![]() ![]() Second, raw read/write, and sustained writes after cache exhaustion. For most folks that likely doesn't matter, but for write-heavy applications I would select this drive. A spec'd 3600 TBW over 6 years beats out 740 TBW over 5 years any day. That said, there are three major benefits to this drive. I suspect that's the reason for the poorer performance. ![]() Tom's Hardware points out that (a) it has higher latency, and (b) Inland elected to limit pSLC cache to 66 GB (vs 280 GB). Although read and write speeds are faster and it has 10x the DRAM (2048 MB vs 256 MB), this drive under-performs the 670p in every test. To see for yourself just take a look at the benchmarks. Upon further research I think that's not the case. Based upon specs alone (PCIe 4.0 vs 3.0, more DRAM, TLC vs QLC), at $85-with the $15 coupon-this drive would seem like the better buy for most users. I just bought the 670p for $80 from Newegg and had the same question.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |