Final Words

The 4TB Samsung 850 EVO set new highs for a few performance sub-tests, but ultimately the only important record it breaks is for its storage capacity. On that front it is without equal in the consumer market and even among enterprise SATA drives higher capacities are only available from drives that are more than 7mm thick.

Samsung's new 256Gb 48-layer V-NAND chips made it straightforward for them to create this product, but it doesn't quite seem necessary. We were already quite impressed with their 2TB drives, and they still don't face any serious competition. The 4TB 850 EVO is a stark illustration of Samsung's seemingly insurmountable lead in the marketplace, but it is far too expensive for any ordinary desktop or NAS use. There simply aren't many consumers who can afford this much SSD, but if you're a consumer with the budget for 4TB of SSD storage the 850 EVO can deliver it in a single 2.5" drive with none of the complexity of RAID. The drive may also be very welcome in the professional video space, but the relatively low write endurance rating of 300TB (75 total drive writes) could scare off those customers.

Putting aside the concerns about the suitability of this drive for today's market, it is a good sign for the future. Samsung is finally putting their new generation of 3D NAND on shelves in large quantities. As promised it doesn't seem to bring any new performance issues, but a SATA drive can't really prove that conclusively. The improvements to power efficiency are modest but real and every bit of that will be welcome as the 48-layer V-NAND finds its way into the rest of the product line. It is hard to tell whether the new V-NAND will be pushing prices much lower in the short term, but it looks like it will at least be competitive with what's already out there. Samsung is well positioned to continue their dominance for another round.

The 4TB 850 EVO also gives us another light push towards a future where mechanical hard drives are gone from the consumer market. Building a SSD that can entirely displace hard drives is now possible using controllers and DRAM that are cheap commodity parts. (SSDs larger than 4TB could be made using two controllers plus a RAID controller at the cost of some peak performance, a technique used by drives like the 2TB Mushkin Reactor TC.) The per-GB price of NAND flash is the only front on which SSDs still need to improve; SSDs have far surpassed mechanical hard drives in performance and power consumption and have caught up in terms of capacity and density.

The performance of the 4TB 850 EVO also makes it clear that there is even less need for a 4TB 850 Pro. An MLC counterpart simply isn't needed to reach the highest speeds that can be expected of a SATA drive, because 3D TLC drive done right and in such abundant capacity is plenty fast. The only reason Samsung should bother shipping a 4TB 850 Pro is if they're going to give it a vastly higher write endurance rating for a small price premium. Otherwise, they should save that new 3D MLC for the PCIe drives.

ATTO, AS-SSD & Idle Power Consumption
Comments Locked

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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now