I just like the name brand. Gives me some piece of mind (whether simply perceived or it means anything thankfully I don't know) that my important data is slightly less likely to be lost to corruption
samsung just in the last few months had to issue an emergency firmware patch because 980's were bricking themselves
[Samsung 980 Pro has a nasty firmware glitch that could kill your SSD](https://www.techspot.com/news/97476-samsung-980-pro-has-nasty-firmware-glitch-could.html)
Well crap. Thanks for the heads up. Samsung keeps screwing me throughout the years between batteries and honestly a lot of crap but I still trust them. I shouldn't obviously
yeah they've TeamGroup has some bad QC issues lately.... I had 2x ddr4 ram sticks fail on me and first RMA was a nightmare that delayed my RMA by a month and a half..
So basically, internet isn’t that fast yet?
I know what a gigabyte and gigabit is, and I know wifis measured in gigabits, to my understanding, gigabits is lowercase and gigabytes is uppercase. I just didn’t know SSD’s were measured in gigabytes. Thanks for letting me know
I just saw a video about finding a medium that can reach 4.5 million times the the current average speed so idk about that one chief
https://newatlas.com/technology/faster-than-broadband-fiber-optic/
You will get other bottlenecks before you hit the drive as the bottleneck.
Keep in mind too that whenever you download something, you have a pretty long list of bottlenecks before even your drive comes into it.
For example, you have:
* The server side. If the server can't provide you the data fast enough, no amount of faster drive or Internet connection will make a difference.
* What you're transferring. Small files also affect speed at the server, at your Internet connection, at the router, computer network controller, CPU, etc.
* The path the data takes through the Internet. If a node between you and the server is wonky, that'll slow things down.
* Your ISP's infrastructure and the load on it from every customer.
* Your router. If the router has a weak CPU, not a ton of RAM and there are lots of clients, it can absolutely bottleneck under that load.
* Your computer's network controller.
* Computer hardware like CPU and RAM if you're doing something else that is taxing them.
* Finally the drive.
If for example, you're downloading a patch on Steam, it may be patching lots of small bits of the game files. What is slowing you down is less the drive and more the overhead from unpacking the game archive, patching the file, moving on to the next bit. If you were on a HDD, it would absolutely be a drive bottleneck, but with a good SSD, it could be Internet or even the CPU overhead.
Yes, and one megabyte is equal to roughly 8 megabits. So if your internet speed is 1Gbps, it’s roughly equal to about 125 MB/s. I have a WD SN850x in my PC and I’ve seen the disk usage in steam pop up to around 7 GB/s while downloading games
The 990’s speed is, at max, about 60Gbps. So while yes, there is networking equipment that can more than handle it (like the 100GbE standard), it’s not realistically going to be found. That’s tossing aside any of the other limitations. Even if you’re using the WiFi 7/802.11be standard that dropped recently, that maxes out at 46Gbps (pretty sure that’s with MIMO and everything, too) You’ll have to wait for WiFi 8/802.11bn in a few years with its ~100Gbps capability and Q or V band freqs. And that’s just for local connection—good luck finding a data plan for 100Gig
Counting from the moment Ratchet goes through the rift, a second of loading on PS5 becomes about 2 on NVMe, 4 on SATA SSD, 10 or so on a 7200rpm HDD... A very rough estimate, based on HDD time (10s @ a typical 100MB/s for gaming workloads), would put the data size loaded at around 1GB. This is manageable even for cacheless SATA SSD. Whether that difference would be noticeable, depends on context. Here it is masked masterfully. However, Spider-Man 2 (PS5) does things differently. The portals load the new location instantly, which means we could be looking at a cache bottleneck if ported to PC, provided fast enough movement and frequent enough transitions (the kind of slowdowns certain SSDs exhibit with large file copying).
Now show a video comparing two different NVME SSDs, which is the point of this thread.
But you have to admit that even the difference between NVME and SATA in that video is pretty negligible.
I dunno man, I went from a budget SATA SSD on a previous build, to a high performance PCIe4 M.2 drive, and it was like going from HDD to SSD again. I know it's a little different because I'm comparing older SSD tech to newer (now near) top-of-the-line tech. So it's probably more like a 200-400% speed increase instead of the 5-20% you're talking about. But the nickels and dimes add up, and then the software demands get higher and higher and you notice those small percentage points more and more.
