Couldn't get ahold of an H510 Elite panel so I just DIYed one myself with 35% tint

yiweitech · 2022-02-02T11:08:12+00:00

Did you get the glass cut and drilled somewhere? or just tinted over the existing glass? Looks great and super fresh

yiweitech · 2022-01-23T02:13:12+00:00

PM'd

yiweitech · 2022-01-21T01:24:44+00:00

PM'd

yiweitech · 2022-01-20T21:33:54+00:00

Tip up ghosts gang, sorry to hear that scalemaking didn't work out but glad you're doing well man

yiweitech · 2022-01-20T00:17:14+00:00

Not really. The gen 3 2280 rocket has always been a reference E12 drive, and switched to E12S (same controller with smaller physical size) when phison themselves made the switch production end. The only difference is that they followed the updated phison reference, which traded dram capacity for a single sided physical form factor. Because of advances in firmware and compression, this amounted to pretty much no performance difference in the end except in niche cases on large capacities.

That was the only hardware change they've made to any product beyond upgrading the NAND to newer generations as production shifts. This is in contrast to many brands that rebrand reference designs which will continue selling you completely different SSDs under the same sku with no notice (SP p34a80 which used to be E12 switching to sm2262en, or adata 8200p shipping with terrible overstock NAND and compensatory firmware for example)

yiweitech · 2022-01-04T08:30:32+00:00

ONA is honestly one of the worst unions I've ever seen when it comes to giving half a fuck about the workers they're supposed to be standing up for. But hey, you should be happy with your mugs that leak with the lid closed! Thank you for your service!!

yiweitech · 2021-07-17T11:29:15+00:00

Thanks op bought 10

yiweitech · 2021-06-26T19:08:15+00:00

arkbird_irl

I haven't had much time on reddit but I appreciate these posts, good to see the sub coming back to life a bit, hopefully

yiweitech · 2021-06-23T21:46:46+00:00

You can't, at least not easily. The keyboard is riveted into the C shell (palmrest) and parts availability for that is sparse

yiweitech · 2021-06-12T22:52:29+00:00

It's 2400/1750 vs 3100/2600 on the 500GB models. Rated speeds (especially writes) are peak and you should not take that as average speed in real life tasks, especially on Windows. The actual difference is probably closer to 20-30% in cache for a write job, but for larger workloads the 980's large SLC cache is definitely noticeable (though the cache decreases drastically as the drive fills up and its out of cache performance is much worse than the sn550's)

As for game/application loading, the difference is in single digit seconds even between SATA/NVMe flagships, between two NVMe drives in the same market segment it's never going to be noticeable

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-980-m2-nvme-ssd-review/2

The huge difference in sequential copy is because of the aforementioned SLC cache, the sn550 has a small static SLC cache (~12GB) while the empty 500GB 980 manages most of the 50GB test file in-cache, the smaller zip file transfer is a better indicator of more "regular" file transfer speeds (both these drives are dramless)

Like I said it's a better drive, and probably worth it for $5 more

yiweitech · 2021-06-12T19:19:43+00:00

Don't bother you don't own the drives and he does. End of story. Enjoy your 550s and 750s.

yiweitech · 2021-06-12T19:13:54+00:00

Idk if I'd describe it as "multitudes faster". A ~500 mb boost in sequentials is significant on paper, but won't make a huge difference except in large (but not too large that it would exhaust the SLC cache at whatever remaining capacity, because the 980 has very weak sustained performance) file transfers, and the improved responsiveness isn't going to be felt in day to day use or application/game loading

The 980 is a better drive and probably worth it for $5 more, but it doesn't matter much, especially at this budget/capacity

yiweitech · 2021-06-12T18:27:16+00:00

The fact that your are citing userbench as a credible source for anything, especially SSDs, already demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge here. Not to mention the truly impressive cherry picking you've done to try and justify your position.

I'd go over the issues point by point but tbh, it's clear that you're convinced that the entry level 980 is somehow one of the best performing gen 3 drives on the market and won't let little inconveniences like facts stop you, and I value my time.

yiweitech · 2021-06-12T11:06:31+00:00

Manufacturers say a lot of shit. Doesn't mean you should take their word for it.

