Intel 660P SSD Spotted - First QLC based SSD: 512 GB NVMe for 114 euros

I don't see this as a good offer.
QLC SSDs are going to wear off more quickly.
I can already find crucial MX500 with 500gb TLC for 90€ in my country.
I don't see the point of buying a 500gb QLC SSD for 114€ unless the speed of the NVME

Cheers

 

Yeah, before being a good investment or a good thing at all, QLC need to show that they can old the write as much as TLC.

 

Samsung 860 Evo @ 512GB can be found with 105 Euros.
And as @ObscureangelPT mentioned, MX500 is much cheaper and it's also TLC (with a decent controller as well)

How exactly is this a good offer ?
It's (slightly) more expensive with much crappier NAND.

 

@wavetrex Intel SSDs always had for some reason some big inflated prices and to be honest, were never anything special at all comparing to competition, they never delivered something that could justify the extra price.
I'm not really sure what are they trying to archieve with their disadjusted competition in the market.

Anyway I'm really curious to see how far QLC can go, how much TBW can they write.
I was expecting 120€ 1TB SSD, but this way, there is nothing to see here.

 

Just for comparison sake, adding some HDD prices (Using WD "blue" as those are destined for normal desktop usage - today as 2nd drive)
1TB: 40 Eur
2TB: 61 Eur
4TB: 99 Eur
6TB: 176 Eur

Comparing to Crucial MX500 (which seems to be the cheapest SSD available in the same part of Europe where I'm checking prices):
1TB: 167 Eur ( 4.1 times more )
2TB: 343 Eur ( 5.6 times more )
Crucial doesn't produce a 4TB version, so...
Samsung 860 EVO 4TB: 895 Eur ( ~9 times more )

QLC won't solve this unfortunately, it only increases capacity by 33% , but due to more complex controller that needs to handle all the errors coming from the 16 levels of signal ... I don't see the price dropping by 33% as well.
The loss of endurance is also a big turnoff.

SSD's are nice to have, but if one needs more space, HDD's aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

I think if a SSDs make it one day to 1TB at a slighty expensive price than a HDD, HDD will start to only get utilized for storage only.

 

I just bought earlier a 3TB HDD, take that SSD's =)

But seriously, as everyone has said, this new technology wont matter at all for consumers if the prices are the same or even higher as some have mentioned.

The way i see it, big companies like intel are only in it for the profits, they dont care if by lowering the price per/gb more ppl will buy them in the long run and most likely they will still make a profit and some!

 

Intel can go frak themselves. I won't buy a single SSD from them after they tried to stop people using 3rd party bootable M.2 NVMe drives in RAID 0 with their X299 VROC motherboards. My next motherboard and CPU will most likely be Threadripper thanks to that bullshit since AMD is offering free M.2 NVMe RAID 0 drivers with their chipsets and CPU's.

 

Has anyone seen this for sale in a European webstore yet?

 

As we move from SLC through MLC to TLC and on to QLC we get higher density and lower cost. As we move in the reverse direction we get higher performance and longer life. Basically, for gaming/media PC you want 512 MLC SSD + HDD for everything else. The only implementation of these QLC I see is enterprise segment

 

This one is good offer only for Intel to sell QLC SSD's , because there is where Intel makes the biggest profit. I hope that most people will not fall into this trap of buying worthless QLC SSD's with 1K P/E cycle.
And I agree completely with " wavetrex" that this is a crap QLC NAND from Intel

 

Yah, Intel SSDs are nothing to write home about, no shortage of similarly priced and far superior products out there in that arena.

 

Wrong mate. In the enterprise segment (I'm a storage administrator), we use SLC and eMLC exclusively, either in 1.6TB or 3.8TB capacities, with a maximum capacity of 15TB per SSD, each array holds several hundred SSDs and can do several million IOPS. Yeah, it's expensive! QLC drives are dead cheap by comparison, aimed at the average desktop/laptop user, that value a better cost-to-capacity ratio.

 

@SniperX You can also use QLC for enterprise systems, as long as it relies on Read operations only/mostly and not write operation, altough that remains to be proved!
Cheers

 

As I've said in previous threads, getting 33% more density in turn of losing 2/3 of life isn't a good deal, unless the price is very low.
I don't see these as good prices for an SSD that will have 10 times less life time as my current one.
I will buy and SSD in the future, but I'll try to find TLC and avoid QLC as the plague.

 

Too little too late and expensive I what think about Intel SSDs.
They have their merits in the tech world, but this is an utter joke.
C'mon, Intel wake up, the world needs better hardware.

 

The 660p is entry level nvme ssd so the price is higher than sata but still much lower than current nvme ssd - about 299$ for 1tb(the cheaper ones) I guess sata ssd will be much cheaper, if they would be able to keep the tbw high enough with good algorithm and smart use of over provisioning for most users it would be good enough. For instance with my old 850 pro 1 tb I used for years I'm still very far from its endurance rating. also QLC ssd will still probably will endure for much more time than HDD.

 

I wonder how well they have tested these QLC NANDs for corruption. With the cell split into so many states, you'd think it wouldn't be weird to get errors after a year or two when reading the data.

I accept TLC well enough, but I don't think I'll go for QLC any time soon. Intel SSD? Not if I have any choice at all. Intel has lost my trust, and it's not easy to regain trust once lost.