Fallacy. Read/write warnings are for server grade hardware that does the amount of read/writes you do in a year in a couple hours.

You'll likely never reach the read/writes required to kill a drive. Its much more likely that you just had a defective drive from the onset.

Well i had a surface. After the drive died (first BSODS, then no detection in the first place) i searched online and it seems that its a common fault for the ssd to die that quick. It was only 2 years

Again, that is just poor quality not anything to do with read writes.

Hmm, so the ssd line up is just bad?

After further inspection though of my dead pc, the mother board straight up refused to read any jsjsnndjdndnjdjdndjxunejsudnssd. So even so, would my motherboard be at risk still if i run from a HDD. Sorry if my questions sound stupid.

Now that you do mention it, after i purchased a new motherboard, i might look into opening my computer up again and replacing the ssd with my previous old one and see if it was actually working fine

Picking a good brand is important, especially since some brands have been caught lying about their speeds and swapping out memory types without telling anyone.

After reading the other comments, the ssd brand is important for the quality of memory you get and what failure rate you get. What I suggest is getting a replacement SSD by a good brand, crucial, Samsung Evo are just 2,there are other good brands these are just examples.

It is a samsung ssd. More specifically the SSD that comes with a surface pro 4

I had an original samsung drive that comes with a surface pro 4. Replaced the failed drive with the exact same make/model.

I have been running a 250 gb samsung 840 EVO for like nearly 10 years. According to magician ithas 54.7 TB written to it so far and is still classed as 'Good'.

There's nothing to worry about, you'll never wear it to the point you need to be concerned. Not without trying very hard.

What about m.2 NvME drives?

Looking online, your drive seems to be a SATA one. Would NvME drives have a shorter life span due to their size

Fair point, not quite sure about that. Just a comment that it was my OS drive and I always ran my favourite games from it so it got a fair bit of regular wear. I know there's definitely long term limits but I think as consumers we really shouldn't even be thinking about wear cycles and limits. Your case sounds unusual and I think you can mostly be safe in the assumption that the disk will last the life of the device.

Just a similar question. If i did run games off a HDD, would it effectively use the ssd less? All i want to know is if the read/ writes of the game is not going towards the ssd.

That would indeed save wear and tear on your SSD.

For general SSD use, reading from them causes virtually no wear and tear. Writing causes some wear and tear, but at a very slow rate as long as the drive is not very full. Keeping at least 10 percent free is good, more if you can spare it.

Ah ok. So my ssd doesnt have storage for games but even though little wear and tear is seen with games on ssds, ill mainly stick to HDDs for peace of mind. Thanks for your help, really appreciate it

I usually store most of my games on HDD as the stuff I play comes from pre-2015 mostly. Anything modern or that uses ray tracing I put on SSD. You ain't gonna wear it out unless it was faulty to begin with

Life spans don't drop with capacity

I dont mean the capacity, i mean the actual size of an m.2 ssd. They are considerably smaller than SATA ssds