The Samsung 750 EVO (120GB & 250GB) SSD Review: A Return To Planar NAND

Sequential 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 250GB 750 EVO comes in right behind the 850 EVO and Pro for sequential read speed, and the 120GB 750 EVO surprises by coming in fourth, significantly ahead of both the 120GB 850 EVO and 128GB 850 Pro.

Power consumption for the 750 EVO is a little high but nothing concerning. Only a few MLC drives distinguish themselves with particularly high efficiency during sequential reads.

Samsung 750 EVO 120GBSamsung 750 EVO 250GBADATA Premier SP550 120GBADATA Premier SP550 240GBADATA XPG SX930 120GBADATA XPG SX930 240GBCrucial BX100 120GBCrucial BX100 250GBCrucial MX200 250GBOCZ ARC 100 240GBOCZ Trion 100 240GBOCZ Trion 150 240GBOCZ Vector 180 240GBPNY CS1311 120GBPNY CS1311 240GBPNY CS2211 240GBPlextor M6V 256GBSamsung 850 EVO 120GBSamsung 850 EVO 250GBSamsung 850 EVO M.2 120GBSamsung 850 EVO mSATA 250GBSamsung 850 Pro 128GBSamsung 850 Pro 256GBSanDisk Ultra II 240GB

The high performance score of the 750 EVOs is due primarily to their unusually good QD1 speeds, which are quite close to the limit reached at higher queue depths.

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.

Sequential write speeds of the 750 EVO are significantly lower than the 850 EVO and not competitive with MLC drives, but are in the lead among planar TLC drives.

Power consumption for the 750 EVO is significantly higher than the 850 EVO, but it is still more efficient than the planar TLC competitors.

Samsung 750 EVO 120GBSamsung 750 EVO 250GBADATA Premier SP550 120GBADATA Premier SP550 240GBADATA XPG SX930 120GBADATA XPG SX930 240GBCrucial BX100 120GBCrucial BX100 250GBCrucial MX200 250GBOCZ ARC 100 240GBOCZ Trion 100 240GBOCZ Trion 150 240GBOCZ Vector 180 240GBPNY CS1311 120GBPNY CS1311 240GBPNY CS2211 240GBPlextor M6V 256GBSamsung 850 EVO 120GBSamsung 850 EVO 250GBSamsung 850 EVO M.2 120GBSamsung 850 EVO mSATA 250GBSamsung 850 Pro 128GBSamsung 850 Pro 256GBSanDisk Ultra II 240GB

Most drives show no scaling with queue depth in this test, and the 750 EVO follows suit.