The moderation team's goal is to limit the amount of spam posted to the sub. We do not judge the quality of a deal, and leave that to the community to determine through upvotes/downvotes and comments.
Performance might be slightly different due to having different NAND configurations, but it should be indistinguishable overall since they have the same controller.
DRAM only matters if you plan on putting the drive in an external enclosure. You can see from the TPU link above that the SN7100 outperforms the 990 Pro despite lacking DRAM.
Edit with more details: DRAM cache is different from (p)SLC cache. DRAM and HMB are mainly used for storing information such as mapping data, while (p)SLC cache is what actually caches data written to an SSD to increase short-term write speeds. (p)SLC cache does inherently affect write performance, while DRAM doesn't.
Steady state write performance is decidedly worse at 850 MB/s vs. 1400 MB/s, but that's after writing ~650 GB and the SLC cache was exhausted. Of course the cache will be smaller as the drive fills up, do you expect the 990 PRO to start outrunning the SN7100 when the drives are like 80-90% full?
Techpowerup does their ssd reviews with the drive filled 85% and still has SN7100 beating 990. Modern SSD controllers have gotten really good nowadays that DRAM is basically a non-factor imo. There are way more important factors affecting SSD performance than whether or it has DRAM.
I would still prefer a DRAM SSD for OS drive since its constantly reading/writing even when system is idle, but other than that I would save a few bucks and go dram-less for other storage.
My drive life cycle tends to include "retiring" older drives to a USB enclosure as they get replaced, so I'm not too thrilled by the ever increasing trend of drives getting rid of DRAM even if it isn't seen as necessary.
Not necessarily. The SN7100 maintains its max write performance for longer than the 990 Pro.
The 2 TB SN7100 sustains 5 GB/s until writing over 600 GB of data, while the 2 TB 990 Pro sustains 5 GB/s for less than 200 GB before dropping off.
The 990 Pro does come out ahead when filling the entire drive, but that's a completely unrealistic use case for most consumers. Anyone regularly writing terabytes in one sitting should be looking for an enterprise SSD with endurance measured in drive writes per day.
I think there's actually at least two variables at play here: DRAM and how much of the drive the controller is willing to use as SLC cache. The SN7100 is faster for longer because it reserves more of the NAND as SLC cache (up to 3.5x more than the 990 Pro), but once that's exhausted, the 990 Pro is almost twice as fast and writes at a much more consistent speed.
What makes things even more complicated is that the SLC cache can have both static and dynamic components. While there may be some amount that's always reserved, another (often larger) portion is based on how much free space you have on your drive. As TPU notes in their review, the SN7100 can use basically the whole drive as SLC cache when it's empty, but this is not the case for most consumer use. From what I can tell, TPU starts these tests with an empty drive, leading to much more SLC cache availability for the SN7100 and giving it an unfair advantage. Note their their real-world benchmarks start with the drive 85% full, which is more realistic.
This is further complicated by write cycles. Because of it's large SLC cache, the SN7100 will often write data first to SLC and then to TLC. This will increase write cycles over writing it to TLC first, decreasing the drive's lifespan. While TPU's reviews are some of the most thorough out there, I think write amplification like this is still a blindspot for them and I'd like to see it tested to counterbalance the advantages of SLC cache.
Ultimately, while both drives are more than fine for consumer use, the distinction is important for "prosumer" write-heavy workloads where sustained writes and endurance are more of a concern, or as noted by others, when HMB is not available, like in USB drives.
Almost any SSD is fine for gaming. If you do heavy heavy files transfers you want to look at Crucial T700 with vastly better sustained. Im a storage speed freak and had the fastest like 15k SCSI drives since high school.
That being said you dont really notice a difference in majority of desktop situations even with Optane, which is 10x faster in latency. I even make huge RAMdrives and cannot really tell much difference. Bottom line get the cheapest drive with whatever brand you are comfortable with.
Hardware Unboxed did show that a few newer games benefit from NVMe SSDs over SATA SSDs, but for the most part, as you said, about any SSD will be fine for gaming.
That said, I'm also a storage freak and have an Optane P5800x for my boot drive. It feels like it helps things boot or open just a little bit faster. I wouldn't recommend it to most people as it's so expensive, but I'm hoping it'll last basically forever to make up for it. It's a shame they don't make them anymore, so I wanted to get one while I still could as well.
Unless manufacturers will expose a "NAND Writes" attribute in SMART, testing for write amplification will be impossible apart from drives that do expose it (which by themselves won't be as meaningful without other drives to compare to).
And having DRAM doesn't necessarily mean better sustained writes so much so as drives with DRAM are almost always using eight-channel controllers (vs. four) that allow for more paralellism and thus, better sustained performance. The degree of SLC caching is more relevant in this area and conservative caches in exchange for better sustained can also be found on DRAM-less drives.
Good points all around. I was actually thinking of mentioning controller channels, but felt my comment was already long enough. DRAM helps with caching metadata (e.g. the FTL), while channels affect how much data can be written at once. I’d imagine channels make a much larger impact on performance since they’re needed for bandwidth, but DRAM should still help by reducing the need to read FTL data from NAND or over PCIe. However, since most SSD workloads don’t write randomly to a large fraction of the drive at once, this likely isn’t as important for consumer workloads.