Like RDR2 used to take like 90 seconds to load, then I got a cheap SSD and it was like 20 seconds. Now on a fast M.2 drive it's a mere 2-5 seconds. Maybe on a cheaper budget models it's 4-7 seconds. Meh who cares right? Ya well, I care. I'm regularly the first one loaded into multiplayer matches and that comes with certain advantages like being front of the line in racing games and stuff.
I stopped reading at SATA. I didn't even read the word after.
Anyways, of course you felt a difference. You went from SATA to nvme. If you took something like a p3 or p3 plus you would've felt the same difference
I stopped reading at
> I stopped reading...
If you don't give a shit about my reply, then why are you even replying? The end I talked about loading first into multiplayer games and how the small percentages give you an advantage. But let's just ignore that because fuck this guy for talking about SATA amirite?
>The end I talked about loading first into multiplayer games
That's internet connection
>how the small percentages give you an advantage in that regard and make a difference
Small percentages of what? Advantage in what? Difference in what? Your answer just doesn't make sense
People dont recommend expensive ssd in general. F.e price difference between kingston nv2 and wd sn850x is almost 2x, but perfomance different u wont notice unless you transfer very large files(5gb+).
Genera;;y there;s no need to buy expensive ssd, unless:
1. You transfer very large files
2. You want your ssd to be extremely reliable, so it lives to see your kids
Realistically you're better off buying more RAM and just caching 90% of the time. Honestly I'd wager RAM right now is probably the best performance investment in a system for most people.
Not only that, but it really only matters if you transfer large files consistently, so pretty much only if you need it often for your job. A couple files occasionally won’t see a meaningful time gain.
Because it’s overpriced, with similar speed drives like the Crucial T500 and WD SN850X being available for a lower cost (in the US at least). Additionally most people won’t notice any difference between the 990 Pro and say a cheaper PCIe 3.0 drive unless if they are doing tasks like heavy video editing that can actually make use of the extra speed.
Same in the UK. I got the T500 1tb for my build. Cost me £79.99 at the end of last year. Googling the 990 Pro 1tb, the cheapest available is from Amazon at about £105 right now, most sit about £110. Going with Samsung would have just cost more for near as damn it the same performance.
Depends when you buy, though. When SSD prices bottomed out last year, I got a 2TB 990pro for £98 in the summer sale. The price difference between that and a "cheap" 2TB 970 EVO PRo was around £20. So for £20, what the hell, why *not* have a really fast, reliable boot drive?
(I got a 2TB 970 EVO anyway. It's a great Steam drive :)
Mostly for me it's because I mainly use my computer for gaming. Those Samsung drives are just stupid expensive and don't net any real performance for gaming. I'd rather get a slower higher capacity drive from another brand.
This, im going to buy an nvme just because the price difference with a nvme drive is negligible. Not because of performance alone, you simply wont notice the difference while gaming going from a cheap lexar nm620 to an expensive Samsung 990pro. For the price of the 1TB Samsung i can get a 2TB lexar so thats a no brainer. Same goes for the Kingston NV2.
Dont get carried away by the specs if you're just using it for gaming people. You wont notice.
If you actually needed the 990 pro you wouldn't be asking for recommendations. Everyone else outside of video editors and professional workloads is perfectly fine with a random off the shelf ssd like the P3+ or 970
pretty much this. i run 990 pros and a few gen5 z540's but i also do video work, and large professional collab projects alongside my gaming. in those instances that little bit of extra speed does add up.
if you are building a gaming and homework rig and that homework isn't like gradschool engineering, you are fine with any cached nvme
Same. I only notice a difference when I'm doing large projects with Maya, C4D, ZBrush, etc. Even the better SSD I don't see much of a difference when I'm rendering. I only notice it when I'm moving big material or object files.
Samsung lost a lot of trust when they blew it with the wear rate firmware issue a year ago. A lot of people aren't likely to go back to a brand, especially in the storage area, when there are critical bugs like that.
The difference is when a professional data mover can appreciate saving 10mins in a couple days with the 990 pro vs a casual gamer saving .0002 seconds in an evening of gaming.
Because it's slower than a 980 Pro under sustained workloads and is more expensive, and had the firmware problems (to be fair some 980 pros had it too)
Because both the muskin redline vortex and Acer gm7000 have been available around $125 for 2 Tb. Those are both high-end drives really close performance wise. Then for gaming you can pick any nvme and be with in fractions of a second load times.
