POST A COMMENT

99 Comments

Back to Article

  • Gilbert Osmond - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Didn't read the article yet, but I sure did post the first comment. Looks like a fun read. Reply
  • Stahn Aileron - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Do people seriously still do this? You think people would grow up and out of dumb habits eventually. Reply
  • Mumrik - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    You'd think so, but GiantBomb even has an site achievement for getting first post (and not writing "first"). Reply
  • vol7ron - Friday, October 07, 2011 - link

    But shouldn't it be okay if you post w/in the minute of it listing? Or, if it is published at some ungodly hour, like 4:39AM Reply
  • orangpelupa - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    atleast he is polite and honest :D Reply
  • kevith - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Some seems to believe this is another Facebook.... Reply
  • Aloonatic - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Aloonatic likes this *thumbs up* Reply
  • tipoo - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    But by replying, we made the useless thread longer....So did this comment, but lets try not to in the future ;)

    AT's comments do need some work though, edit button + downrank/hide option for comments like these would be miles improved by themselves.
    Reply
  • DigitalFreak - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Die in a fire Reply
  • iamezza - Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - link

    First posts should be auto-deleted when containing the word 'first' ;) Reply
  • johan851 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Great article! I'm a little curious, though, as to why you prefer a drive to garbage collect in real time rather than cleaning up after the fact. While I think I sympathize with the idea of improving worst-case performance at the expense of the average, which essentially gives users a less bumpy ride, aren't most typical desktop usage scenarios full of idle disk time?

    I like the emphasis on Anandtech on what actually matters in real world scenarios, but it seems that your complaint on this particular matter is very much the opposite. The typical desktop user isn't going to fill the drive with writes and then immediately demand super high performance - at least I can't think of a desktop usage situation that would exhibit that pattern. I work on my computer for a few hours and then it sits for a while. Given that the average user idles their disk constantly, doesn't cleaning up while idle provide higher average performance in the long run?
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    You are correct, for mostly idle workloads it should work fine. The problem is with a mostly full drive, it's possible that during bursty periods of work the performance will degrade to the point that you'd notice it. Hopefully it'd correct overnight but if you sleep your machine then it prolongs the process.

    I'd argue that most desktop workloads won't show the difference between 150MB/s and 100MB/s in 4KB random writes. I'd much rather have the latter and enjoy a more consistent user experience.

    I do understand Samsung's argument that delaying garbage collection would seem to work for mostly idle scenarios, I just don't believe there's any downside to doing it the opposite way and only potential upside there.

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • johan851 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Fair enough. Thanks for the reply and another awesome SSD article. Reply
  • leexgx - Sunday, September 25, 2011 - link

    but even worst case its still 200x faster then an HDD do same work load, you not notice it unless your benchmarking it

    did the disk have any stuttering issues when it was very badly degraded? (access time was reported as 0.1 in that test)

    i did not see it but do you no longer do access time tests any more
    Reply
  • marraco - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Even if the common user don't use it, is important to know.

    And the drive is not just for the common user.
    Reply
  • Malih - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    Well, enthusiast gamers usually use SSD as game installation disk, and they would (mostly) play games right away after installing or downloading from Steam.
    So 'on-write-garbage-collection' is preferable in this case.
    Reply
  • Beenthere - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    As any number of owner reviews can attest the Samsung 470 was a nightmare of problems for many people concerning compatibility and in some cases reliability. The 830 looks to be a nice performance improvement but if the compatibility, garbage cleaning and installation/reliability issues haven't been resolved, these drives like the majority of current MLC based SSDs are simply not ready for Prime Time. Samsung's customer support appears non-existent. Consumers are being used as unpaid Beta testers IMO. Reply
  • kmmatney - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    I've had no problem with my Samsung 470 - I can attest that its a reliable drive. Reply
  • xype - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    I have a 470 that I installed in my 2009 MacBook Pro. Works like a charm, installation happened without problems, seems reliable (so far). *shrugs* Reply
  • jwilliams4200 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    He wrote "any number" of reviews. Zero is a number. Reply
  • Out of Box Experience - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Compatability?

