96-Layer 3D NAND And QLC NAND

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sam...920-3.html

The 860 QVO delivers acceptable performance for a SATA drive. It isn't amazingly fast, but 860 QVO will perform similarly to other TLC SSDs in most real-world applications. However, it lands on the low end of the spectrum during some tasks. For instance, the Intelligent TurboWrite cache eventually fills during large file transfers, which slows performance. But that shouldn't be an issue for the target market. After the initial operating system clone to the drive or the first transfer of your games library, the Intelligent TurboWrite cache should be large enough for normal daily use (especially if you buy a high-capacity model). If you need more performance, the obvious choice is to move to a faster model, like the EVO or the PRO.
...
The Samsung QVO lands at higher prices than we expected, especially given that the market is rapidly changing and SSD pricing is plummeting for the holidays. Just a few weeks ago 1TB SATA based SSDs were $160+ at a minimum, but now many popular options, including Samsung’s own 860 EVO, are priced under $130, and we expect prices to continue to plunge over the coming months. Honestly, why pay more for less? That’s not to say you get that much less out of the 860 QVO; it’s just that the 860 QVO's pricing is out of line with competing products.

It's hard to recommend the 860 QVO if it isn't retailing at least 10% below the other mainstream TLC SSDs. We also have to consider that the Intel 660p is just $165, so for $15 you get much more performance paired with a modern NVMe interface. As with all new releases, we expect some price corrections as the series matures, so it's possible the pricing situation could improve quickly.

https://techreport.com/review/34281/sams...reviewed/7

The 860 QVO lands in the company of Toshiba's RC100, a tiny sliver of NVMe storage that attempted to scrape by without a dedicated DRAM cache. Even with all its advantages, the 860 QVO couldn't turn in a better showing. We can make excuses for the QLC drive's performance in IOMeter, since those tests are designed to expose drives' weakness by filling them to capacity and subjecting them to extreme conditions. Applications with similar access patterns are not at all suitable to be run on budget consumer drives like the 860 QVO. But there are no excuses for the drive's showing in our real-world RoboBench tests. Despite leaving the 860 QVO plenty of room to let its Intelligent TurboWrite caching work its magic, the drive still just couldn't deliver.

The drive did do well in our boot and load tests, so maybe it could find its niche there—but only if the price is right. In the graph below, the most compelling position is toward the upper left corner, where the price per gigabyte is low and performance is high.
...
In summary, the 860 QVO can boot Windows and load applications with SSD swiftness, but it seems unable to marshal its caching tricks well enough to yield consistently snappy file transfer speeds. At the price Samsung wants for it, the QVO is a tough pill to swallow. Instead, we'd suggest buying cheap TLC drives while the holiday sales bonanzas are yet running. Give QLC some more time to bake before you open up that particular oven.