short while after TLC came out. QLC will probably improve over time and become as reliable as TLC but it will be a while before that happens.
Originally Posted by Asmodian
No, The 8TB Rocket Q is also QLC, instead of TLC on the 4TB Rocket. TLC is faster and higher endurance than QLC. That the 8TB is 2x the price of the 4TB almost seems like a scam.
I am still coming to terms with MLC being considered the good stuff (3D Xpoint killed SLC but no one used it even before that). I still don't actually own any TLC but I might be willing for my next drive. QLC is pushing this tech too far in the direction of lower performance, lower endurance, for a lower price. I want faster NAND, not slower.
Larger drives always cost more per GB than older, smaller drives if only due to the need to recover tooling and R&D costs.
Originally Posted by speed_demon
This would almost be appealing for those stuck with a laptop's drive size limitation - I know of a handful of Clevo/Sager's that have 2x 2.5" drive slots and know of plenty more laptops with a single 2.5" slot for upgrades, but have never heard of one with a 3.5" drive space where you could install a typical 8TB drive into. So there might be a limited market for people there.
Actually come to think of it, my old Clevo had 2x 2.5" slots and 2x NVMe slots so in theory with enough dough I could have gone wild and had 24TB worth of solid state storage onboard, with nearly no penalty to weight. That would be pretty nuts lol.
I recently bought a System 76 Linux version of the Clevos you are describing. It's a fairly nice machine but they should have used an AMD graphics card instead of NVIDIA. NVIDIA does not play well with Linux (I share Linus Torvalds' opinion of Linux ( youtu.be/iYWzMvlj2RQ ). I spent the higher price for System 76 because of their reputation for good tech help. That has turned out to be overrated.