POST A COMMENT

36 Comments

Back to Article

  • Gothmoth - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    performance is something i don´t care about much anymore ... it´s basically a wash these days on SATA3.

    but price would be nice to know. can´t wait for 2 TB drives to get into the 200 euro range.
    Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    Yeah, it's funny how the performance just doesn't matter anymore for consumers.

    Cost and reliability are really the only things that matter.
    Reply
  • ddriver - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    To 99.9% of the people in 99.9% of the tasks a regular sata ssd will offer 99.9% the performance of a much more expensive and faster pcie nvme drive. So yeah, performance is irrelevant, an sata ssd is already fast enough most of the time. Reply
  • eek2121 - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    99.9%? doubt it. Many people looking to purchase SSDs are purchasing it FOR the speed. Content creators, developers, gamers, IT admins, etc. Some of these folks are looking for more speed than others, but there is a reason why Samsung is pushing the envelope every year: there is a market for it. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    They may buy it for performance, but that doesn't mean they'll get any benefit from the faster drives. Just look at timed benchmarks like program starts and boots - any reasonably fast SATA SSD performs just as fast as any other one, even NVMe ones, because the bottlenecks have shifted elsewhere. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    (strange day, not sure I have ever agreed with ddriver before) Reply
  • niva - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    He has grown and matured over the years.

    Sadly the same can't be said about our new Grabber in Chief, but at least there are signs that anything is possible :)
    Reply
  • Lolimaster - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    Those bottlenecks end up being 4k random performance and latency (OS, programs). Samsung uses the speed marketing the same as smartphones uses Mpixels. Reply
  • Bullwinkle J Moose - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    MrSpadge
    any reasonably fast SATA SSD performs just as fast as any other one, even NVMe ones, because the bottlenecks have shifted elsewhere.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Nope
    Samsung 850 Pro actually feels faster than a Samsung 840 Pro
    An 850 Pro can copy and paste data to and from the same drive TWICE as fast as an 840 Pro on a SATA 2 port
    118MB/sec > 850 Pro

    When you can saturate a SATA 2 port in this copy/paste test, we can then move to SATA 3

    10 year warranty is just icing on the cake

    Windows XP boots in 3 seconds on an 850 Pro

    Windows 10 boots in 12 seconds initially and 9 seconds after 3 reboots for a fresh install to the same 35 Watt dualcore 2.6Ghz Sandy Bridge
    How fast do you think these Munchkins can copy and paste to/from same drive on this machine?

    Do you think it is even close to an 850 Pro?
    Reply
  • emn13 - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/743?vs=1399

    I don't buy that you can feel the difference between the 840 and 850 in anything resembling normal workloads (the disk busy time on the light workload is 259.5 seconds vs. 275.6 seconds). Even the heavy workload barely differs (278.5 vs. 316.3 seconds). You'd have to go to the destroyer, which is an absurdly long trace to get an impactful difference (which is 1219.8 microseconds per op vs. 3314.3). And that's completely unreasonable for even almost all poweruser use cases.
    Reply
  • Michael Bay - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    He`s shilling here for the roof koreans from time to time, don`t bother. Reply
  • Bullwinkle J Moose - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    Quote:
    You'd have to go to the destroyer, which is an absurdly long trace to get an impactful difference
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't do synthetic testing as the numbers are not reliably related to any specific hardware

    Try comparing a synthetic test result to an actual copy/paste test and see if the numbers are the same

    Any test result change from different hardware and software is easy to calculate when testing with actual instead of synthetic workloads

    synthetic results cannot be predicted reliably when hardware changes

    For example, if we stick with testing real data ONLY on Windows 10, then any change in result can be seen and reliably predicted when we switch hardware

    With synthetic results, I don't see how they relate to actual data OR changes in hardware and cannot be assured that they are correct in any given situation
    Reply
  • Bullwinkle J Moose - Thursday, January 19, 2017 - link

    I don't buy that you don't buy it

    Maybe you should just try it?????
    Reply
  • fanofanand - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    Why would you use an 850 Pro on a SATA2 port? Reply
  • Bullwinkle J Moose - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    Why would you use an 850 Pro on a SATA2 port?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    To boot Windows XP in 3 seconds

    SATA 2 ports are fast enough to test and compare different operating systems directly with one another

    DUAL BIOS on a SATA 2 motherboard prevents malware from hosing the motherboard and allows booting directly to Windows XP

    Why would I do that?
    Microsoft told me that Windows 7 boots faster than XP
    They were WRONG!

    Microsoft then told me that Windows 8.1 boots MUCH faster than XP
    They were VERY wrong!

    Microsoft then said that Windows 10 boots the fastest of all
    They were VERY VERY wrong!

    I don't believe what Microsoft tells me and like to test everything myself so I know for a fact when any Microsoft shill gives me a line of Bullshit

    UEFI systems with SATA 3 ports prevent me from doing many of the tests I rely on, or prevent me from running non-spyware Operating Systems and software

    Show me a Kaby Lake motherboard that can boot directly to Windows XP-SP2 in IDE mode (not AHCI) and do it from BIOS/not UEFI without running a virtual machine and I will buy it TODAY !!!

    I refuse to be limited to a Spyware Platform and allow Microsoft to dictate what I can and cannot run on "MY" system

    Does that answer your question?
    Reply
  • MamiyaOtaru - Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - link

    he must be new here to have even wanted to ask.

    You sound like an abused spouse - moaning about Microsoft while clinging to a Microsoft operating system. Do us all a favor and switch to Linux
    Reply
  • Lolimaster - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    They just have a wrong perspective using speed as metric. Unless they move huge chunks of data they don't really need more than sata3 offers (it's nice to have if costs are the same).