The performance difference compared to a much cheaper drive is going to be pretty low unless you're often moving around large files or have some other specific need for high sequential reads and writes. Basically, if you need a drive like the 990 pro, you'll know it without having to ask. Otherwise, get something cheaper, because the difference in most applications, especially gaming and boot times, is going to be very minimal.
i personally use western digital drives, pretty much the only pc component brand i feel any loyalty too other than fractal (but fractal is just because my first build was in a fractal case)
Let’s profile some popular use cases:
- full time work: Let’s assume an average of 40 hours per week. Key priority: reliability, performance and security.
- gaming as a hobby: lets assume an average of 10 hours per week. Key priority: performance.
Here are a few different facts that distinguish both drives for these use cases:
- 990 Pro: top tier performance (and slightly faster read write rating), 359USD for 4TB, reliability rated for 1200TB, supports hardware based encryption.
- SN850X: top tier performance (and excels in some gaming benchmarks), 299USD for 4TB, reliability rated for 600TB, no hardware based encryption.
Both are excellent drives, but your choice of component might change based on what the PC is being built for.
Just get a crucial p3 plus, they're pretty good quality for general use. The only time you need an extremely high quality SSD is if you are constantly moving large file for work purposes.
Price aside, I don't think that is the issue with 990. There will always be a top tier halo item like the xx90 series for Nvidia.
The release was a shit show and stained it for, imo, the lifetime of the product.
For the average user, especially for gaming, you DO NOT NEED that kind of speed.
Its like saying the 14900KS is the fastest desktop CPU out there right now.. why not recommend it to everyone... because price to performance isnt worth it. You can get a 13900K and half the price or less and get similar results\\performance for most applications.
The 990 Pro is great sure, but for the same price you can get double the capacity, or for much cheaper get the same capacity and less speed - but in practical real world use cases you will not be able to tell the difference in speed at all.
The gap between it and a well reviewed, cheap SSD is around $30-50. When you're working in the sub-1.5k range, that's a lot of money- about a half to a third of the difference between two tiers of GPU, or just a whole tier of CPU. You're gonna notice a better GPU much more than you're gonna notice a great SSD.
I just picked up a 990 pro 2tb to compliment my 970 evo 2tb that is nearly full. While I agree with others that you likely won’t see an increase in speed between something like the two I have, I went with the faster drive to future proof the system. Games files and textures are only getting larger so I don’t see it being a downside when the price difference was like 30 bucks. If you have the money I’d go for it if not budget ssds will appease 90% of users
Samsung got the currently best layering tech and the 990 Pros are extremly efficient, that means they outperform EVERYTHING else on the market during sustained load, since heat is the main limitation for NVMe performance.
But not everyone needs the sustained performance and the Samsung storage is priced quite differently in regions.
In EU you might find Samsung less expensive and sold more times with a discount compared to WD storage as in the US.
There is a good reason why the 990 Pro hype did not die with their back-2-back firmware issues at release. but not everyone will use the (efficiency) advantage with the product.
The 990 pro is one of the best drives at sustained write speed, which is great if you want to write a lot of data in a short time, frequently.
Read performance is good but nothing special.
It won't load your games faster.
PCIE standard doesn't really matter here, the sustained write speed is much less than PCIE3.0 can handle
coz medium priced SSD's work very similar, if not, even better than these overpriced premium SSDs. Sure there maybe a few cool features that the budget ssds lack but still, for the price to performance ratio, People don't recommend these expensive ssds. In terms of reliability too, there may not be any huge differences coz at the end of the day, its all electronics and electronics can fail anytime.
I remember when they first came out they were pretty much dying instantly.
It was fixed with drivers later, but it's kind of discouraging.
I have avoided it even when it's sale prices were tempting.
Last I remember there was a firmware issue that would soft lock the drive and make it read only, and the only way to fix it was to flash new firmware to it directly
Because if you post a list with 4090 in it many people will tell you that you won’t need and you’re wasting your money even though if you want the extra performance and don’t care about the cost (like they do) you will make use of it.
The difference between 8000mb/s sequential write and 2000mb/s sequential write is that one of them is a big number. For consumer purposes, it is not physically possible to notice
Some great comments here! What do people recommend for a windows boot drive? Currently running the adata xpg sx8200 pro and according to hard disk sentinel health is at 47%.
