The Samsung 850 EVO 4TB SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on July 11, 2016 10:00 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
The sequential read test requests 128kB 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, and the drive is filled before the test begins. 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.
The 4TB 850 EVO scores slightly better than the 2TB for sequential reads, but it is still a hair slower than the fastest drives.
Samsung's large drives draw a lot of power during the sequential read test, but at least the 4TB 850 EVO improves over the 2TB and 1TB 850 EVOs.
 |
|||||||||
The 4TB 850 EVO does not suffer from the modestly impaired QD1 performance of the 2TB model, but for the rest of the test the 4TB is slightly slower than the other two.
Sequential Write Performance
The sequential write test writes 128kB 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, and the drive is filled before the test begins. 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.
The 4TB 850 EVO manages to just barely break the record of the 1TB 850 Pro for the fastest sequential write speeds at low queue depths.
With the fastest performance and the fourth-lowest power usage, the 4TB comes out on top for efficiency.
 |
|||||||||
The 4TB 850 EVO shows substantially better QD1 performance and slightly better QD2 performance than the 2TB 850 EVO while having power consumption that is more in line with the 850 Pro.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
145 Comments
View All Comments
profquatermass - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link
6GB? My first hard drive was 200MB!bug77 - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
Yeah, if you can get one of these at half the MSRP, it's only $750 :rolleyes:Flunk - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
It's only $0.36 a GB, that's pretty cheap.patrickjp93 - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
You can get something like the Sandisk Ultra II 1TB for 21 cents/GB.ddriver - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
But then again why would you? Unless you are starving, and if you are, then you wouldn't be buying SSDs...I can't honestly think of any good reason to buy something other than samsung SSD - they have the most warranty and performance is top notch too, reliability seems to be better too.
FLHerne - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
Support and spec compliance. Samsung *still* ship firmware that claims support for queued TRIM ATA commands, but erases data if they're actually used. The consistent response is "Windows doesn't use these commands, we don't support other OS's", never mind that it's part of the SATA spec.(no, the kernel bug they fixed is completely unrelated)
I *hate* manufacturers treating "works in current Windows" as an acceptable spec - it's guaranteed to shoot you in the foot down the line, as everyone saw with Vista. So I bought a SanDisk instead.
FLHerne - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
To clarify, I mean the way Vista broke all the manufacturers' stupid assumptions based on XP's behaviour.Also, the months it took for them to bodge around the performance degradation.
Notmyusualid - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
Acutally, I hate to back up Microsoft, but they DID say it was a complete re-write of Windows, and that it would not be the same OS at all.It performed horribly with low amounts of RAM, and at the time, the big RAM makers were in collusion over RAM price fixing (look it up), so that is why we saw laptops, with Vista being shipped with 256MB of RAM, which was a mess, I agree.
But someone like myself, who had way more RAM than that, found it to be just fine. And it was way less infected than XP too.
I guess your printer never received a Vista driver then? Too bad.
But for me, and other client workstations with reasonable amounts of installed RAM I oversaw, it worked just fine, from the first day I used it.
Flame away...
kepler- - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link
Except they lied. Go onto your desktop and try to make a folder called "con". You can't, even on Windows 10, because they are still using code from Windows for Workgroups.There are a few others that (PRN, AUX, NUL, COM1...), which are all legacy Windows device names. They never '"rewrote" anything from the ground up.
Michael Bay - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
Oy vey, muh geschafts can`t go into appropriate folders now!Such shoah.