New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
The Intel drive with known corruption problems? Good luck what that, idiot.
Yes, processor progression is measured in mm. :facepalm:
time to do a house clean sale from Amazon...
Now, samsung is claiming the rumour is false (wccftech reached out directly to samsung)
I think it's False for the time being, but they can change their mind later on...
LOL! What slot? Older motherboards don't have M2 slot. And an adapter plugged into the PСIe slot with NVMe drive won't work there, as it's technically impossible on AMD, for example. Use your head first.
You were clearly told that SSDs released at that time have been working for more than ten years without any problems. You just innovate a problems where they don't exist.
That's a relief!
Keyword here is “halt” not “cancel”. Expected behavior in wake of tech crysis. They will wait and resume as soon as market stable again. Few winters will be harsh. I hope chinese will ramp up their prod and will try to compensate.
Some Chinese manufacturers are now producing new motherboards for old CPU Intel 1155 for example with NVMe slot on board. However, they cannot be used as boot disks. They can only be used as additional storage disks. That architecture doesn't allow it, even after the innovation.
NVMe also does not work with the cheapest AMD Athlon processors.
No need to pair legacy with modern. Manufacturing should be focusing on latest while keeping costs minimal. Athlon, is something heard 15 years ago.
AMD Athlon for AM4 still actual for workstations. Not everyone needs Ryzen for their work tasks.
I have one of those new Intel 1155 motherboards with the NVMe slot, and it boots fine off it.
Just bought one 870 evo.. btw comparing to nvme it is much cheaper and durable. A typical 1tb is about avg 200 tbw, but an 870 evo is 1200 tbw
I can see them dropping the consumer line of SATA SSDs in the near future to focus on NVMe products. The consumer market has been heading toward NVMe for a while now, and arguably most newly sold computers and laptops come with at least one M.2 slot. The upgrade path for consumers is usually either “add a second NVMe” or “replace the existing one”—assuming they even need to upgrade storage before replacing the entire device.
When looking at the business end of things and where it’s heading, I suspect they are more likely to keep that segment than the consumer line (meaning continued production of datacenter SSDs, albeit at lower unit counts). There, SATA SSDs still occupy a healthy middle ground between all-out spinning rust for slow, large-capacity storage and the fast but smaller NVMe SSDs for performance-critical workloads (that comes with a higher price-tag). Plus with most server chassis we are seeing at the moment (altho its slowly changing), the amount of front access for NVME disks is still a bit limited compared to sata options. (Arguably the same points apply for SAS ssd for the most part.)
Apparently just false rumors https://wccftech.com/no-samsung-isnt-phasing-out-of-the-consumer-ssd-business/
Windows boot directly from this NVMe drive on 1155? Are you sure?
Yes, both windows and linux.
Edit: Actually, I take that back. I know linux boots from it (I'm using it now). When I was running windows, it was on a sata SSD, and I've switched to linux-only now.
The BIOS on the motherboard came from the factory updated, and it supports the NVMe slot, though, so I'd be surprised if it didn't work with windows, too.
That makes no sense. You replied to someone talking about NVMe drives in adapters for PCIe slots. Also, m.2 sata drives do not need external power, it gets it from the PCIe slot.
You're an idiot, of course it works, especially on AMD who supported bifurcation for free on consumer boards before Intel did.
Even on older chipsets like Z97, they don't support booting from NVMe in PCîe slot, but there's a bootloader you can load on USB to boot them. Z97 is like 13 years old or something like that.
Or you can Google Intel ssd firmware bugs and/or corruption. You don't always have to be ignorant and uneducated.
There exists bootloaders to boot from USB and then boot from NVMe.
That's the flash used, not the interface.
What is the brand and model number?
Aisurix H61G578. The BIOS is dated 2025-03-07.
While I do get @host_c's view I disagree; but then, I'm a "prosumer" and not a storage provider.
My view on this (thread's topic):
I still use and like SSDs for diverse reasons. One example being the fact that, as someone already said here, that maybe not for 99% but for many, many use cases SATA SSDs are bloody good and fast enough.
I also like NVMes - where sensible.
The (IMO) most important point though isn't speed but rather, as I already hinted in another thread, reliability. The fastest NVMe is but a worthless pile of crap if it dies and takes one's data down with itself. The probably most important factor in that is not some funny (at least seeming to be) high TBW or similar number, whose true meaning most users don't understand well anyway and whose main raison d'etre is marketing, make believe and trust. Nope it's the underlying technology. Of course the manufacturerers want the cheapest which tends to boil down to 'densest'. Consumers (with a functioning brain) on the other hand want reliability and speed. Or in other words manufacturerers want QLC and soon PentaLC while consumers (with a functioning brain) strongly prefer SLC or MLC or, at the very minimum TLC (but preferably not).
The true problem seems to be that most consumers do not have properly functioning brains or do not use them, hence they not only swallow crap (like QLC and soon PLC) but, stupid as they are, celebrate it; also they tend to go for brand name rather than for tech specs.Just make the crap sound good, e.g. talk of "higher bit density" rather than mentioning the actual facts, and the consumer herds, pardon me, "valued customers" will go for it and shell out their money.
Btw, MLC, and even SLC drives, both SATA and M.2 still do exist and can be purchased albeit at a price that looks higher. I happen to know because I have a couple of those (relatively recently purchased).
As for "Samsung halting SSD production" ...
I've got a bunch of large magnetic hard drives. It would be nice to have more reliable SSDs instead, if the price per TB were similar. Even if the SSDs were 100 MB/s. You know, if you could get a slow but reliable 16 TB SSD for $200, that would be something.
Apparently, the newest models of the new old Chinese motherboards have started to support booting from NVMe. This wasn't supported before. Yes, there is an option for it in the BIOS.
They must have their reasons; remember, Samsung is a huge company, and well, reaching their level is really difficult. Perhaps it's no longer strategic or profitable, with low margins, etc.
What I can tell you is that the market is pushing towards NVMe.
Now, is SATA better? For me, if we're talking about security, it is better. Many say they're equally secure, but no, that doesn't make sense to me.
Now, if we're talking about speed, well, whenever we talk about older technology... obviously, the newer one is faster. Anyway, the world moves on.
That $200 / 16 TB SSD idea made me smile 😄
A new 16 TB enterprise SATA HDD is already ~$400 today (+VAT, and SAS is easily +30%). NVMe above 4 TB costs roughly its weight in gold. So yeah… $200 for 16 TB solid-state isn’t happening anytime soon.
What’s funny is that 20 years ago, this is exactly what many of us expected “the future” to look like. A slow but reliable 16–20 TB SSD at 200 MB/s is not some sci-fi technology — it’s perfectly engineerable today. It just doesn’t exist, because it would be terrible for margins.
And honestly, it doesn’t feel like storage has really evolved in the last ~5 years:
Price per TB hasn’t meaningfully dropped
Capacity gains feel incremental, not revolutionary
20 TB still feels “wow”, when it really shouldn’t
Meanwhile:
Mobile games are 30+ GB
Media keeps growing
Data consumption is exploding
Yet we’re still casually using 1–2 TB drives in consumer PCs like it’s normal.
It feels like we didn’t hit a technology wall — we hit a business model wall. Storage got faster, not cheaper. Cloud made renting normal. Ownership stopped being the priority.
So no, it’s not just you — the “storage revolution” quietly turned into a storage subscription era 😅
Sad thing is, when I jumped from a 40 GB IDE drive to a 160 GB SATA, it felt like going through a Stargate. New universe, new rules, mind blown.
Fast-forward two decades later… we’re still in the same galaxy. Sure, we moved around inside it, but the next galaxy feels completely unreachable.
I honestly believe a 16 TB SSD doing a sustained 200–250 MB/s is perfectly doable today, even in a 3.5" form factor, using older/slower flash. This isn’t sci-fi, it’s just boring engineering.
What I can’t believe is that nobody actually did it.
Then again… maybe one random factory in China will eventually say “why not?”, dump one on the market, and accidentally blow the entire storage industry to shreds 😅
One can dream.
EDIT:
Actually, the more I think about it, all this corporate “segmentation logic” has turned into a massive waste of gigawatts at scale.
Most people — even in hosting — comfortably use 10–12 TB per drive. The lack of larger, affordable units (even if capped at 200 MB/s) just means more drives spinning, more controllers, more shelves, more cooling… all burning resources for no real technical reason.
If you zoom out, it’s kind of absurd: instead of fewer, denser, slower-but-reliable storage devices, we’re running armies of half-filled disks because the price curve refuses to move.
From an energy and efficiency perspective, that’s not progress — it’s just waste, multiplied at datacenter scale.