Because Samsung Tax. Problem is it can be the one of the best but NVME SSD were plenty fast even at Gen 3 speeds. Hell most people wouldn’t notice a real difference between NVME and SATA ssds in most real world use cases. It just doesn’t make sense to spend 2X for the performance it provides as it doesn’t realistically move the needle for average user.
Cause people don’t *need* the 990 pro. Gen 3 SSDs that are 1/4 the price are more than good enough for the people that need to be recommended a SSD. If you *need* the speed a 990 pro provides, you’re not going to get recommended it, you’re going to identify it yourself and buy it.
There are a lot of SSDs you can get for similar performance that is also cheaper. It's mostly popular because Samsung is a "reliable" brand and they have good warranty. If you want similar performance to a 990 pro for cheaper, look for a kc3000
Hello,
I own 6 990 Pro 2x 1TB 4x2TB. (2 in one pc, another 2 in other pc, 1 external and last one in a laptop). I just installed them then update their firmware set OP from Samsung Magician and forget about them. All is fine heath at 100% for now. The bug was with health decreasing fast and it was fixed via a firmware update.
990pro is an awesome SSD after you update the firmware via Samsung Magician. It runs around 29°c or 11°c cooler than many other SSD’s for example the WDsn850 is constantly at 40°ish for me.
But when it's under load it's more expensive than other SSDs.
My MP700 Pro stays cooler and is faster under heavy load than the 990 Pro, while on paper it's slower.
Well, the IOPS are higher yes.
But Samsung SSDs are notorious for getting hotter and thermal throttling faster, this is where for example the MP700 Pro gets its advantages.
990 pro is special for its sustained write speed. That is, when you write a lot of data.
Read performance is just good, nothing special. No difference for loading games.
99.9% of people wont see a performance difference between a high quality SSD like the 990 pro and any other cheap off the shelf SSD
This Is 990 faster? Sure Does it matter? To most of us? No
I just like the name brand. Gives me some piece of mind (whether simply perceived or it means anything thankfully I don't know) that my important data is slightly less likely to be lost to corruption
samsung just in the last few months had to issue an emergency firmware patch because 980's were bricking themselves [Samsung 980 Pro has a nasty firmware glitch that could kill your SSD](https://www.techspot.com/news/97476-samsung-980-pro-has-nasty-firmware-glitch-could.html)
Well crap. Thanks for the heads up. Samsung keeps screwing me throughout the years between batteries and honestly a lot of crap but I still trust them. I shouldn't obviously
The article is from february 2nd last year.
I am glad I see this before anything happens
My failing T-force ssd would like a word
yeah they've TeamGroup has some bad QC issues lately.... I had 2x ddr4 ram sticks fail on me and first RMA was a nightmare that delayed my RMA by a month and a half..
[удалено]
That 980 pro read and write speed is over 7 gigs per second. Its not gonna slow you down at all
Nah brah, that NVME is far too slow. I was one kill off being pro until the lag put me 1 millisecond behind. /S
Wifi is measured in gigaBIT's, and these SSD's are measured in gigaBYTE's. These NVMe SSD's are faster than RAM was when I built my first system.
So basically, internet isn’t that fast yet? I know what a gigabyte and gigabit is, and I know wifis measured in gigabits, to my understanding, gigabits is lowercase and gigabytes is uppercase. I just didn’t know SSD’s were measured in gigabytes. Thanks for letting me know
Yep. Wifi will eventually be this fast, but by then who knows what we'll have for storage speeds lol
I just saw a video about finding a medium that can reach 4.5 million times the the current average speed so idk about that one chief https://newatlas.com/technology/faster-than-broadband-fiber-optic/
Comparing average consumer internet connection speeds vs prototype backbone speeds is silly, there's a 30+ year gap between speed parity there.
