That's interesting. Even TLC has huge limitations, but QLC is basically useless unless you use it as write-once-read-many memory.
I wish I have bought a lot of SSDs when you could still buy MLC ones.
That's interesting. Even TLC has huge limitations, but QLC is basically useless unless you use it as write-once-read-many memory.
I wish I have bought a lot of SSDs when you could still buy MLC ones.
The market thoroughly disagrees with your stupid exaggeration. QLC is a high-volume mainstream product. It's popular in low-end consumer SSDs, where the main problem is not endurance but sustained performance (especially writing to a mostly-full drive). A Windows PC is hardly a WORM workload.
The comparison here is database and caching workloads in the datacenter that experience high churn at an extremely high sustained volume. Many such workloads exist.
The workloads flash is more cost effective for (ie most of them) either aren't all that write heavy or alternatively leave the drive sitting idle the vast majority of the time. The typical consumer usecase is primarily reads while it mostly sits idle, with the relevant performance metrics largely determined by occasional bursts of activity.