add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

970 EVO vs Pro

jake2917

4 months ago

I'm wanting to pick up a nicer SSD M.2 than what I'm currently rocking (WD 250GB SSD M.2). Obviously both 970's are going to give me a major jump in read/write speeds, my question is which one should I pick up? The EVO 1TB & the Pro 512GB are the exact same price right now. Pro has slightly faster speeds but the EVO is x2 the amount of storage. I currently have a 250GB & I still have some room left on it. So where I'm stuck is the 1TB would obviously be nice & although I'd definitely store more on it then I currently do with my WD SSD, I doubt I would need that much storage. The pro is faster; only slightly to where I likely wouldn't notice but I'm guessing it will have a longer life(?)

The pro is on sale for $256.00 off which makes it the same price as the EVO's normal price, so by just looking at it from this standpoint the pro obviously has something that is worth $256.00 more in it right?

Both of these SSD's come with 600 TBW/ 5 year.

Comments

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

The Pro is a waste of money unless you're writing literally tens or hundreds of gigabytes per day, every day, and time is money. Even the EVO is a poor value in many situations; e.g. gaming, where you'll do just as well to get an inexpensive NVMe drive like a P1 or 660p.

You'll see a jump in transfer rates over SATA, at least for sequential transfers. Whether you'll actually see a difference depends on what you're doing. Even slow SATA SSD's are so fast that transfer rates are necessarily the major time component of an operation.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

That’s “not necessarily”.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I think I'm going to opt. for the 1TB evo, but the Pro right now is the same price. I was just curious to see what other people thought. Thanks G

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

I honestly doubt you're gonna notice a huge difference in speed, but it really depends on what work loads (i.e. gaming, video editing/rendering, etc.) you're running on your computer though. You really have three options. There is the 970 EVO, 970 EVO Plus, and the 970 Pro line. The 970 EVO Plus is the revised version of the EVO. I'm assuming you're not in the US? The 1TB EVO is $170 and the EVO Plus $230 on Amazon US.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah I'm in the US, I was comparing the 1TB EVO w/ the 500GB Pro. Last i checked they were both sitting at $169 right now. I think i get what you're saying though.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

The pro has higher TBW (500GB pro vs 500GB evo), and that doesn't matter for 99% of users. Slightly faster. I mean mostly it doesn't matter unless you know you need petabytes of write endurance. And if you know you do, you probably wouldn't be asking this question.

I've been running a 970 evo for over a year for an OS drive and I don't think I've hit 10 TBW yet.

The 3yr old Samsung 850 evo on my developer workstation, which I use 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, is at 19.8TB.

People tend to overestimate how much data they're writing when they find themselves looking at things like TBW in specs and warranties. It's just marketing and your silly primate brain doesn't want to settle for lower TBW even if you're never going to come close to using it.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh my bad, I really only added that because I wasn't sure if it mattered or not (& they both were the same so I figured maybe I'd save somebody the time of asking me about it).

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

None, get Corsair 510. Higher TBW and much cheaper without losing any noticeable performance. Unless your PC is mission critical (I.e. you rely on it to earn money and failures/low performance would mean reduced income) I would buy the Corsair SSD.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Short answer: Neither. Get a Phison E12/Toshiba NAND based SSD like the Sabrent Rocket or Corsair MP510 (depending on warranty preferences) if you want high TBW and relatively consistent, effective performance as you fill the drive full; or get a QLC based drive like the Crucial P1 or Intel 660p for excellent daily driver performance at low cost. Any of these options is significantly cheaper and will not be noticeably different in most daily workloads.

Long answer: The Pro uses 2 bit memory. It's faster than 3 bit per cell memory like the EVO and due to less writes per cell has a longer rated lifespan at the same capacity. The faster native speed also means that masking NAND performance with caching methods is less necessary and the drive will perform consistently even when full and doing large write operations. The EVO uses 3 bit cells and thus has lower endurance per capacity and much of the performance for smaller writes is determined by the cache. This remains true for any drive using 3 bits per cell flash memory. This is where you can see differences in drives even using the same underlying NAND: since the controller and cache make a significant impact on the performance of the drive, and overprovisioned area has an impact on longevity and speeds when filling or long writes, drives can perform very differently even using the same NAND. Then there are also differences in different companies' NAND processes and quality. To keep this from being outrageously long, I'll just mention that Toshiba's recent 64 layer 3D TLC NAND provides excellent endurance (better than Samsung's TLC used in the EVO) and reasonable speed, while QLC (four bits) like Intel's 64 layer 3D QLC NAND provides low cost, low endurance, but particularly good performance in low queue depth random workloads. For a daily driver, the 660p and P1 QLC drives provide nearly chart topping performance due to the common low queue depth random workloads at a low cost. They do have low endurance though, which likely isn't an issue but worth noting. The Phison E12/Toshiba based drives don't have quite the daily driver performance of the QLC drives, but this isn't likely to be noticeable and they offer massively higher endurance numbers. Samsung EVO trades blows with the Phison E12/Toshiba drives at lower endurance and higher cost, and the Pro drive's advantage in massive writes and heavy workloads is likely to go completely unused for your uses.

For slightly more than the EVO right now you can get a 2TB 660p, which is an excellent deal. The 1TB versions of the drives mentioned are significantly less than the EVO.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Man I appreciate the time you put into the reply! Super useful & I'll be checking out the 660p right now. You're definitely right on the fact that the Pro would be overkill for me & not needed. I was just looking for a faster SSD for my OS & some games (& small amounts of 4k video editing). I recently put a friends rig together & he opted for the 970 EVO & I couldn't help but notice the huge difference in snappiness his PC has got when opening up games & what not.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube