The important quote:
> The models that never lost data: Samsung 970 EVO Pro 2TB and WD Red SN700 1TB.
I always buy the EVO Pro’s for external drives and use TB to NVMe bridges and they are pretty good.
> The models that never lost data: Samsung 970 EVO Pro 2TB and WD Red SN700 1TB.
I always buy the EVO Pro’s for external drives and use TB to NVMe bridges and they are pretty good.
> Correction: “Plus” not “Pro”. Exact model and date codes:
> Samsung 970 Evo Plus: MZ-V7S2T0, 2021.10 > WD Red: WDS100T1R0C-68BDK0, 04Sept2021
But IIRC Samsung was also called out for switching controllers last year.
"Yes, Samsung Is Swapping SSD Parts Too | Tom's Hardware"
Samsung have removed the Elpis controller from the 980 PRO and replaced it with an unknown one, and also removed any speed reference from the spec sheet.
Take a look here for what's changed on the 980 PRO: https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=news&action=file&id=4489...
It's OK for them to do this, but then they should give the new product a new name, not re-use the old name so that buying it becomes a "silicon lottery" as far as performance goes.
I knew about the changed controller in the 970 Evo Plus, but I wasn't aware they also changed the 980 Pro. That's disappointing. Is there anyone left that isn't doing those shenanigans?
Samsung 970 Evo Plus: MZ-V7S2T0, 2021.10
WD Red: WDS100T1R0C-68BDK0, 04Sept2021
It turning into a "thing" sounds like a net win for consumers.
I see you've never experienced the shit-storm of abusive messages sometimes received from fans when you say something bad about the products from a company they are unreasonably attached to. Or the rather aggressive stance some companies themselves take when something not complimentary is said. Or in the middle, paid shills (the company getting someone to pretend to be one of those overly attached people).
That might be what is meant by "a thing" here.
You would blame the person neutrally shining the flashlight for the obscene response of others? Simply identifying a list of tested drives should not cause fear for someone's wellbeing. Anything otherwise is a successful stifling of knowledge.
Absolutely not, you seem to have misread me there.
I'm saying I understand the bad results not being published to avoid the potential for the obscene response from others.
Publishing the good results is enough of a public service. More than required, in fact. The test results could have been kept to themselves as nothing is owed to the rest of us.