    As far as I am aware, Intel and Samsung were the only drives compatible with XP and every other OS out of the box

    Am I wrong on this point?

    I believe ALL other SSD's require Partition Alignment for compatability

    It would be nice to get an update to see if ANY newer 6Gbps are compatible with every OS out of the box like the Samsung 470 and Intel drives

    Is there a compatability list floating around somewhere Anand?

    A Google Search turns up no reliability issues from anyone who actually knows what they are doing either

    If you want to find hundreds of reliability or compatability issues, just visit the OCZ Forum or go read the Newegg reviews

    or go sleep it off
    Reply
  • extide - Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - link

    EVERY SSD should be 4KB aligned for best performance. Reply
  • Out of Box Experience - Wednesday, October 05, 2011 - link

    Intel and Samsung SSD's do not require end user alignment

    Only SSD's that do not have the offset in firmware require alignment
    Reply
  • kake - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    I like your mic. Reply
  • sequoia464 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Quite a bit more juice running through them than the other drives - is this partly from the 256 mb cache? Reply
  • tipoo - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Even the most power hungry SSD's don't require any additional cooling. It may look big on the graph, but that's still sucking way less power than most things in your system like the processor, graphics chip, etc. It just won't produce that much heat. Reply
  • sequoia464 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Thanks, Reason I asked is that My Toshiba based Kingstons seem to run (at least to the touch ) cooler than my both Intels and Vertex2's. (not that they are hot by any means, just warmer).

    Probably the workload and usage that is at play here - now that I think about it.
    Reply
  • name99 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Different people have different concerns.
    Yes, if you install this in a desktop box power is not an issue.

    If you install it in a laptop, the concern is probably not the thermal load but the maximum power draw. If your laptop is not specced to handle that, you'll find the machine crashing when you do a lot of back-to-back writes.

    Same thing if you hoped to use it in a USB enclosure, whether USB2 or 3.
    Reply
  • Jaybus - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    Probably a combination of things. Certainly, the DRAM is much larger than what is used by the other drives. Also, notice that this 512 GB version is being compared to 256 GB drives, so right off the bat its flash is taking twice the power as those it is being compared with. This was mentioned in the article. Samsung has not yet supplied a 256 GB version for testing. So I doubt it is a controller issue. Probably just the fact that it has twice the flash. Reply
  • infini - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    I don't think Intel is the king of reliability with the 8mb problem of the 320 series. Beenthere can you provide a link with compatibility and reliability problems of Samsug drives? Reply
  • iamezza - Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - link

    problem is everyone else has had more problems Reply
  • landerf - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Speaking of reliability, aren't those the old results on the M4? Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Thanks for the heads up, updated :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • beginner99 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    ...anyone noticed? Though this one would be nice for like a x220 that only takes 7mm drives but with power consumption more than double of a crucial m4 especially at idle...basically kills it for mobile use. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Yeah, it almost approaches 5400 rpm HDD idle levels..

    MrS
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Update: Storagereview.com measured idle power consumption of a 256 GB drive to be just 0.31 W, which is much better and just normal (or even good).

    MrS
    Reply
  • name99 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Once again, for mobile the issue is not IDLE power use, it is PEAK power. If your system is not specced to handle that peak power, it will crash whenever there is a sequence of back-to-back writes. Reply
  • 7Enigma - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    I think you're misinterpreting his comment. IDLE power matters for laptop users from a battery standpoint. Yes it's going to be a small % difference due to the large(r) draw of the screen, cpu, gpu, etc. but it does add up. We do understand your comment about crashes but I think the OP's comment is in reference to something that is going to ALWAYS be using more power than a competitor as being bad.

    I do not know what burst power consumption is on mechanical HDD's but would imagine they are at or above what even the most power-hungry SSD consumes. This would be an interesting mini-article Anand!
    Reply
  • Obsoleet - Thursday, January 19, 2012 - link

    Burst on SSDs tend to use more power than many HDDs. Reply
  • Alexo - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    So what 7mm SSD would you recommend? Reply
  • Herp Derpson - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Anand, it would be very interesting to read about hardware AES encryption in SSDs - how do you use it and how does it affects performance. Reply
  • juhatus - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Yeap, I heard that AES basicly kills all-compressing Sandforce's?