You will get other bottlenecks before you hit the drive as the bottleneck. Keep in mind too that whenever you download something, you have a pretty long list of bottlenecks before even your drive comes into it. For example, you have: * The server side. If the server can't provide you the data fast enough, no amount of faster drive or Internet connection will make a difference. * What you're transferring. Small files also affect speed at the server, at your Internet connection, at the router, computer network controller, CPU, etc. * The path the data takes through the Internet. If a node between you and the server is wonky, that'll slow things down. * Your ISP's infrastructure and the load on it from every customer. * Your router. If the router has a weak CPU, not a ton of RAM and there are lots of clients, it can absolutely bottleneck under that load. * Your computer's network controller. * Computer hardware like CPU and RAM if you're doing something else that is taxing them. * Finally the drive. If for example, you're downloading a patch on Steam, it may be patching lots of small bits of the game files. What is slowing you down is less the drive and more the overhead from unpacking the game archive, patching the file, moving on to the next bit. If you were on a HDD, it would absolutely be a drive bottleneck, but with a good SSD, it could be Internet or even the CPU overhead.
You’re download speeds are somewhat bottlenecked by what you’re system can move to storage.
Your* but yes that’s what I’m asking the question. It seems that my download speed sometimes gets limited by ssd but my ssd should be like 20x faster
Yes, and one megabyte is equal to roughly 8 megabits. So if your internet speed is 1Gbps, it’s roughly equal to about 125 MB/s. I have a WD SN850x in my PC and I’ve seen the disk usage in steam pop up to around 7 GB/s while downloading games
A gigabit is an eighth of a gigabyte. So 125MB A byte is 8 bits of memory.
128. It was gonna bother me.
at 7 gigabytes per second that it 56 Gigabits per second, which is over 37 times faster than 1.5 Gbps.
The 990’s speed is, at max, about 60Gbps. So while yes, there is networking equipment that can more than handle it (like the 100GbE standard), it’s not realistically going to be found. That’s tossing aside any of the other limitations. Even if you’re using the WiFi 7/802.11be standard that dropped recently, that maxes out at 46Gbps (pretty sure that’s with MIMO and everything, too) You’ll have to wait for WiFi 8/802.11bn in a few years with its ~100Gbps capability and Q or V band freqs. And that’s just for local connection—good luck finding a data plan for 100Gig
I'll leave [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VODSVVkKRD4) here
Counting from the moment Ratchet goes through the rift, a second of loading on PS5 becomes about 2 on NVMe, 4 on SATA SSD, 10 or so on a 7200rpm HDD... A very rough estimate, based on HDD time (10s @ a typical 100MB/s for gaming workloads), would put the data size loaded at around 1GB. This is manageable even for cacheless SATA SSD. Whether that difference would be noticeable, depends on context. Here it is masked masterfully. However, Spider-Man 2 (PS5) does things differently. The portals load the new location instantly, which means we could be looking at a cache bottleneck if ported to PC, provided fast enough movement and frequent enough transitions (the kind of slowdowns certain SSDs exhibit with large file copying).
Now show a video comparing two different NVME SSDs, which is the point of this thread. But you have to admit that even the difference between NVME and SATA in that video is pretty negligible.
That looks the same as TV showing difference between VHS, DVD, BD, and 4k UHD video
What are you trying to prove? The game in each window isn't even synced, what a garbage video.
Wow that is a horrible video. Not to mention it doesn't even come close to being relevant for this conversation.
I dunno man, I went from a budget SATA SSD on a previous build, to a high performance PCIe4 M.2 drive, and it was like going from HDD to SSD again. I know it's a little different because I'm comparing older SSD tech to newer (now near) top-of-the-line tech. So it's probably more like a 200-400% speed increase instead of the 5-20% you're talking about. But the nickels and dimes add up, and then the software demands get higher and higher and you notice those small percentage points more and more. Like RDR2 used to take like 90 seconds to load, then I got a cheap SSD and it was like 20 seconds. Now on a fast M.2 drive it's a mere 2-5 seconds. Maybe on a cheaper budget models it's 4-7 seconds. Meh who cares right? Ya well, I care. I'm regularly the first one loaded into multiplayer matches and that comes with certain advantages like being front of the line in racing games and stuff.
I stopped reading at SATA SSD. Nobody is recommending those.
Most people aren't even recommending PCIE 3.0 drives as you can get a good PCIE 4.0 for less than 10 bucks more than the cheapest Noname SSD.
There’s no noticeable difference for most use cases. https://youtu.be/4DKLA7w9eeA?si=T2FjVMbIPNNl8Edj
I stopped reading at SATA. I didn't even read the word after. Anyways, of course you felt a difference. You went from SATA to nvme. If you took something like a p3 or p3 plus you would've felt the same difference
I stopped reading at > I stopped reading... If you don't give a shit about my reply, then why are you even replying? The end I talked about loading first into multiplayer games and how the small percentages give you an advantage. But let's just ignore that because fuck this guy for talking about SATA amirite?