    You don't even get a noticeable improvement in the most importan thing SSD offers (random 4k reads) from sata to nvm pci-e 4x.
    Reply
  • Samus - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    Performance degradation is noticeable with TLC drives to an average consumer. Simply installing Windows 10 or a large game on a 120-240GB SSD will draw a huge performance hit for up to an hour as the SLC buffer fills and slowly flushes out to NAND in the background. It's just entirely unacceptable the algorithms some drives use that cause this noticeable lack of performance, because some drives like the Trion 150 show considerably better consistency once the buffer is full compared to, say, an ADATA SP550.

    And I agree, at the end of the day, it's just ridiculous to consider TLC over MLC when the reliability is inevitably going to be better and a negligible cost difference. There are still plenty of MLC drives available that are "cheap."
    Reply
  • theeldest - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    3D TLC NAND has higher endurance and reliability than 1 generation old planar MLC. This is due to a drastic increase in cell size (most recent planar NAND is/was 15/16 nm whereas the 3D NAND is around 40-ish nm).

    When the cell size is in the teens of nanometers, we're well under 100 electrons per cell. With the 40-ish nanometer cells in 3D NAND, we're back up to the 1000+ electrons per cell.

    3D TLC is reliable.
    Reply
  • Lolimaster - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    Maybe reliable but the performance hit once you fill the SLC-buffer is there (10-30GB). And the more you fill the disk the worst it will perform. I won't mind having QLC drives with proper redundancy for mostly read-only scenarios, in some future as replace for 20TB's+ HDD drives. Reply
  • Samus - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    Only Samsung's 40nm-class 3D VNAND has endurance exceeding <20nm-class MLC.

    Keep in mind endurance of MLC has actually DECREASED as the nodes have shrunk. Older generations of MLC such as Intel SSD 320's had higher endurance than many consumer SSD's currently on the market and these drives were released 7 years ago. The legendary 160GB model's were rated at 60TBW. Most 250GB drives these days are lucky to crack that, and even Samsung's 250GB 850 EVO is only rated at a class-leading 75TBW.

    Newer is not always better. Sacrifices are made to make things cheaper, faster, etc. Reliability and endurance is not the focus of the current consumer SSD market. "Reliable enough" or more reliable than spinning platters, is.
    Reply
  • leexgx - Saturday, January 21, 2017 - link

    the TBW is just for warranty purposes, most of them can do over 1PB reliable (windows might be nagging you to death about half that thought if the SSD is using the correct SMART ID to trigger windows 7 disk is going to die box)

    Samsung Pro drives can do over 2PB of written data Evo was not far off that as well (but the Pro drive lasted with 0 errors up to the point it suddenly failed just before 2PB )
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    Don't mix up endurance and reliability. TLC is indeed reliable, as it performs predictably and does not suddenly fail any more often as the other chips (once the firmware has the drifting voltage levels under control). Given a similar process it obviously has less endurance than MLC, though. Reply
  • leexgx - Saturday, January 21, 2017 - link

    not sure what slow down you can notice for an avg consumer is the slowest state of a SSD is still 10-100x faster then a HDD

    wost case SSD i have is the BX200 witch i do notice when it slows down a little when i tell it to do somthing that cause lots of reads and writes but that same operation would eat a HDD for 5-10 minuets (or 1 hour doing somthing that norm takes 10 minuets on a SSD based system)

    i find Ram less SSDs are noticeable slower (would a normal person notice it very No especially if they have another computer that still has a HDD in it) i do wish MLC would stay the more as the Cost saving of TLC nand is really not that much (£10 cheaper or same price then MLC)
    Reply
  • nikaldro - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    Not really. Peak performance may be similar, but sustained performance still varies wildly. Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    These newfangled 3D SSDs seem to look just like the old 2D ones.... Reply
  • ET - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    It all depends on the viewing angle. Reply
  • Ninhalem - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    I'm very interested in seeing what the prices will be on the MLC variant at 512 GB and 1 TB. I usually recommend the current Reactor 1 TB because of the great pricing to friends and family (that are not tech savvy). Reply
  • bill.rookard - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    Agreed, but I'd rather see the 2TB SSDs get into the $200 range. I'd rebuild my entire NAS array with 2TB SSDs at that point. Reply
  • Dorkaman - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    Does this drive have capacitors to help write out anything in the buffer if the power goes out?
    https://youtu.be/nwCzcFvmbX0 skip to 2:00

    23 power-loss capacitors used to keep the SSD's controller running just long enough, in the event of an outage, to flush all pending writes:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-845dc-...

    Would this prevent something like this:
    https://youtu.be/-Qddrz1o9AQ

    Only some Intell SSDs passed this test
    http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173887-ssd-st...
    Reply
  • Rictorhell - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    I guess there will be a separate announcement about Mushkin's new 2tb and 4tb msata SSDs. Thank you Mushkin for supporting this niche, but continuing segment of the SSD market.
    😑
    Reply
  • rahvin - Monday, January 16, 2017 - link

    Geez, why is it using SATA instead of M.2. That's a massive limitation on performance, but I guess using TLC means M.2 doesn't matter. Reply
  • Murloc - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    because for the average PC user looking for low cost SSDs, it doesn't make a difference and it has better support on older computers. Reply
  • Murloc - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    the big effect for people is the low latency, most people have a single main drive, so they never saturate the speed anyway because they're always transferring to slower devices, be it over USB or over the internet or to their older spinning rust. Reply
  • leexgx - Saturday, January 21, 2017 - link

    most people only have SATA based systems (M2 slots are really still only on gaming motherboards) random SSDs are still way faster then HDDs (you cant even compare them) Reply
  • fanofanand - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link

    I would love to see the 2 Tb model in the $150-$200 range so I can slap one in the ps4. I don't care so much about how many writes it can do in a mostly read environment. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now