The Samsung 850 EVO 4TB SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on July 11, 2016 10:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here.
The 4TB 850 EVO is in a four-way tie for highest average data rate, and the Samsung drives in general score very well and quite close to the SATA interface limits.
The 4TB 850 EVO's average service time is not top notch, but is still reasonable for a high-end SATA drive.
Once again the latency of the 4TB isn't the best and isn't quite as good as the 1TB and 2TB counterparts, but it's still better than all the other TLC drives.
The power usage of the 4TB EVO is a bit worse than the 2TB model when fresh but is slightly better for a full drive, showing that this drive isn't worth having if you're barely going to use it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
145 Comments
View All Comments
ACE76 - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
http://www.fudzilla.com/news/memory/39668-mushkin-...Wait for this....any company that releases something first, price gouges.
JellyRoll - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
The "21nm" is the BL half pitch. The EE Times article does not say that they shrunk from 40 to 21 for the overall measurement.Billy Tallis - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
Yep, I misinterpreted that. They haven't changed the lithography, but they've shrunk some parts of the die through other means.amayii - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
Why wasn't the Samsung 950pro taken into account in the benchmark?Is is because it is a NVMe SSD?Solidstate89 - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
Of course that's the reason. We all know a PCI-e/M.2 SSD (whether it uses NVMe or not) will blow the pants off any SATA SSD when it comes to performance numbers.There is no reason to compare them.
amayii - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
Ok, thanks!Samus - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
This drive cost more than my whole PC :/Notmyusualid - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
Ha ha, thanks for putting it into perspective!Made me smile.
doggface - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
I would hope that when a manufacturer moves to a new process there would be a corresponding drop in $/GB. To be moving to 48layer and still charging ~30c is worrying. Needs to be a third of that to be anything other than a wet dream for consumer.The theorised ssd takeover of HDDs doesnt seem to be materialising yet.
Kristian Vättö - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
A new process doesn't mean immediate cost savings. It takes time for yields to mature and even then 48L has more process steps than 32L. Ultimately it's a game of economics. Why would you sell something for 10c when the competition is charging 30c? For companies it's always all about the profit.