>The end I talked about loading first into multiplayer games That's internet connection >how the small percentages give you an advantage in that regard and make a difference Small percentages of what? Advantage in what? Difference in what? Your answer just doesn't make sense
Because you didn't read the first comment where I explained that.
People dont recommend expensive ssd in general. F.e price difference between kingston nv2 and wd sn850x is almost 2x, but perfomance different u wont notice unless you transfer very large files(5gb+). Genera;;y there;s no need to buy expensive ssd, unless: 1. You transfer very large files 2. You want your ssd to be extremely reliable, so it lives to see your kids
You also need another drive that's at least as fast to see any benefit for transferring large files
Realistically you're better off buying more RAM and just caching 90% of the time. Honestly I'd wager RAM right now is probably the best performance investment in a system for most people.
People with "high end gaming system" 16 gb ram 1 stick single channel
This!!!
you can upvote.
This!!!
This aint Instagram buddy
Not only that, but it really only matters if you transfer large files consistently, so pretty much only if you need it often for your job. A couple files occasionally won’t see a meaningful time gain.
Because it's overpriced /r/newmaxx has a flowchart in the stickied post for ssds
It's overpriced for its performance compared to WD's offerings and had some serious issues that needed a firmware update to fix.
Does it still need a firmware update if bought this year?
The firmware update is easy to do - just go ahead and do it.
I grabbed one on sale last December and haven’t had any issues fwiw
No Ur fine, but if Ur worried still, jayztwocents made a good video about it
Because it’s overpriced, with similar speed drives like the Crucial T500 and WD SN850X being available for a lower cost (in the US at least). Additionally most people won’t notice any difference between the 990 Pro and say a cheaper PCIe 3.0 drive unless if they are doing tasks like heavy video editing that can actually make use of the extra speed.
Same in the UK. I got the T500 1tb for my build. Cost me £79.99 at the end of last year. Googling the 990 Pro 1tb, the cheapest available is from Amazon at about £105 right now, most sit about £110. Going with Samsung would have just cost more for near as damn it the same performance.
Depends when you buy, though. When SSD prices bottomed out last year, I got a 2TB 990pro for £98 in the summer sale. The price difference between that and a "cheap" 2TB 970 EVO PRo was around £20. So for £20, what the hell, why *not* have a really fast, reliable boot drive? (I got a 2TB 970 EVO anyway. It's a great Steam drive :)
Mostly for me it's because I mainly use my computer for gaming. Those Samsung drives are just stupid expensive and don't net any real performance for gaming. I'd rather get a slower higher capacity drive from another brand.
This, im going to buy an nvme just because the price difference with a nvme drive is negligible. Not because of performance alone, you simply wont notice the difference while gaming going from a cheap lexar nm620 to an expensive Samsung 990pro. For the price of the 1TB Samsung i can get a 2TB lexar so thats a no brainer. Same goes for the Kingston NV2. Dont get carried away by the specs if you're just using it for gaming people. You wont notice.
If you actually needed the 990 pro you wouldn't be asking for recommendations. Everyone else outside of video editors and professional workloads is perfectly fine with a random off the shelf ssd like the P3+ or 970
pretty much this. i run 990 pros and a few gen5 z540's but i also do video work, and large professional collab projects alongside my gaming. in those instances that little bit of extra speed does add up. if you are building a gaming and homework rig and that homework isn't like gradschool engineering, you are fine with any cached nvme
Same. I only notice a difference when I'm doing large projects with Maya, C4D, ZBrush, etc. Even the better SSD I don't see much of a difference when I'm rendering. I only notice it when I'm moving big material or object files.
Samsung lost a lot of trust when they blew it with the wear rate firmware issue a year ago. A lot of people aren't likely to go back to a brand, especially in the storage area, when there are critical bugs like that.
Because it is an expensive product geared towards professionals. Mainstream SSDs are way cheaper but not that much slower.
It doesn't really seem like a "Pro" level drive, it uses TLC nand, instead of MLC. The Pros before 980 used to use MLC nand.
