The performance dips as the drive fills is not really a phenomenon specific to QLC. It's a byproduct of dynamic caching. The SX8200 Pro is subject to the same issues for example. Most QLC drives use dynamic caching because it's cheaper than static caching and provided better performance on emptier drives (at the expensive of performance as the drive fills).Zarkey wrote: ↑ One thing to remember is TLC drives are better than QLC (this drive) in many ways like speeds, durability etc but im not sure by how much. For OS/main drive people usually recommend TLC because they can keep their speeds better once over 80% capacity. If you're going to fill that thing up quick then expect lower performance like older SSDs, durability shouldnt be an issue.
Decent QLC https://www.amazon.ca/Sabrent-Rocket-In ... 07ZZYWTBP/
decent TLC https://www.amazon.ca/Silicon-Power-Gen ... B07L6GF81L
(i'm not an SSD expert but this is what i've read from others and general reviews)
Most consumer workloads are read intensive so speed and durability aren't a real concern. QLC is fine for a lot of users, it's not as good, but it's fine. If your system is perpetually low on RAM and it's swapping like crazy, maybe this could cause issues with QLC NAND but even a 660p at 1TB is rated for 10GB writes a day over 5 years. So unless you're writing a lot or keeping your drive in a state that it's perpetually full, I don't see it being a major issue.
EDIT: just noticed a mistake in my math, it's 110GB/day for 5 years.