The Samsung 850 EVO 4TB SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on July 11, 2016 10:00 AM ESTATTO
ATTO's Disk Benchmark is a quick and easy freeware tool to measure drive performance across various transfer sizes.
 |
|||||||||
The ATTO plot for the 4TB 850 EVO shows no problems and very slightly better read speeds than the 2TB 850 EVO.
AS-SSD
AS-SSD is another quick and free benchmark tool. It uses incompressible data for all of its tests, making it an easy way to keep an eye on which drives are relying on transparent data compression. The short duration of the test makes it a decent indicator of peak drive performance.
As expected, the AS-SSD results are unremarkable. Even if the new V-NAND were slower, the 4TB drive has more than enough parallelism to provide peak performance that saturates the SATA link.
Idle Power Consumption
Since the ATSB tests based on real-world usage cut idle times short to 25ms, their power consumption scores paint an inaccurate picture of the relative suitability of drives for mobile use. During real-world client use, a solid state drive will spend far more time idle than actively processing commands. Our testbed doesn't support the deepest DevSlp power saving mode that SATA drives can implement, but we can measure the power usage in the intermediate slumber state where both the host and device ends of the SATA link enter a low-power state and the drive is free to engage its internal power savings measures.
We also report the drive's idle power consumption while the SATA link is active and not in any power saving state. Drives are required to be able to wake from the slumber state in under 10 milliseconds, but that still leaves plenty of room for them to add latency to a burst of I/O. Because of this, many desktops default to either not using SATA Aggressive Link Power Management (ALPM) at all or to only enable it partially without making use of the device-initiated power management (DIPM) capability. Additionally, SATA Hot-Swap is incompatible with the use of DIPM, so our SSD testbed usually has DIPM turned off during performance testing.
The 4TB EVO has slightly lower idle power consumption than the 2TB EVO, but both still draw twice as much power in the slumber state as the smaller 850 EVOs with the MEX and MGX controllers.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
145 Comments
View All Comments
mapesdhs - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link
As long as they're able to sell the drives ok at current prices, it won't change. Indeed, if there's a demand spike then prices can rise, for all vendors (others catch on pretty quick if it's obvious consumers are willing to pay more than they'd estimated).This happened a few years ago when 256GB SSDs were just beginning to approach the 100 UKP mark for the first time. One particular store started offering Samsung 830 models for a good price (something like 120 each, I forget offhand), they sold *hundreds* of them in just a couple of weeks. No doubt Samsung realised there was simply no need to reduce the current pricing and infact it went back up very soon afterwards, as did other vendors' prices aswell, returning to 140 to 150 UKP levels by the following Spring.
mapesdhs - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link
Just checked, the 830 256GB offer price in late 2012 was 130 each (from ebuyer IIRC); I bought two. I think they sold well over a thousand units.jameskatt - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
Why would I want to spend $1600 on a 4 TB SSD that only lasts 75 full drive rewrites? That limited drive life makes this an expensive disposable drive. The Samsung 850 Pro has a 10 year warranty. This 4TB 850 EVO won't even last a few years with its limited lifespan. It is useless for video work. You may end up losing valuable video if this dies suddenly.Notmyusualid - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
Yes, this was my first thought too.I went back and checked the Anandtech article for the 850 Pro (rocking 512GB here), and it says 150TB of Endurance, whereas this has 300TB of endurance. Hmmm, the TLC thing still feels wrong to me. Both my 840 Evos performed SO horribly I got rid, and the 850 Pro just so different. And so,my SSD failures to date:
1 x OCZ Indillux shite thing. I'm sure you all remember that drive.
1 x Intel 160GB G1 (doa), replacement strong to this day.
1 x Kingston 60GB whatever
1 x Kingston 120GB whatever
2 x Patriot Wildfire 240GB each (failed ~18 months apart)
I also have an 840 Evo 500GB that I got for 'free', which is giving me no problems, but is used as a 'Steam' disk only, as I in no way trust TLC.
Make a 4TB Pro at $699, and I'll take two of 'em.
Impulses - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link
I've been pretty darn lucky... My desktop progression:80GB Intel X25-M
40GB Intel X25-V (for a netbook)
2x 128GB Samsung 830 (ran separately then later RAID)
2x 1TB Samsung 850 EVO + 256GB SM951
0 issues :P
mapesdhs - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link
It does vary hugely. I have lots of SSDs I use for benching & system testing, including several dozen OCZ (maybe 50 SSDs total). Only had two problems so far, a SanDisk that went weird during a fw update (which thankfully recovered after a full power disconnect) and a Samsung 840 250GB that went fubar last week for grud knows what reason (stops any system to which it's connected from booting properly). Ironic that I've had a Samsung fail before any of the OCZs I use.It probably helps that the first thing I do when receiving an SSD is make sure the fw is up to date, which in the case of my numerous Vertex2E/3s means they won't be affected by any earlier problematic bugs. Indeed, I've had several V2Es running in UNIX systems for years at a time with no problems (V2E is ideal for this as it was optimised for OSs that don't support TRIM, ie. back when XP was still common).
Notmyusualid - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I could also have added 1x Intel X25-E 64GB still going strong to this day too.Notmyusualid - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Sorry, I left out, make 'em at 4TB @ 699, and I'll not only take two of 'em, I'll RAID1 them! Given they are TLC...vladimirovich - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
$1500 for this TLC shit, enjoy!! :)azrael- - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
Isn't there an error in the specification chart? As far as I know only the lower capacity drives up to 500 GB use the MGX controller. The 1 TB drive uses the MEX controller. Unless something has changed...