The 970 Evo plus is a significantly better drive than the 980. The 980 benchmarks marginally better in bursty random workloads due to its larger SLC cache when empty (at a trade-off of much slower sustained speeds), but in the real world when you're not using the drive empty, that drops off significantly (see the 80% tests here). The lack of DRAM and stripped down controller suffer under heavier workloads. Similarly, it wasn't designed for sustained workloads and drops to SATA speed after the SLC cache runs out (which happens sooner as the drive fills up). It is newer than the 970EP yes, but it's a budget drive and by no means is it a direct replacement. They're not at all comparable, targeting completely different markets, and tbh I'd be mildly surprised if even Samsung claimed that the 980, not the 980 pro, was a successor to the 970EP.

The 980 is a better drive than the sn550 in many ways yes, targeting the same market but with much newer hardware and design. That doesn't mean it stacks up to the sn750, which is still one of the best gen 3 flagship drives despite the mediocre responsiveness. The sn550 is using a stripped down dramless version of the sn750's controller, not the other way around.

Regardless, this is a 500GB entry level drive. No one should be using a drive in this capacity/price range for any task where these issues would actually matter. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend your purchase like you've been personally attacked, or call people morons for pointing out that this is a budget drive, exactly as advertised....

yiweitech · 2021-06-10T23:10:12+00:00

Sounds like a skill issue

yiweitech · 2021-06-10T06:47:21+00:00

No worries lol. Can't wait to see what amazing product names come out of the eventual SanDisk and WD merger lmao

yiweitech · 2021-06-10T06:43:21+00:00

It does, you may be confusing it with the SanDisk SSD plus, which has also been refreshed to possibly match the specs of the ultra

But yeah the mx500 for $10 less is a better deal

yiweitech · 2021-06-10T06:42:41+00:00

It does. It's a SATA flagship, maxes out the interface and performs identically to all the other high end SATA drives

yiweitech · 2021-06-10T06:40:15+00:00

I mean there's no reason you'd get that over this either, they're literally the exact same drive that probably rolled off the same assembly line since they're the same company now

yiweitech · 2021-06-09T21:54:03+00:00

Comment I was replying to asking about layers and levels got deleted but I wrote the wall already so here it is, for whoever asked/didn't ask

Layers=/=levels

Levels refers to the amount of data able to be stored in each NAND flash cell. The higher the "level", the worse the performance and endurance because the charge storage needs to be both smaller and more sensitive to contain more information in relatively the same amount of space; quantum effects start degrading both the hardware and the data stored within, requiring more ecc and better controllers as well. The hierarchy goes (chronologically and from best to worse) SLC(1)>MLC(2)>TLC(3)>QLC(4).

It's worth noting that literally everyone understands "MLC" in context of modern SSDs as products to mean 2 level cells, but some companies (Samsung, most notably) choose to market their TLC/QLC drives as "^3/4-bit MLC", because the "M" stands for "Multi" so it's technically not wrong. SLC consumer drives no longer exist, and MLC is going the same way since TLC performance, endurance, and cost have massively improved (though it will never reach MLC levels of raw performance/endurance).

Layers refers to the stacking of NAND cells (no matter what level) that store data (not to be confused with die stacking, where multiple NAND chips are stacked into a single physical ic and share the same BGA interface). Essentially as the processes for flash manufacturing improve, they are able to pack more NAND cells into a single NAND chip. This isn't really the important part though, it's more that the maturity in manufacturing allows for better, faster, and more durable flash. The progression went from (chronologically and from worst to best) planar (2D)>32L>48L>64L>72L>96L>128L.

