On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:27:34 +0000, Fritz Wuehler
wrote:

So the manufacturers think they can get more GB per dollar,
becoming closer to spinning disks. But the performance
will be slower, also closer to the old school drive.

so pffft!

Except it's not a platter drive. Mediocre may be suited
applicability. Besides no motors to wear or mechanical factors, while
there will be, nevertheless, some read speed advantages QLC,
comparable, along with TLC, to the lowest overall among all memory
forms for write endurance tolerance.

However big and fat a data pool for QLC access at SDD speeds is given.
Beyond which, how long and good enough begins to fade into various
trade-offs to be stacked up for comparison;- the usual: value, quality
and ratings, warrantee and reputability, & etc.

They no doubt do blow some off, TLC and QLC drives, as not dependable
or lasting;- cheap thrills for laptops is how it goes, just nobody is
usually mentioned for a generic assessment. MLC, though, was also
once new and I still have my first SSD, a Samsung MLC 64G drive for,
mostly, booting the OS (with the OS virtual memory swap-drive defined
for a plattered HDD). Seldom written to, it's six years old and maybe
going on sixty.

Before you rewrite all QLC discrete cell storage units a thousand
times, at their projected lifespan, how long's that going to be to
fail before my 64G MLC rating for 10,000 rated rewrites? Assuming you
can get, easy, a 256G if not 512G QLC for what I paid on the MLC
Samsung.