Skip to main content

8 TB Samsung QVO SSD Mysteriously Appears on Amazon for $900

(Image credit: Amazon)

If you're looking for an ultra-high-capacity SSD aimed primarily at storing files, you might want to keep an eye out for the upcoming Samsung 870 QVO SSDs. The 1 TB and 8 TB models have been mysteriously listed on Amazon for preorder, though few specifications are available at this time. 

The parts fall under SKU numbers MZ-77Q8T0B/AM and MZ-77Q1T0B/AM for the 8 TB and 1 TB models, respectively, and it wouldn't surprise us if 2 and 4 TB models also hit the market soon. 

Samsung's QVO SSDs are aimed at users who prioritize big storage over performance and who keep an eye on price per gigabyte. The SSDs will likely use Samsung's QLC (quad level cell) 3D V-NAND tech like their QVO 860 predecessors, which is how they're able to accomplish such high capacities at relatively affordable prices. These SSDs use a SATA III interface for data transfer.

At this time, we don't know the unit's read and write speeds, nor endurance or power consumption. Given that these units are QLC based, write speeds and write wear resistance are bound to be particularly vulnerable, so if you are interested in these SSDs, ensure that the workload you're putting them under is primarily read-based.

The 1 TB model's preorder price is $130 with availability on June 30, with the 8 TB flavor exchanging owners for a hefty $900 from August 24th onwards. These are steep figures, but will likely come down as soon as the products actually release as NAND markets recover from the pandemic.

  • Rdslw
    People re forgetting one thing. Endurance is for full disc writes per day, even if its 0.1 DWPD on 8 TB drive its 800GB every day (knowing Samsung for next 5 years). QLC is ok once drives are 2TB+ for most people
    probably PLC will be ok if you will have 8TB+ drive.
    I know most people are afraid that their data will dissapear but it's not hdd.

    You know its coming for a while. SSD's just don't go pfffbblllt like HDD when you drop laptop. You have time to copy data over and even if you scrape fail range, its very rarely an issue where any data will be lost, not saying most of it.
    Reply
  • Flayed
    Kind of expensive way to store data. Think I'd prefer 2xWD Red 8TB drives in raid 1 for $500
    Reply
  • DZIrl
    Rdslw said:
    People re forgetting one thing. Endurance is for full disc writes per day, even if its 0.1 DWPD on 8 TB drive its 800GB every day (knowing Samsung for next 5 years). QLC is ok once drives are 2TB+ for most people
    probably PLC will be ok if you will have 8TB+ drive.
    I know most people are afraid that their data will dissapear but it's not hdd.

    You know its coming for a while. SSD's just don't go pfffbblllt like HDD when you drop laptop. You have time to copy data over and even if you scrape fail range, its very rarely an issue where any data will be lost, not saying most of it.

    Problem with endurance is time. All are testing by rewriting whole disk in one go but nobody tested in 5 year period. Do not forget 860 QVO was released Jan 2019. Older disks are MLC or TCL what is totally different technology.
    Testing at higher temp help a bit.
    Ones with older drives, 5+ years should find info about failed sectors and publish. Again, will be MLC probably.
    Reply
  • Rdslw
    DZIrl said:
    Problem with endurance is time. All are testing by rewriting whole disk in one go but nobody tested in 5 year period. Do not forget 860 QVO was released Jan 2019. Older disks are MLC or TCL what is totally different technology.
    Testing at higher temp help a bit.
    Ones with older drives, 5+ years should find info about failed sectors and publish. Again, will be MLC probably.
    That's true but 5 year guarantee is something Samsung must be quite confident because its not standard throughout industry. Samsung MLC was way over their promised threshold, same with TLC still higher. I expect those QLC to be less of an problem than dramless sata TLC.
    Reply
  • xyriin
    Flayed said:
    Kind of expensive way to store data. Think I'd prefer 2xWD Red 8TB drives in raid 1 for $500
    On day one from a pure cost perspective yes. However, hard drives have a much shorter life span and by doubling your failure points in a RAID configuration you're looking at more expensive costs over a 5-10 year period. But, if you're regularly replacing your hard drives by upgrading then this won't be a factor.

    There are other factor besides cost though:
    - You're not fitting two 3.5" drives in a laptop
    - Hard drives take up more space in a desktop
    - Hard drives generate more heat and consume more power
    - Hard drives are slower for access and transfer speeds
    Reply
  • Rdslw
    xyriin said:
    On day one from a pure cost perspective yes. However, hard drives have a much shorter life span and by doubling your failure points in a RAID configuration you're looking at more expensive costs over a 5-10 year period. But, if you're regularly replacing your hard drives by upgrading then this won't be a factor.

    There are other factor besides cost though:
    You're not fitting two 3.5" drives in a laptop
    Hard drives take up more space in a desktop
    Hard drives generate more heat and consume more power
    Hard drives are slower for access and transfer speeds
    noise. Permanent even if cpu/gpu is completly silent and idle, especially with windows that does a lot of things in background.
    damage resistance. I nuked like 4 HDD's because of rough handling of a laptop.
    I still use HDD nas with raid 1, I can understand your point, but in 90% of use cases for typical people will favor SSD. With MAYBE HDD as second data drive somewhere.
    SSD upgrades will drive the world now, our storage and other possibilities.
    Reply
  • xyriin
    Rdslw said:
    noise. Permanent even if cpu/gpu is completly silent and idle, especially with windows that does a lot of things in background.
    damage resistance. I nuked like 4 HDD's because of rough handling of a laptop.I still use HDD nas with raid 1, I can understand your point, but in 90% of use cases for typical people will favor SSD. With MAYBE HDD as second data drive somewhere.
    SSD upgrades will drive the world now, our storage and other possibilities.
    Good call on the noise level, forgot that one! Right now I use SSDs for everything except a single massive hard drive which I use RoboCopy to automatically maintain a duplicate of all my SSD data. Then again I bought my first SSD way back in 2009 and haven't a single problem with any SSD since then so sometimes I wonder why I even bother.
    Reply
  • domih
    CONCLUSION: as of today, use a 1 TB NVMe for boot and OS, a 10+ TB hard disk for data, DB, storage, etc with an optional SSD 1TB MLC for caching the 10+ TB hard disk. Google or Binge for: "caching hdd with ssd".
    Reply
  • xyriin
    domih said:
    CONCLUSION: as of today, use a 1 TB NVMe for boot and OS, a 10+ TB hard disk for data, DB, storage, etc with an optional SSD 1TB MLC for caching the 10+ TB hard disk. Google or Binge for: "caching hdd with ssd".
    Your setup can be useful for certain situations however, anything being commonly used will be in RAM anyway which is faster than a SSD. Initial bootup and initial application load would be beneficial but if you're on NVMe for your system drive that won't matter. For SSD cache to make a difference on a hard drive when you're already on a SSD/NVMe you'd need to be performing massive IOPS on the hard drive.
    Reply