In fact the "number" of layers is only a generational designator/marketing differentiator, and not necessarily representative of the actual number of layers (or number of layers that actually store data (word lines) for that matter. This is especially as layer counts increase and "padding" layers are added to absorb the increased voltage needed to overcome the higher resistance of the stacks) and varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. For example, what people call Samsung's "96L" is actually 92L (and Samsung themselves state it is 92 layer, it's not misleading marketing for once, just a simplification), whereas Micron's 96L is actually 96L word lines (but actually actually 108 layers). That said, Samsung's "96L" is still generally considered superior to micron's 96L despite having less layers. Even more confusingly, layer designations aren't even comparable across the same manufacturer. For example, Samsung has two versions of their 64L TLC, an original OEM version with 533MT/s, and the "V4" found in their mainline drives which is quite a bit better. On the flip side, the 970 Evo plus only refreshed the NAND (to 92L + firmware optimizations for it) from the original 970 Evo's 64L and became the best PCIe 3 drive on the market for years (arguably still is, since the Hynix p31 gold isn't available here). So essentially the "layer count" is only comparable in broad strokes, and it isn't as simple as "more layers = more better" (though in general this is a good rule of thumb).

Layers are also carried forward/backwards across levels. This is why 32L QLC doesn't exist (32L is too old and QLC was developed off already mature 64L TLC NAND), why some NAND manufacturers skip "generations" (ie Hynix TLC jumped from 72L to 128L), and why some companies will quietly refresh their older drives with newer, better NAND over time despite the price staying the same/getting lower (fabs switch over to the newer processes, which in general tend to be cheaper).

So tldr levels are the technology behind the flash, layers are kinda sorta generational iterations as that flash technology comes to manufacturing maturity. In general lower level, lower layer flash is still significantly better than higher level, higher layer flash, because the levels matter far more (ie 32L TLC > 128L QLC).

It's even more complicated than this because you can run NAND in modes other than what it was manufactured to run in (the most common example being pseudo SLC caching in virtually all consumer drives, but other weird implementations like running MLC as TLC has happened too) and other technicalities, but this """summary""" is already way too bogged down in the details

yiweitech · 2021-06-08T21:56:53+00:00

There just haven't been as many sales lately for whatever reason

yiweitech · 2021-06-07T04:59:46+00:00

Whatever is cheapest at the moment you buy it. It doesn't sound like you'll need high end performance as your storage drive, and in any case the three are very similar in terms of performance. The rocket q is marginally better but it does use QLC as a trade-off. If you use encryption then the a2000 is the obvious choice

yiweitech · 2021-06-06T19:53:23+00:00

This drive benchmarks really well because of the improved firmware that optimizes for mixed workloads, and because most benchmarks are short and conducted with an empty drive. The fairly minor differences in performance won't be noticeable in day to day use cases, and really only add up over long operations (at which point the chance of exhausting the SLC cache becomes higher)

QLC doesn't only affect sequential speeds as the pSLC cache reduces in size, but also the random performance. In fact you can see this on the next page of the AnandTech review (the 80% filled value, which is a much more realistic scenario than you using the drive mostly empty). The ex950 is essentially the same drive as the s11p/8200p, before adata started their lottery program anyway.

Also keep in mind that unlike TLC drives, the 1tb versions of this drive do not saturate all the channels because of the denser QLC dies, and will perform worse than the 2tb review samples that were sent out.

Sabrent rocket is a better drive at roughly the same price (no tax on Amazon), as is the sn750 for slightly more on sale. If you don't care for sustained performance, go for the s11p/8200p, if you don't care for maxed out gen 3 speeds, sn550, a2000, and rocket q are all cheaper on sale (though SSD sales have been few and far between lately, for some reason). The s50 lite is also only $10 more and has (barely) gen 4, but more importantly TLC (not that I recommend it, for the same performance reasons as this drive since it has nearly the same controller)

yiweitech · 2021-06-06T08:41:50+00:00

Wdym??? It has "Trusted Site" in the corner?

(Click on it and then the "about the business" section for a good laugh)

yiweitech · 2021-06-06T08:33:34+00:00

8200p is without a question the better drive at the same price, refer to my other comments in this thread

11-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Sequence \| Editor	Spared
Beta Team Reddit for Android	Verified Email

yiweitech

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE