m.2 nvme are cheaper than sata by now, have been over a year (generally)

@@user-wq9mw2xz3j aaand they are much better choice than SATA ;-)

@@MajkelPCLabpl well. myah. Not always. How many m.2 slots you have on your mother board? 1? 2? max 3. Many still have 0. Then one needs to go on to using pcie adapters, and for that you need to use pcie slots. If you have that. (plus cost of adapter). Sata sata also much easier to move from one place to another than m.2 But yes, generally better I'd say. If you thought about m.2 sata then yes of course, superior.

This is QLC, NOT recommended for boot drive!!!

@@kakurerud7516 barely matters

Outside of benchmarks the difference with a SATA SSD is almost impossible to notice, m.2 is just really good because you don't need a load of extra cables.

Speed should be a secondary priority if you value longevity. Odd that she didn't even talk about this using QLC flash, reason enough to avoid it IMO.

@@ferrumignis Very true. The longevity of a QLC drive is definitely inferior, but unless you're using it to write and rewrite continuously it's unlikely to be a problem for most users. I'd rather buy this now and replace it in a couple of years, when another $120 will probably get me a 4tb drive, rather than spend twice as much now for a higher quality drive than I really need that I'll probably still end up replacing in two to three years anyway.

I have the same and honestly, I don't see any issues with it. It handles my steam library just fine.

silly spd over cap on system disk and vol over spd. for a storrage. im happy with kyocera as second drv.

She has the perfect set for all these cute artsy shots of the ssds hanging out in the planter. It’s great

then take off pink glasses and see the world...

what's original about it?

Yah, QLC with SLC cache exausted is terrible, and her's is shown at 4:45 clocking 130 MB/s. I consider it one of the most important benchmarks, as it's when you are making a big copy in an old drive that you will really feel the bad performance as those QLCs can be worse than spinning disks for that. A TLC drive will always be quick enough (generally) even if lagging a bit behind in other benchmarks. Not to mention the general endurance.

really?...i have one of these in my laptop! i will check this! i brought a Renegate for my Gaming Rig....its one of the best drive and better than my 1tb 980pro!! (but u notice the difference only in benchmarks)

@@Knebebelmeyer the renegade is a refined kc3000 that's a fast drive with TLC and dram. The nv2 is the lowest spectrum, better than the nv1 (that can be considered the worst nvme ever produced alongside the crucial P2), neither the P3 nor the nv2 I'd use for Windows or for the sole system drive.

They all do the bait and switch, for a 40 or 50 dollar what do you expect.

@@Odd_Taxi_epi04 It`s okay, is faster than samsumg 980 pci3. You not see this drive to compare to pci4 ones, yo see this one to compare to gen 3 drives, and with a lower price than a gen3 premium one, and better in general than all gen3 ones. so yes it`s worth the value it has, here i can find it cheaper than a gen 3 nvme WD green so... it's value worth its specs really well.

Thanks! And it's OK if you need something cheap imho. So, glad I could help :)

Oh, definitely yes! It'll make your HDD look like it's using dial-up for transferring data

How crappy compared to other PCIe 3.0 SSDs?

I wouldn't bother, they fail a lot.

​@@TechTesters Hi I want to buy a fast and longevity SSD so I saw on KZfaq and some people say that NVMe is "short life" and sometimes "crash" your desktop. I am doubt , I don't know what type of SSD to buy , only fast and longevity, I don't care about prize. Only two things: lifespan, longevity and very fast . Thank you

Thanks! Unfortunately more and more SSDs are getting super vague specs these days, kinda disappointing. But it gives an opportunity for a really painful review if I end up buying another one in a few months and it ends up much worse ;)

Is this nv2 ok for video editing considering it has 300tbw?

Thanks for the review and the initiative. I ordered one to use solely as external storage using a cheap USB 3.2 case. It should be fine for this purpose and less expensive than USB thumb drives. Here in Hungary, it comes in at a bit over $100 including the 27% VAT. and shipping. It is the cheapest solution for me for on-the-road camera storage.

Bought two 1TB of these.

Yeah I bought a 2tb version to get rid of one of my two sata ssd's

If you are in the us on Newegg the 670p 2tb is $100 which has dram

@@randomguydoes2901 Actually, good point. Current price is like $5 more on Amazon US and it outperforms significantly. Much appreciated! Edit: The sequential write on SN570 is shite. I think the much faster speed in sequential write can make up for SN570's much faster speed in other areas.

@@randomguydoes2901 I'd take the SN570 in a heartbeat over this, I just don't understand the love for a middling QLC based drive.

Thanks! And it is.

Mine died in 1 hour last day

@@applebro9943 unlucky, but that happens even to the most expensive ones. Just return it :-) Friend bought 2 of these, had 0 problems so far and the performance for gaming is top level, in reality he can't see a difference between this SSD and SSD that costs 2x more :-D

I'm planing to buy the 500gb to use it just for gaming, would you recommend it ?

@@aminesekhri4413 Should do fine. Its slow for a nvme drive sure, but its miles ahead of an hard drive and fast still most similar priced sata ssds. I would recommend, if your motherboard doesn't have it already, to buy a heat sink for it. They're not to expensive.

entonces es mejor que me compre un WD BLACK SN770 en ves de un NV2 KINGSTON?

@@TheSpectre.24 The SN770 is better than the NV2, but the SN850X is better than both of them.

sorry but did you really wait until the *end* of am4 to upgrade and not just go am5 😱

@@DDRWakaLaka yep. Upgrade was about $1000CAD cheaper.

Planning to purchase 3x1tb Kingston fury gen4. 2 for notebook pcie3. So in a few years can move these two fury to new pc.

What about the WD drives labelled as SLC? I read 'SLC cache', so is cache the whole memory, or just one chip used for caching?

Because you're getting ripped off. No one should be taken advantage of and pricing accordingly.

People have their ego tied up with their tech. It doesn't make sense to get the best because in three years it will be the worst

Becseue kc3000 is only 10 dollars more so don't be cheap. I'm annoyed my prebuilt came with kc3000 and this. Just why.

​@@user-xl6yo5dr6pkc3000 is impressive but i cant afford it

It really depends on the price.

Could you explain it further or guide me to a video explaining it.? I'm new to this ssd thing

@@RohitCantSing I looked it up while trying to find SSDs and I didn't even up buying any, so I think you can find it too. Something about read/write endurance, I believe. QLC is the cheapest, but if you want your OS drive dead in 6 months.. You can use backup software that often backs up, like AJC Active Backup or the others that I saw that I didn't like as much or also had to pay for, together with full backups every month to an HDD using Acronis or whathaveyou, anything that gets access and doesn't throw a bunch of errors like 7-zip does and you may be set, I'd use 2 HDDs for the full backups, backup to one and then copy it to the other or use a more complicated setup like RAID but those probably require the drives to be internal or spend a bunch of money on NAS, I don't know as I've never looked this stuff up properly or even at all. Wall of text with partially irrelevant stuff in it: The cheap method is what I started doing, but then I filled up my external drives and I've not done a full backup in 2-3 months..Oops. I just have some cheap 240GB? SSD that I've used twice in a row and the first time it died within 6 months I think, may have been 5 actually, 2022-03-15 to 2022-08-15?, too lazy to check what the range was. More e-waste, presumably. But maybe the higher end stuff requires rarer resources, I don't know which is better if you have the money for either, I still have two SSDs dusting waiting to be installed, I probably should move to one of them, it's what I did with an old laptop HDD I used up. Before the current drive failed, I moved to a different one and then when that failed I moved back and then that failed and now I'm on the second SSD of the same design. Intenso Top 240GB? I think.. It's a miracle it hasn't failed, but my current understanding of its health is based on the previous one I used. Would be nice if this one actually lasted more than a year and the previous one was just poopoo from the start. I didn't have nvme slots in the previous PC config when I still used the previous Intenso Top 240GB? SSD, so it was never on my mind and I read in the manual that two sata slots will be disabled if I use it, I'd rather use 2 SATA slots than one NVME as the speed is entirely irrelevant, clearly. Oh no, a game takes 2 seconds longer to load. I play one game that has been mostly broken for 2 months, it just doesn't do much when starting it for 3+ minutes, one time it was 25min. But yeah, in more realistic settings, nothing takes long enough that NVME is necessary. Most games on HDDs load fast enough, some are questionable like Rainbow Six Siege, I used to be the one that loaded the fastest and I had an HDD, but I think that HDD was failing or there were enough updates that made it take longer and longer, so I became the guy everyone was waiting for, so I got an SSD. It's probably not the right choice as HDDs have lasted a lot longer. Longest SSD I've used was 2 years or so, longest external HDD is 10 years I think and longest internal may be 7 years and I'm currently using it. It is a miracle it hasn't failed like the previous internal HDD I used for the same purpose, considering I bought it before the previous one and I switched to it after. I've also written to it constantly to back up, unlike the one that is broken, at one point it had all my Steam library games installed and I liked that it fit nicely in there. I can't remember, but I think my Steam library at the time took around 3.5TB and the drive was 3.63TB. Not great, supposedly, as 10% space left let's it breathe or whatever. I believe at some point I removed the games and nowadays I wouldn't do something like that, as I wouldn't play 99% of them. Wouldn't have back then either, but I made dumber decisions back then, like removing my Skyrim folder I changed around to work with all the mods I wanted and that took probably a hundred hours, to get space..for stuff that took maybe 2 minutes to get. If I recall correctly, I modified some part of the files with some tool that said what was conflicting in the files, the plugins I think. Maybe it was just Notepad++ and comparing two files? I don't know if I used Notepad++ at that point. Most of the time was spent opening Skyrim, going to places to find out if going there crashes it. Eventually I reached an unstable state where going somewhere wouldn't just crash the game. I think one mod added an entire castle somewhere that was instanced, but still affecting the Skyrim world and going near it crashed the game until I fixed it somehow. I didn't write down almost anything back then, so I have no idea how I did anything or why something may have crashed. But the vanilla is already a bit unstable if you don't use a wiki. Pretty sure I used a wiki for a vanilla playthrough that said what paths taken leads to what issues, basically the place where I would be able to read that grabbing the golden claw without having the quest first, would break the quest or something like that. I used that for everything I did and I still ended up with 3 broken quests after the defeat of Alduin, but I'm uncertain of all of this. I could probably have used console commands to fix them, maybe I was doing a run explicitly to see if I could get to the end with all quests done? I believe I first finished the game on Xbox 360, so I doubt it was that I was trying to do a vanilla playthrough specifically to finish it at all. I know I wanted a save file on PC so I could actually back it up as Xboxes and Playstations are closed systems and I didn't want to touch the jailbreaking stuff.