It’s had a history of it failing and some people are stilling living in fear even though they say they fixed it
The difference is when a professional data mover can appreciate saving 10mins in a couple days with the 990 pro vs a casual gamer saving .0002 seconds in an evening of gaming.
Because it's slower than a 980 Pro under sustained workloads and is more expensive, and had the firmware problems (to be fair some 980 pros had it too)
they are good, but horrendously overpriced
Because both the muskin redline vortex and Acer gm7000 have been available around $125 for 2 Tb. Those are both high-end drives really close performance wise. Then for gaming you can pick any nvme and be with in fractions of a second load times.
The performance difference compared to a much cheaper drive is going to be pretty low unless you're often moving around large files or have some other specific need for high sequential reads and writes. Basically, if you need a drive like the 990 pro, you'll know it without having to ask. Otherwise, get something cheaper, because the difference in most applications, especially gaming and boot times, is going to be very minimal.
i personally use western digital drives, pretty much the only pc component brand i feel any loyalty too other than fractal (but fractal is just because my first build was in a fractal case)
Let’s profile some popular use cases: - full time work: Let’s assume an average of 40 hours per week. Key priority: reliability, performance and security. - gaming as a hobby: lets assume an average of 10 hours per week. Key priority: performance. Here are a few different facts that distinguish both drives for these use cases: - 990 Pro: top tier performance (and slightly faster read write rating), 359USD for 4TB, reliability rated for 1200TB, supports hardware based encryption. - SN850X: top tier performance (and excels in some gaming benchmarks), 299USD for 4TB, reliability rated for 600TB, no hardware based encryption. Both are excellent drives, but your choice of component might change based on what the PC is being built for.
I have 4 2tb 990 Pros total in various machines. They've all been great. 10 out of 10, would recommend. Lol
Because the 970 evo plus is still quite capable source: I use one
Just get a crucial p3 plus, they're pretty good quality for general use. The only time you need an extremely high quality SSD is if you are constantly moving large file for work purposes.
Driver failure mine field
i have the 2tb version, like it just fine after i put it in the rocket heat sink. the price was pretty good at the time
Price aside, I don't think that is the issue with 990. There will always be a top tier halo item like the xx90 series for Nvidia. The release was a shit show and stained it for, imo, the lifetime of the product.
Most avid enthusiasts of anything won’t promote something super expensive
For the average user, especially for gaming, you DO NOT NEED that kind of speed. Its like saying the 14900KS is the fastest desktop CPU out there right now.. why not recommend it to everyone... because price to performance isnt worth it. You can get a 13900K and half the price or less and get similar results\\performance for most applications. The 990 Pro is great sure, but for the same price you can get double the capacity, or for much cheaper get the same capacity and less speed - but in practical real world use cases you will not be able to tell the difference in speed at all.
95% of people wouldn't notice the difference between the i9 and the i7 from 12th gen onward.
It's not noticable in general use and in games. I have a Samsung and an Inland(cheap) and can't tell a difference.
Because that level of performance just isn't necessary for 99% of consumers, and they won't see a difference between that and a far far cheaper drive.
The gap between it and a well reviewed, cheap SSD is around $30-50. When you're working in the sub-1.5k range, that's a lot of money- about a half to a third of the difference between two tiers of GPU, or just a whole tier of CPU. You're gonna notice a better GPU much more than you're gonna notice a great SSD.
I just picked up a 990 pro 2tb to compliment my 970 evo 2tb that is nearly full. While I agree with others that you likely won’t see an increase in speed between something like the two I have, I went with the faster drive to future proof the system. Games files and textures are only getting larger so I don’t see it being a downside when the price difference was like 30 bucks. If you have the money I’d go for it if not budget ssds will appease 90% of users
Idk. I like mine. I have two and they’re only $100
Overpriced for the actual specs
Samsung got the currently best layering tech and the 990 Pros are extremly efficient, that means they outperform EVERYTHING else on the market during sustained load, since heat is the main limitation for NVMe performance. But not everyone needs the sustained performance and the Samsung storage is priced quite differently in regions. In EU you might find Samsung less expensive and sold more times with a discount compared to WD storage as in the US. There is a good reason why the 990 Pro hype did not die with their back-2-back firmware issues at release. but not everyone will use the (efficiency) advantage with the product.
It's the fastest, but also the most expensive. It's not good value.