    Maybe test with win7's bitlocker?
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Only if you leave encryption up to the OS. With a SF SSD you should be leaving it up to the drive - AES encryption is basically free on those drives, they just run the cypher after dedupe and compression. Reply
  • zanon - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    There are plenty of valid reasons though not to leave encryption up to the drive, ranging from a need for other features/management (like multiple factors) to just plain not trusting encryption where no source review or updates are available. Perhaps most importantly is the simple observation that it's probable that the vast majority of FDE users are using either software (Truecrypt/PGP or whatever) or OS level solutions.

    Given that, I think it's a valid situation to consider, along with filesystem-level compression.
    Reply
  • docbones - Monday, October 10, 2011 - link

    I would love to see a benchmark article on whole disk encryption across drive types. (especially interested in how does the seagate hybrids do) Reply
  • iwodo - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    was it tested with new firmware? Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    The initial graphs used the older fw but after realizing the mistake I updated the numbers to the latest FW0009 numbers, so yes :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • Beenthere - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    I'd be interested in a number of SSDs if they ever sort out the reliability and compatibility issues. I had hoped by now this would have happened but clearly it has not. This is like OJT for SSD makers I guess. Reply
  • soliozuz - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    It's funny you mentioned that because I think you just jinxed both companies. it seems that Apple will no longer be relying on Samsung for it's Nand Flash and etc. Now the reasons as to why they would dump someone as reliable as Samsung is beyond me.

    Source: http://www.techspot.com/news/45591-apple-decreasin...

    In regards to the SSD, I must admit, as great of a thing they have done with this drive, I kind of was left expecting more. Samsung made a statement last year releasing a SATA II SSD especially with the kind of power consumption they had on it. I think that's key for future products.
    Reply
  • jwilliams4200 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    If you read the source article (Digitimes), it is stated that Apple is apparently diversifying its suppliers from Samsung because of patent disputes with Samsung. Reply
  • piiman - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Might have something to do with Apple's and Samsungs legal issues. They seem to be trying to kill each other at the moment and having your supply line coming from someone you are suing and being sued by, isn't a good idea. Has soon as those supply contracts are up Samsung may tell them to kiss their $%@# Reply
  • lyeoh - Sunday, September 25, 2011 - link

    It's probably less of "killing each other" and more of haggling and "poker" between the two.

    By diversifying Apple can say to Samsung, "Go ahead, make my day".
    Reply
  • Havor - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Wit most SSDs the size realy matters, why not just format a drive in to different size partitions.

    Format one partition to 120GB and fill the other 392GB partition up data so it cant be used for trim or any other optimizing benefits.

    Because I am sick and tired of these firms sending big SSDs that dont represent real world use, as I will never buy a +$700 512GB drive, the sweets spot for most people is around 120/128GB.

    I wane know how a 120/128GB drive preforms not a model that's way above my budget.
    Reply
  • akedia - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Partitioning wouldn't affect the number of channels, which does affect performance quite a lot, so you'd end up with numbers that reflect no actual product at all. Reply
  • juhatus - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    With Samsung's budget on these..

    EMC is using Samsung drive's in their enterprise storage products (Clariion) and they are the same sata drive's, except different stamp.

    If its good enough for the enterprise-class serious work than it sure is good enough for consumers.

    When's the availability for consumers?
    Reply
  • jwcalla - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    It seems that every SSD article I read on AnandTech ends with a plug for an Intel drive. I understand some of the logic there, but it's not like Intel has an unblemished reliability record. The 320 fiasco was just as bad as anything we saw with the Corsair or SandForce drives. And IMO the price premium of the Intel 510 weighs heavily against it in comparison to, say, the m4 or Samsung options. Reply
  • Fun Guy - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    Agreed - the reviews at New Egg show Crucial to be top dog, with Intel somewhere near the middle. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    I can't take Newegg reviews seriously, though: "I bought this product with my own money, so now I have to praise it to avoid buyer's remorse." Sure, there are bad reviews and good reviews out there, but even taking the average review score at Newegg isn't as useful as a real review looking at benchmarks and comparing with other drives.

    Crucial is one of the cheapest SSDs and still offers good performance, which is what most Newegg shoppers are after. Intel on the other hand charges a price premium, which is precisely what Newegg shoppers don't like. Outside of the 320 "fiasco" (which is something we warn about with every new SSD), Intel SSDs have proven very reliable over time, particularly compared with their contemporaries. The G1 no-TRIM thing was Intel being greedy, but G1 still worked quite well for the vast majority of users (even if it could get backed into a corner where performance would tank). G2 wasn't the fastest in its day, but it was fast enough and rarely gets into the poor performance realm.

    Ultimately, if I'm putting my data on a device, I want it to be long-term reliable. So, I'm not buying any brand-new SSD or HDD. I let it stew for a couple months at least and then see if there are any issues cropping up. That gets you around things like SF-2200 issues, Intel 320, etc.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, August 17, 2012 - link

    "The G1 no-TRIM thing was Intel being greedy, but G1 still worked quite well for the vast majority of users (even if it could get backed into a corner where performance would tank)."

    In other words, it was a reliability issue because the vendor could not be relied upon to do the right thing.
    Reply
  • elerick - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Anand you used a Intel h67 in your test bed and I am currently run a 990FX chipset. Due to budget I'm looking for a good 120GB SSD(OS drive), what would you recommend? Also I cant wait if there is something around the corner. Reply
  • spudit88 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Great review- I've installed several of the 470 Series and they have been very reliable. I don't believe we have had issues with any of them. These are mostly going into corporate laptops, so the fastest SSD's are not always the best option. I've stuck mainly with Samsung or Intel for reliability reasons. We are just now starting to deploy more laptops with 6Gb/s interfaces, it's good to know there are more choices out there....particularly with a larger drive option of 512GB. Reply
  • know of fence - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    The Sizes of these drives are multiples of 2, (64,128), does this imply that GB means the same as GB inside Windows, Gibibyte a.k.a 2^30 Byte or 1.073*10^9 Byte. Same as with RAM.

    Or does "GB" refering to SSD Sizes actually mean something completely different than MB (per second) in Speed Benchmarks.
    Reply
  • know of fence - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Sorry, It's all explained. Still a bummer, though. Reply
  • buzznut - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Two years ago, Samsung seemed convinced the way of the future was hybrid drives that combined the best of both worlds-the capacity of a mechanical with the performance of an SSD. They had a lot of reliability problems with these drives, I expect that's why there aren't more of these drives on the market.

    What I am wondering is has Samsung completely abandoned this idea? What about other manufacturers? Do you think that the cost of producing such drives makes it impractical?

    Some of the average performing SSDs have come down to the $1/GB price point, which is seemingly the magic number for those folks still hanging on desperately to their mechanical drives. Now I hear these same folks complaining about reliability being the main issue keeping them from adopting new technology, and they aren't wrong.

    I haven't had any issues with my SSDs, I find them to be extremely reliable and now I don't think I could go back for a system drive. Initially I had an X25 40GB, now a 128GB Vertex III. So the reliability of the Samsung drives is refreshing news and I sincerely hope the drives will be priced competitively because I'd really like to see them succeed with this.

    I still think, if implemented properly, that there is a market for hybrid drives. Don't know that anyone is willing to risk that though.
    Reply
  • Evonick - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    I'm curious if anyone knows the actual time involved for idle time garbage collection, and whether that process is equivalent to TRIM? Anand mentions "overnight" in the review, but does itgc really take 8 hours? And when does it start? After 3 minutes of idle or 3 hours? And when the itgc is completed, how does the drive perform compared to a TRIMmed drive? Reply
  • FunBunny2 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    -- I've been working on an enterprise workload suite to figure that out...

    In order for this to be "real", encrypted data input is required. The reason is that relational databases in Enterprise are increasingly configured with encryption.
    Reply
  • tpi2007 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    I Anand, congratulations for the review and the video review, both of which I enjoyed very much.

    I was looking at the power consumption figures and was wondering if Samsung's higher numbers could have to do with their use of DDR2 for cache ? And by that I mean two things:

    1. The fact that it's much bigger than Intel's for example should add to the power consumption, adding to the fact that they store user data, which probably means more data being written and read from all the time, increasing power consumption;

    2. The fact that it's DDR2. Is it low power DDR2 or just normal 1.8v DDR2 ? That could explain the higher power consumption to a certain extent too. What if Samsung were to use low power 1.35 or even better, 1.25v DDR3L ?

    Best regards,

    tpi2007
    Reply
  • FunBunny2 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Along similar lines: why is there not a power loss test in the suite? There appears to be no superCap on the board, yet the part uses "massive" amounts of DRAM with user data. This looks like a bleeding Achille's heel. Reply
  • enigma80 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    This worried me too. 256MB of user data in a limbo?

    It would be importante to test a power loss amid writing to the drive and check the data on the drive.
    Reply
  • Obsoleet - Thursday, January 19, 2012 - link

    Excellent points. I'd like to hear an answer to this.

    The more I read, the more I feel Intel is the way to go.. even vs this Samsung and M4s.
    Reply
  • name99 - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    5.8W maximum power draw! Ouch.

    Let's note, for the record, that that means it simply won't work in a USB2 enclosure, and it work work in a USB3 enclosure (4.5W) without a Y-cable.
    WTF causes this? If a magnetic hard drive can spin up on USB2 power (2.5W) I remain amazed that SSDs demand so much power when writing.
    Reply
  • Jaybus - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    The same thing that causes every transistor based device to consume power, resistivity and capacitance of the materials through which current flows. Resistance produces a loss of energy in the form of heat. Capacitance limits the rise time of the transistors, causing the duty cycle to increase as a function of frequency. Reply
  • Obsoleet - Thursday, January 19, 2012 - link

    It's the multichannel read/writes. Takes a ton of energy even vs spinning up a portable drive like my WD Passport USB3.0 1TB. Reply
  • Idontcare - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Loved the video too!

    I appreciated you candidly sharing your thoughts regarding the two schools of thought on garbage collections (real-time on-the-fly versus delayed-till-idle) :)

    Brought to mind the spindle-days of setting up defrag to run during idle times versus real-time defragging that came out right before we stopped needing to defrag altogether :P
    Reply
  • ClagMaster - Sunday, September 25, 2011 - link

    For most enthusiasts obscessed with performance with money to burn, they seem to care mostly about either bandwidth or cost. They upgrade frequently and seem not to care about longterm value.

    For the vast majority of mainstream users, who use there computers for creating products and services of lasting (and repeatable) value, ... in short long term value. Mainstream users care the most about reliability, good support, good performance, capacity and then cost.

    Thank you for your qualitative comments about the reliability of the SSDs from Samsung (and their rebranders) and its good reputation with Apple and other OEMs for their reliability. I care much more about reliability than I do some of the mind-numbing comparisons that are shown of bandwidth differences spanning about 15% from good to poor. I would rather take a 15% hit in performance from the latest and greatest Vertex III and enjoy 5 years of trouble free operation.

    The two most reliable brands of SSD out there is Intel and Samsung according to Anand. Although Intel is more pricy, they offer better firmware and utility support. Like their branded motherboards (which enthusiasts mock for their conventionality but respect for their reliability), I believe Intel does active testing of their SSD's for reliability and longetivity and provides firmware support to make sure that happens. All of its other competitors do not. That is why I now have a 120 GB 510 Series on my PC.

    Clearly Samsung and Intel SSD are going to be the choice for business applications.
    Reply
  • Fun Guy - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    "According to Anand...." Is Anand God?

    Nothing against the guy, but he's just a guy, and he earns money off of this site. No telling how that sways his views (consciously, or unconsciously).

    I'll take the aggregate reviews over at New Egg, over any single website operator any day of the week.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    I'd personally take Google and other aggregations of data over Newegg reviews. Reply
  • Jaybus - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    I wouldn't. Disgruntled consumers are far more likely to review than satisfied consumers. Also, NewEgg doesn't post how many items have been sold. It is impossible to determine whether the number of one egg reviews is statistically relevant without knowing how many were purchased. Reply
  • tzhu07 - Friday, December 02, 2011 - link

    Yup, this is true. Not to mention the tons of people at Newegg that 1-star products over issues that don't have anything to do with the product itself. For example, not getting rebates. Reply
  • ClagMaster - Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - link

    Anand is not God.