TLC was a big no-no as well. They do perform admirably and much better than we expected them to when it was new tech. I think the same is valid for QLC as well. I got the 2TB NV2 4 months ago and use it for all desktop tasks including gaming and running VMs. It rocks!

​@@valkaielod nowadays, ssd are either tlc or cheaper qlc in common markets. When prices are not too different，will go for tlc with dram, like Kingston fury $80 for 1tb. Nv2 is not suitable for notebooks due to high heat.

@@williamlau7179 NV2 is perfect for laptops. Pretty fast and one of the cooler SSDs. I did the exact same thing as you. And would still do it with other models (MX500 vs BX500 for example). But Kingston really nailed this one. I hope they don't begin swapping components with sub-par ones though :)

You hit it about boot time. A lot of reviews focus on it but the average person reboots a couple times a day, at most. Maybe once a day or once a week. Does it matter if that takes 3 seconds or just 2? Not to me. I remember PC boot times not in seconds but multiple minutes. My current PC really does boot in 3 seconds. ANY effort or money spent to reduce that would be a waste in my opinion. I boot once a day. I don't care if a second is wasted. In-app performance matters a lot more but almost any SSD will deliver decent results there. Only benchmarks and testing reveal the differences.

Also consider the Crucial P3. Gen 3 drive but you can get a 2TB one for ~$115 on sale. Great for storage if nothing else, or as a primary drive on budget/M.2 space limited builds.

I was going to mention the SN770 at this price as a much better alternative, but you beat me to it. +1 Also consider the Silicon Power UD90 as another option.

You mean this can't be the main bootable drive?

@@Brukner841 It can be, and will be much better than an HDD, but it's betst to have an SSD with DRAM for a boot drive. Makes more of a difference for SATA DDSs compared to NVME however.

Glad it was helpful!

I have that exact model of the Sk Hynix, it was more competitively priced compared to its Samsung equivalents.

Thank you! I'm actually trying to get one, but I haven't seen any in the EU for a while. If you find one somewhere let me know.

Most reviews show it better than the 850x and a little behind the 990. It's an amazing drive.

P41 is mostly limited to NA

The Solidigm P44 Pro is basically the same drive with a better firmware and actually available in the EU

this is my plan also

Same here .. having the exact same issue but i think it’s not gonna burn the ssd. Not sure if i’m gonna spend more for thermal pad and heatsink

@@joebouharb2039 as a little update the SSD is still working fine, havent gotten any heatsink. It doesnt really rise over 70 °c which is decent enough but I think that is because my country is hot af, when I turn the ac It gets a little better.

When i play games it stays between 56 c and 61 .. it’s good and idle 49 or 45 but the second installed ssd is 39 degrees on idle, idk if that’s an issue

Thank you! :)

They actually have a 4tb version already, though I may be a bit late to remind you about this

@@Dreami3Dude Thanks! At the time they only went up to 2 TB. It's great that they released a 4 TB version.

Thank you! Do check out my more recent SN580 review as well!

Thanks! Btw, the gaming benchmark and scores include actual loading traces from several games. But if you would count it in seconds, you wouldn't really notice the difference 9/10x

@@TechTesters yeah, your charts cover it pretty good. It was more of a way to show that 30% difference may only be .3 seconds in "real life" :) I guess my point is that with the speed we are getting from even the slowest and least expensive drives there is no real difference. It will take Direct Storage games before it might matter. Keep up the excellent work!

lol true