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
ddriver - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
That's a valid point, and even though majority of the people who buy consumer stuff are gonna use it on windows, it is still no excuse, it is not like samsung doesn't have the resources to dedicate to proper support.Palorim12 - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
Linux is the only OS affected. Windows and Mac are fine. Disable Queued TRIM and Sequential TRIM will run. So NBD.Kevin G - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
Samsung has horrible warranty support and they have had a few major issues with their SDDs (840 EVO performance degradation).Samus - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
Yeah. I had two really sour back to back experiences with Samsung Storage support, one regarding the 840 EVO. After a month of back and fourth communication attempting different firmware updates as support requested, secure erase and reimage, and even trying the drive in another PC as support asked, it was obvious they were in denial of the well documented read performance problem. After RMA they shipped me back another 840 EVO that eventually (after a year) developed the same problems even with the latest firmware update. The problems always come up after a lot of writes like a game install. It wasn't worth the trouble. I would have been happy if they simply replaced the drive with an 850 EVO.Palorim12 - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
The FW update that came out in April completely fixed the issue. I posted several updates on a 840 EVO and an 840 EVO m-sata on Overclock that are fine well over a year since the fix.Palorim12 - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
And they also came out with a fix for the non-EVO 840 recently.Impulses - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link
Did they? That's news to me! To teh Google...Impulses - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link
Huh, go figure, they DID issue an 840 update towards the end of June (2016)... What the heck took so long? I think most people had rightfully assumed the 840 (non EVO) was abandoned, the EVO did come out like 6 months after it.Apparently the issue was also never quite as severe on the 840 non EVO? Did they ever commit to a fix and it got drowned out over time or did that update happen out of the blue? No AT Pipeline post about it either...
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Samsung-Magic...
Palorim12 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
I think its because in most cases, it took longer for the issue to appear in the 840. So it would take longer for them to see if a fix fully worked?SetiroN - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link
Why wouldn't you?When you're talking TBs, that difference translates in HUNDREDS of dollars that I have better use for when Sandisk's performance is already good enough.
This drive only really makes sense in oddly demanding small laptops.