The Samsung 850 EVO 4TB SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on July 11, 2016 10:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.
The 4TB 850 EVO is slightly faster overall on the Heavy test than the 2TB 850 EVO, so it takes over as the fastest TLC drive. The 1TB and 2TB 850 Pros are only a little faster.
Average service time of the 4TB 850 EVO has regressed somewhat compared to the 1TB and 2TB models, but it still can't be beat by TLC from anybody other than Samsung.
The quantity of latency outliers experienced by the 4TB 850 EVO places it at the bottom of the highest tier of drives and below the 1TB and 2TB models.
The 4TB 850 EVO uses very slightly more power than the 2TB, but both are much more efficient than the 1TB model and score reasonably well given the high capacity.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
145 Comments
View All Comments
profquatermass - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link
6GB? My first hard drive was 200MB!bug77 - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
Yeah, if you can get one of these at half the MSRP, it's only $750 :rolleyes:Flunk - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
It's only $0.36 a GB, that's pretty cheap.patrickjp93 - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
You can get something like the Sandisk Ultra II 1TB for 21 cents/GB.ddriver - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
But then again why would you? Unless you are starving, and if you are, then you wouldn't be buying SSDs...I can't honestly think of any good reason to buy something other than samsung SSD - they have the most warranty and performance is top notch too, reliability seems to be better too.
FLHerne - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
Support and spec compliance. Samsung *still* ship firmware that claims support for queued TRIM ATA commands, but erases data if they're actually used. The consistent response is "Windows doesn't use these commands, we don't support other OS's", never mind that it's part of the SATA spec.(no, the kernel bug they fixed is completely unrelated)
I *hate* manufacturers treating "works in current Windows" as an acceptable spec - it's guaranteed to shoot you in the foot down the line, as everyone saw with Vista. So I bought a SanDisk instead.
FLHerne - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
To clarify, I mean the way Vista broke all the manufacturers' stupid assumptions based on XP's behaviour.Also, the months it took for them to bodge around the performance degradation.
Notmyusualid - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
Acutally, I hate to back up Microsoft, but they DID say it was a complete re-write of Windows, and that it would not be the same OS at all.It performed horribly with low amounts of RAM, and at the time, the big RAM makers were in collusion over RAM price fixing (look it up), so that is why we saw laptops, with Vista being shipped with 256MB of RAM, which was a mess, I agree.
But someone like myself, who had way more RAM than that, found it to be just fine. And it was way less infected than XP too.
I guess your printer never received a Vista driver then? Too bad.
But for me, and other client workstations with reasonable amounts of installed RAM I oversaw, it worked just fine, from the first day I used it.
Flame away...
kepler- - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link
Except they lied. Go onto your desktop and try to make a folder called "con". You can't, even on Windows 10, because they are still using code from Windows for Workgroups.There are a few others that (PRN, AUX, NUL, COM1...), which are all legacy Windows device names. They never '"rewrote" anything from the ground up.
Michael Bay - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
Oy vey, muh geschafts can`t go into appropriate folders now!Such shoah.