The Samsung 750 EVO (120GB & 250GB) SSD Review: A Return To Planar NAND
by Billy Tallis on April 22, 2016 8:00 AM ESTSequential 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.
 |
|||||||||
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.
 |
|||||||||
Most drives show no scaling with queue depth in this test, and the 750 EVO follows suit.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
jabber - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
Yeah must admit I don't have the need or want to hoard masses of ripped off content. That is a psychosis I can do without. It just junk.Deelron - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
My wife has 200 GB of Life Event Photos/Videos going back 20+ years (and I'd imagine people with much better cameras then we had could have significantly more, particularly if they have a larger family) and there's not a bit of media on the machine. After OS and regular applications the minimum suitable single drive would be 480 GB, without a lick of pirated media.jabber - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
Would that 200GB+ be better backed up safely somewhere than sitting on the main drive? Keeping masses of mainly dead/unused data on a day to day machine seems odd nowadays. There are systems better suited for that kind of data.Deelron - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
It's backed up locally (two he's that switch every month) and via cloud. It's not just "sitting" there any more then a physical photo album would be.Margalus - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
It has nothing to do with piracy.. My Steam folder alone is over 1GB.erple2 - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
I think that I have save games that are larger than 1GB.Eden-K121D - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
You mean 1TBMargalus - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
lol, yes. that is what I meant...
Lolimaster - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
It's simply because you didn't embrace internet. That kind of low storage needs is more of the pre-2000's.Between movies, tv series, some cartoons, anime, manga it's easy to need more than 1 6TB drive. I have 4x 6TB's right now.
jabber - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
Yes but you appear to be 16 years aold. Some of us are over 30. If you are over 30 I see that as a cry for help.