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

It is unsurprising to see that the TLC-based 960 EVO has slower random read speeds than the MLC-based 950 Pro and 960 Pro, but the 960 EVO still manages to be faster than all the non-Samsung drives.

Iometer - 4KB Random Read (Power)

The 960 EVO's power consumption is essentially the same as Samsung's other drives, which puts it at an efficiency disadvantage to their MLC PCIe SSDs but more efficient than all the lower-performing drives.

As with Samsung's other SSDs, random read speed scales with queue depth until hitting a limit at QD16.

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

The Samsung 960 EVO's random write speed is essentially tied with the 960 Pro and the OCZ RD400A, while the Intel 750 holds on to a comfortable lead.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write (Power)

The 960 EVO is not as power efficient as the 960 Pro, but it is still far better than everything else.

The scaling behavior of the 960 EVO is essentially the same as the 960 Pro: full performance is reached at QD4, and there's no indication of any severe thermal throttling.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light Sequential Performance
Comments Locked

87 Comments

View All Comments

  • SaolDan - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link

    Neat!
  • jwhannell - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link

    Do want
  • nathanddrews - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link

    can haz
  • edward1987 - Friday, December 2, 2016 - link

    I've never seen such a demand for nvme ssd like samsung 960 evo. They are sold only on preorders basis. Looks like the only available capacity is 250GB https://www.span.com/search/960_space_evo/-Samsung
  • EKFxWtB - Wednesday, November 16, 2016 - link

    Yea!
  • yankeeDDL - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link

    The 960 EVO is today, what the 850 EVO was a couple of years ago. Buying anything else makes little sense.
    The 850 EVO is still today an excellent SSD with a fantastic price/performance ratio.
    I am happy to see such impressive improvements: I only hope we don't need to wait 2 years to see some worthy competitor ...
  • Ninhalem - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link

    Only if you have 480 USD to spend on a 1 TB SSD. If you don't (and many people don't need those read/write speeds), then something like the Mushkin Reactor 1 TB can be had for half the cost.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link

    While I agree, it's a bit of apples to oranges. The reactor is a sata III SSD, not a NVMe class SSD. Compared to other NVMe drives, the 960 evo is a great performance per dollar value.
  • ImSpartacus - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link

    I think the confusion arises from the op not specifying that he was only talking about nvme m.2 drives.
  • ddriver - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link

    It doesn't really matter when the speed doesn't result in any tangible practical improvements.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now