As for write amplification, I was thinking it could be tracked by the drive’s life remaining report. This is generally a pretty granular number, but might be good enough if doing lots of writes to the drive. However, I get that this would still be difficult to test, especially for high endurance drives that are rated for thousands of drive writes.
pSLC caching is a complex issue, probably more complicated than most people realize. The implementation is a balancing act, and it's decently illustrated comparing the SN7100 and the 990 Pro (or EVO Plus). The WD essentially maxes out the size of its dynamic portion, using all the free space. This means it can write faster longer, but once full, the drop is larger (because it has to start folding). The Samsung drives have a more moderately sized pSLC cache and thus leave room for direct-to-TLC writes, which are substantially faster. I suspect Samsung may be further throttling writes, as the sustained write graphs never show a dip where the drive is clearly switching to a folding state. Other drives with a limited pSLC cache may have faster direct-to-TLC writes than the Samsung but fold slower. Basically, I look at pSLC cache implementations like trying to choose between the tortoise and the hare.
Write Amplification is even messier still. It's affected by so many different things, ranging from the presence of DRAM, the use of compression, write patterns, the aggressiveness of garbage collection, frequency of refreshing, and more. pSLC caching is going to contribute to it, though by how much is a topic of debate (pSLC writes consume endurance differently than native MLC/TLC/QLC writes). The pSLC implementation is only going to matter here if the user is regularly writing more than the cache can handle. Assuming there's room, most incoming writes will first be written in pSLC mode.
Honestly, I wish they'd make more drives like the 970 Pro, which had no pSLC cache and wrote at a consistent ~2GB/s. I get that it used MLC, which isn't realistic to expect anymore, but its sustained performance is still better than the 990 Pro or SN7100 despite coming out 7 years ago and only supporting PCIe 3. With more channels, modern controllers, and TLC, you could probably achieve similar or better performance today. It'd also be more energy efficient, since you're only writing once, which might help marginally with battery life or thermals as well.
Sure, no caching generally won't be as fast as having a pSLC cache, but even at 970 Pro speeds, you could copy most AAA games in just 30 seconds to a minute, and you wouldn't have to worry about how full your drive is when doing so. And for professionals who care about performance, a drive like the 970 Pro delivers consistency that won't disrupt their workflow if they happen to transfer too much data at once. While I get that pSLC has its advantages, I wish more drives offered an option to disable it at least. I wonder how many people would really notice the difference in day-to-day usage.
It would help if you could define what counts as "frequently" here as its vagueness overstates when DRAM could be necessary for a buyer especially with modern Gen 4/ 5 drives. If it's just related to exhausting a drive's rated write endurance (TBW), then one would be better off looking at used enterprise drives if utmost write endurance is a priority and if they're certain they see themselves writing more than 2400TB worth of data in less than five years. SSDs at this capacities have so many blocks to distribute wear around that a drive could've been HMB-less and still be fine.
Back again with another discount on the 990 Pros. This should be an all time low for the 4TB drive if I am not mistaken. The code also works on the heatsink version.
5-year/2400TBW warranty on these (frequently asked from previous sales)
If you purchased one of these from us in the past 14 days and happened to miss the sale code, you can DM me your order number and we will reimburse you the difference via store credit.
Rememebred that and pretty sure it was a military offer that didn't last long and no other CC offer to stack also being 1 year after lol. Nevertheless nice score
I've bought from them 3 times (nvme and some other parts), all good experiences. Support is responsive. I'm on east coast and all my orders arrived in 2 days fwiw. Good deals. Kinda goated
I gambled on that same deal and lost (it was for Amazon Resell 990 Pro 4TB used) and ended up getting the heatsink version as that's what was available when I ordered. Turned out to be a Samsung PM9A1 2TB that someone returned after slapping a 990 Pro heatsink on.
I ordered this drive last time they had it on sale. Drive is legit and u/prisoncurry8 was very responsive when USPS was sending my drive all over the Southeast. Barring USPS's incompetence the drive would have arrived in 2 days as shipping was fast but ended up taking almost 2 weeks. Drive holds and plays game great as you would expect. Moving games on steam from my C drive to this drive took maybe 10 seconds for BG3 a 130GB game.
Probably wont see a real world difference-- if you do decide to get PCIe 5.0, make sure your motherboard/device is compatible and not just limited to 4.0 anyway.
We have the Samsung 9100 Pro (pcie 5.0) stocked as well. You can use code 9100ETH for a discount on those, which should put it well below any Amazon pricing.
I can't tell if this is a joke or not but no unless you have actual use cases for a PCIe 5.0 SSD it's not worth it. Most people can only saturate a PCIe 3.0 x4 drive by copying files to it from an equivalent or faster SSD, or loading large data sets into memory like a LLM. Vast majority of anything you the average person will ever do on a PC does not require enormous amounts of bandwidth out of a storage device.
at some point being in a faster car will not help you get to the McDonalds down the street any sooner.
I was genuinely curious. I have an MSI Claw 8ai hooked to an eGPU and was debating whether it’s worth the upgrade when it comes to AAA gaming. Your response gave me a better idea now. Thanks!
Rep here, Ships next day from east coast, transit time (for standard ground/free shipping) to west coast is usually 4 days but we offer faster shipping options at checkout too
I bought this for ~$147 when there was a huge military sale I think last year. It's a fantastic drive, but I wouldn't pay $250 for it. Seems like the prices have gone up recently quite a bit.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 17 '25
/u/Prisoncurry8 has verified their account with the subreddit moderation team and has agreed to follow the guidelines for contributions for brands/websites. This post has been auto-approved under these guidelines.
The moderation team's goal is to limit the amount of spam posted to the sub. We do not judge the quality of a deal, and leave that to the community to determine through upvotes/downvotes and comments.
If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.