    Anand is an IT professional who operates a hardware review site that I enjoy patronizing for nearly 10 years.

    I respect Anand's opinions. And yes, there are some instances where I felt his opinions might have been swayed. But overall, his opinions have stood the tests of time.

    I simply appreaciate Anands comments on reliability -- singling out Intel and Samsung drives for a good reputation for reliability and support (Intel).

    I think Intel works very hard making sure their motherboards, peripherals and SSD's are reliabile. Intel has a facility in Oregon where they extensively test their motherboards. I am impressed because no other motherboard vendor does this.
    Reply
  • iq100 - Sunday, September 25, 2011 - link

    Great review, great quality video and sound, BUT please try and speak much slower.
    If one knows the material ahead of time, your pace is fine, BUT please remember that your audience is supposed to be those who do NOT know the material. 'Pause' is a sound! Practice making a 'pause' sound between syllables. Your articulation is good, but you leave out the intra syllable pause sound!
    Reply
  • Ramon Zarat - Sunday, September 25, 2011 - link

    Nice article, but It would be **very** useful to state firmware version of each SSD tested.

    For instance, the latest 0009 firmware for the M4 series provide an astonishing speed boost of around 20% depending on the condition. It's been available since Agust 25, so I assume the current test was done with M4 firmware version 0009, right?

    Information of that significance, we absolutely need to know before drawing any conclusions.
    Reply
  • Fun Guy - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    Agreed, that is a HUGE oversight, lending the credibility of the reviews as suspect. If they can't even collect firmware information, what else are they missing? I've read at least two mistakes made and corrected already in this review, with no mention of the updates in the beginning of the thread. Very sloppy. Reply
  • anandtech pirate - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    hey, why doesn't my login & password work in the forums? & when i go to create another account with my username, anandtechpirate, it says its already taken. Reply
  • tommythorn - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    While I generally find Anandtech's SSD reviews to be amongst the best out there, I
    wish you would give less value to compression/dedup as any who uses drive encryption
    (transparently available on Mac OS X Lion for example) will not benefit at all. Notably,
    this _also_ applies to 4 KB random reads/writes, not just streaming workloads.
    Reply
  • thornburg - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    Thanks for the review, Anand.

    Can you tell us whether this drive supports TRIM in OS X?

    I've heard that the Apple-supplied SSDs finally do support TRIM in the newer versions of the OS. I wondered if maybe this drive (and/or the 470) are supported, since Apple sometimes uses Samsung SSDs.

    Thanks.
    Reply
  • NCM - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    You can enable TRIM for non-Apple supplied SSDs in Mac OS X using the free TRIM Enabler, see <http://www.groths.org/?page_id=322>. Reply
  • Loremonger - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    I like the video review and "putting a face" on the article. It would be nice in the future to show hands-on footage of the item being reviewed, as well as benchmarking setups and results. I think it would be quite interesting for your readers to see the testing process (heavily edited, of course; I know this stuff takes a long time).

    As usual, thank you for a thorough and insightful review.
    Reply
  • mino - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    476GiB * 1.0737 (GiB->GB) == 512.0 GB

    The published TABLE thus DECLARES NO SPARE SPACE present !

    I am sure that is not the case, so the table obviously needs fixing ...
    Reply
  • Shazbud - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    I am seeing what appears to be a serious inconsistency in the article:

    The article states (early on): "Samsung SSDs were among the first I reviewed and while they weren't anywhere near the fastest back then, every last one of those drives is still working without issue in my lab today."

    In closing the comment "From a drive that I simply wouldn't recommend...." then really confuses me - why would you not recommend this drive? Speed seems to have been the only downside, but that appears to have been traded off for reliability.
    Reply
  • ruzveh - Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - link

    hey anand, where are the other tests dude? Where is the boot time test, application open time, app loading time, etc.??? Reply
  • abufrejoval - Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - link

    This gap between ZEUS and FusionIO, SLC and embedded SAN SSDs on one end and those consumer SSDs on the other end has been narrowing, but it's incredible to see just how much vendors from all over the place fight to keep it from closing.

