This is actually an interesting topic for the 600p, since almost every access has to be done twice: on the SLC cache and the main storage. That essentially doubles the active time. I guess it is the reason behind the ridiculously high idle power consumption.
Youre all right, we keep comparing it to the 850 EVO since it is the most popular SATA SSD there is, and it is priced competitively against the 600p (at least in retail market).
However, the fact is 600p is above-average when it comes to power consumption, therefore there is a good chance that the 600p will hog more power than whatever SSD that was chosen before.
Agreed, though its just an offer, Eve doesnt have to swallow it.
"Corporate bullshit on the bottom, community on the top."
That was one of the selling point of this product, and to be frank, none of us chose the polarizing 600p. It was chosen internally despite the community decided on SATA SSD. I'm not saying 600p is a bad choice here, but there are many things to consider, including power consumption which affects the major selling point of this device, and from what I see, the 600p doesnt really impress me in that sector.
NVMe doesn't automatically mean better than SATA, especially when you consider that we have one of the slowest NVMe drives.
The question now is:
How much battery life can we get with the other SSD?
Remember, 9 hours is still below our expectation. 10-12 hours, thats what is claimed on this device. More importantly, many of us would be pissed off if we could get much better battery life with a different SSD.
Poll always helps:
Assuming there is a SATA SSD that could give an additional 30-60 minutes of battery life over the 600p, which SSD would you pick?
Votes are public.