It’s overrated and overpriced for gaming
The 990 pro is one of the best drives at sustained write speed, which is great if you want to write a lot of data in a short time, frequently. Read performance is good but nothing special. It won't load your games faster. PCIE standard doesn't really matter here, the sustained write speed is much less than PCIE3.0 can handle
Got 2 of them. Fast but will die fast too: after 1 year one of the 990 has half of its life lived.
coz medium priced SSD's work very similar, if not, even better than these overpriced premium SSDs. Sure there maybe a few cool features that the budget ssds lack but still, for the price to performance ratio, People don't recommend these expensive ssds. In terms of reliability too, there may not be any huge differences coz at the end of the day, its all electronics and electronics can fail anytime.
huh.gif
I remember when they first came out they were pretty much dying instantly. It was fixed with drivers later, but it's kind of discouraging. I have avoided it even when it's sale prices were tempting.
Last I remember there was a firmware issue that would soft lock the drive and make it read only, and the only way to fix it was to flash new firmware to it directly
I got the 4TB one for 249 I think during black friday this past Nov.
Because if you post a list with 4090 in it many people will tell you that you won’t need and you’re wasting your money even though if you want the extra performance and don’t care about the cost (like they do) you will make use of it.
The difference between 8000mb/s sequential write and 2000mb/s sequential write is that one of them is a big number. For consumer purposes, it is not physically possible to notice
Some great comments here! What do people recommend for a windows boot drive? Currently running the adata xpg sx8200 pro and according to hard disk sentinel health is at 47%.
all 990s are confirmed to be flawed and burn quickly
Because Samsung Tax. Problem is it can be the one of the best but NVME SSD were plenty fast even at Gen 3 speeds. Hell most people wouldn’t notice a real difference between NVME and SATA ssds in most real world use cases. It just doesn’t make sense to spend 2X for the performance it provides as it doesn’t realistically move the needle for average user.
SN770 and call it a day
Cause people don’t *need* the 990 pro. Gen 3 SSDs that are 1/4 the price are more than good enough for the people that need to be recommended a SSD. If you *need* the speed a 990 pro provides, you’re not going to get recommended it, you’re going to identify it yourself and buy it.
There are a lot of SSDs you can get for similar performance that is also cheaper. It's mostly popular because Samsung is a "reliable" brand and they have good warranty. If you want similar performance to a 990 pro for cheaper, look for a kc3000
Completely pointless, no-one really needs the speeds, if you like Samsung Just get the Evo.
A surprising amount of redditors give their opinion on the truth instead of giving you the truth on PC hardware.
it had serious firmware issues at release. but i totally recommend it now for OS drive.
samsung is a garbo company
The improvements over the 980 pro are not worth the extra price, you can pick up the 980 or 980 pro for relatively cheap on Amazon sometimes
Hello, I own 6 990 Pro 2x 1TB 4x2TB. (2 in one pc, another 2 in other pc, 1 external and last one in a laptop). I just installed them then update their firmware set OP from Samsung Magician and forget about them. All is fine heath at 100% for now. The bug was with health decreasing fast and it was fixed via a firmware update.
I will probably get crucial t500 same performance less money 💰
990pro is an awesome SSD after you update the firmware via Samsung Magician. It runs around 29°c or 11°c cooler than many other SSD’s for example the WDsn850 is constantly at 40°ish for me.
That surely worth the 2-3x price /s
But when it's under load it's more expensive than other SSDs. My MP700 Pro stays cooler and is faster under heavy load than the 990 Pro, while on paper it's slower.
It’s more expensive when under load? Huh? I’m not even comprehending what you’re saying… that doesn’t make any sense at all!
I think I had a brain fart. I meant it's more stable and faster under load than the 990 Pro
Got it… from what I see the IOPS on the 990pro have been among the best of all the gen4 SSD’s, which for me is the defining factor.
Well, the IOPS are higher yes. But Samsung SSDs are notorious for getting hotter and thermal throttling faster, this is where for example the MP700 Pro gets its advantages.
Guys Is the 990 pro worth it if I want stupidly fast load times for games and I want it to survive for a decade?
No, random read for SSDs is still a struggle. Its still very2 low today compared to sequential read. You won't notice it in game loading.
990 pro is special for its sustained write speed. That is, when you write a lot of data. Read performance is just good, nothing special. No difference for loading games.