Random Read Performance

The random read test requests 4kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, which is filled before the test starts. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.

Iometer - 4KB Random Read

All the Samsung drives are crowding the top of the chart for low queue depth random read speeds, and the 750 EVO is way ahead of any other planar TLC drive here.

Iometer - 4KB Random Read (Power)

With power usage in the middle of the pack, the 750 EVO and 850 EVO are some of the most power-efficient drives on this test, but drives like the Plextor M6V are still at the top of the efficiency ranking.

In addition to offering great performance at low queue depths, the 750 EVO scales up to reach higher speeds at QD32 than any non-Samsung drive, without power consumption getting out of hand.

Random Write Performance

The random write test writes 4kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test is limited to a 16GB portion of the drive, and the drive is empty save for the 16GB test file. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write

Taking capacity into account, the 750 EVO provides much better random write speeds than any other planar TLC drive, and the 250GB model is competitive against many MLC drives.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write (Power)

The 750 EVO is high-performing for a TLC drive but at the cost of requiring more power than most planar TLC drives and much more than the 850 EVO.

The 120GB 750 EVO shows almost no scaling with queue depth, while the 250GB needs a queue depth of at least two to reach full performance. By contrast, the 120GB 850 EVO shows a little bit of performance scaling from QD1 to QD2 and the 250GB 850 EVO doesn't hit full performance until QD4.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light Sequential Performance
Comments Locked

109 Comments

View All Comments

  • Sn3akr - Monday, April 25, 2016 - link

    8$ is just too little of a difference and will not make a difference in a build as such.. I only see this as being implemented in finished machines from manufacturers, so that they can pop another 8$ in their pocket. Aftermarket.. Doubt it will sell a lot.
    Maybe i would use it in a HTPC, since it's not something that requires a lot of R/W operations once it's booted up
  • slowdemon21 - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link

    I noticed PNY & OCZ BENCHED IN THE MIDDLE, Sammy on the bottom [loser]
  • Ahmad kassem - Sunday, May 1, 2016 - link

    Is it ok to make more than one partition on this ssd or any other ssd?
  • wayneclaassen - Thursday, May 5, 2016 - link

    Well I needless to say I found the Samsung EVO 250GIG extremely reliable although it is a bit expensive, but for anyone that mostly run high performance graphics this price tag shouldn't be a big problem.
  • Bulat Ziganshin - Saturday, May 7, 2016 - link

    1. 750 may be a hit for developing markets. in particular i've seen 750 reviews on russian sites much earlier than here:
    fcenter/online/hardarticles/hdd/38770-Samsung_SSD_zadeshevo_obzor_Samsung_650_i_Samsung_750_EVO

    2. Can you please add to your reviews checks of gc/trim effect and slc cache size as in the section
    3dnews/931062/page-2.html#Деградация%20и%20восстановление%20производительности
  • eduard.fisic - Sunday, June 5, 2016 - link

    Billy, when you guys run the benchmarks, are the Samsung Evo drives run with RAPID Mode on or off? Just out of curiosity, as I am looking to buy the 850 Evo and I'd like to know if I can expect this sort of performance without having to turn on RAPID Mode. Thanks!
  • jason_brody - Thursday, July 7, 2016 - link

    Can anyone help if I should go with this SSD or 850 series for my Dell E6500?
  • elzafir - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    The 250GB 840 EVO is $15 cheaper where I live compared to the 750 EVO of the same size. Which one should I get?
  • Manisthisunreal - Friday, October 13, 2017 - link

    Notice because of all the fatmouths saying they'll "wait until it is cheaper" the industry has now colluded to up the prices and make up some bs excuses of "low demand" "commodity trader speculation on minerals". Yes we can blame stock traders for a lot of things like high oil prices, high wheat and other food goods prices but come on I smell something fishy. I was about to buy a 250gb Samsung SSD on black Friday for $60 almost two years ago when some idiot shopper woman decided to merge into me when I was on my way home from work leading to a 15 month nightmare. I never did make it out to get my ssd. Fast forward almost 2 years later and they've doubled in price. I really wanted that.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now