    I got enterprise workloads, which aren't all that high, very predictible, with highs and lows in line with typical OLTP front-end shopping patterns as well as some end-of-day processing.

    The crux is the need for ultra high availability (or extremely short outages) and KISS answers that better than investing into premium SANs.

    I want directly attached SSDs there, preferably in 2.5" form factor and in RAIDs for better capacity management and non-stop replacements.

    20,ooo IOPS should do just fine, the real key is reliability and easy non-stop management. Daily overwrite is well below capacity so consumer SSDs should be fine. And I wouldn't mind replacing them after two years, if they'll reliably advise me of their imminent death weeks ahead.

    I tried being clever and put Crucial m3 and OCZ Vertex 2 in a mirror set with an SSD aware LSI SAS RAID controller, to offset the risk of immature firmware/controller issues (the original plan was to use a SAN/SSD mirror, but resilvering would be too expensive). That didn't work out too well, because of these garbage collection issues (m3 drives were failed by the RAID controller, just because they took a little longer than their OCZ counterparts).

    Of course we used synthetic tests first, "fio" to be exact and that just keeps those drives busy, busy, busy, quite beyond what actual workloads are likely to be. And in those cases the difference in garbage collection strategy caused real clashes, because the Crucial m3 took a finally took a long break when it had exhausted it's free space, while the OCZ stayed ready always, doing garbage collection on each and every write.

    In real life, we might never see that problem, because actual IOPS during early mornings (after the day-end processing) might drop below the "magic" threshold" which allows those Crucials to do their garbage collection, but who knows what would happing during Christmas shopping season, when those unknown thresholds might just be exceeded a wee bit...

    SSDs are not magnetic hard disks: They contain operating systems that need to be tuned just like your typical Oracle database. What's missing is interfaces which allow to read and set these well defined and published parameters in line with the use case you requrie.

    In purely technological terms that should be easy enough. But every vendor, from database, via OS and SSD will want his cut for this reliability and speed, which is why this may not happen for another couple of years.

    If only Samsung could make this strategy decision (early or late garbage collection) a user defined setting without price differentiation (enterprise vs. consumer) I'd be so happy!

    Why do I think it won't happen?
    Reply
  • gixxer - Monday, October 10, 2011 - link

    Does anyone have a more concrete release date than "october"? I am starting a new build and if this gets released soo, it will definitly be a contender. Reply
  • DanSmith - Tuesday, December 06, 2011 - link

    Hi Anand / All,

    Wonder if you if could shed any light on this drive supporting AES encryption using the "ATA password" BIOS options. Its been months now and this drive is on the market and there is sooo much conflicting info on the web about this drive supporting AES.

    Even samsung themselves can give me a straight answer!!

    Anyone who has one of these that can shed any light??

    Cheers, Daniel
    Reply
  • valhar2000 - Monday, December 26, 2011 - link

    What's a TRIM pass? Do you have to run some sort of procedure every now and then to apply TRIM to an SSD? Isn't TRIM supposed to work in real time as files are deleted or moved? Reply
  • kazumoda - Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - link

    I've been searching for a place to buy this Samsung PM830 but all I can find is the AM830. Can someone tell me if this is essentially the same thing or is it a vastly different product in terms of performance and reliability? Thanks. Is there any update on the performance of a smaller drive, in particular how does the 256gb version fare in terms of performance to the 512? Reply
  • datalaforge - Monday, February 27, 2012 - link

    I recently installed one of these into my 2.26GHZ Unibody MBP. Its great with its 10 second boots and so on. The battery life is not great though. I think that it was better before. Is there anything that can be done? Reply
  • BRKHD1 - Sunday, September 30, 2012 - link

    great review I love your site! I recently did a speed test of the samsung 830 on my youtube channel you can check it out here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJ-pPeE5lA Thanks again! Reply
  • BRKHD1 - Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - link

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJ-pPeE5lA&fea... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now