The Samsung 960 EVO (1TB) Review
by Billy Tallis on November 15, 2016 10:00 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
The random read test requests 4kB 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, which is filled before the test starts. 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.
It is unsurprising to see that the TLC-based 960 EVO has slower random read speeds than the MLC-based 950 Pro and 960 Pro, but the 960 EVO still manages to be faster than all the non-Samsung drives.
The 960 EVO's power consumption is essentially the same as Samsung's other drives, which puts it at an efficiency disadvantage to their MLC PCIe SSDs but more efficient than all the lower-performing drives.
 |
|||||||||
As with Samsung's other SSDs, random read speed scales with queue depth until hitting a limit at QD16.
Random Write Performance
The random write test writes 4kB 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 is limited to a 16GB portion of the drive, and the drive is empty save for the 16GB test file. 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 Samsung 960 EVO's random write speed is essentially tied with the 960 Pro and the OCZ RD400A, while the Intel 750 holds on to a comfortable lead.
The 960 EVO is not as power efficient as the 960 Pro, but it is still far better than everything else.
 |
|||||||||
The scaling behavior of the 960 EVO is essentially the same as the 960 Pro: full performance is reached at QD4, and there's no indication of any severe thermal throttling.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
87 Comments
View All Comments
DanNeely - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
The Intel 750 doesn't have power data in Bench. My guess would be that the current power benchmarks post-date when the review sample was returned.Sometimes there are oversights, but most of the time when some devices are only shown in a subset of the charts its because data to score them on the others isn't available. Most often due to moving testsuite targets or breaking changes in the benchmark applications.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD15/1440
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1458
Billy Tallis - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
Yeah, the Intel 750 was tested by Kristian before we had working PCIe power measurement. It also complicates things by using both the 12V and 3.3V rails, when I only have one meter. Adding power consumption data isn't a high priority for me, because the Intel 750 is always in last place, by a lot: its idle power is higher than the load power of most M.2 drives on many of the tests. The Intel 750 would distort the scale of the power graphs to the point that it would be hard to see the differences between the M.2 drives.willis936 - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
How are M.2 drives mounted during these reviews? Do you use the motherboard's M.2 connector? A PCIe adapter without a heatsink? A PCIe adapter with a heatsink?Billy Tallis - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
Unless otherwise specified, M.2 PCIe drives are tested in a simple Lycom DT-120 adapter, which is connected to the riser card used for power measurement, which is in turn connected to the primary PCIe 3.0 x16 slot. Drives like the OCZ RD400A and Plextor M8PeY are also tested in their bundled adapter cards with whatever heatsink that provides, and any other M.2+heatsink results I report are using the Angelbird Wings PX1 adapter and heatsink.R3MF - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
Is that v2.0 driver available on day one?(for Windows7 users wanting to do a fresh install)
CrazyElf - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
First, it is the drive that will likely play a role in making M.2 SSDs a much more popular form factor, perhaps to the point where NVMe drives overtake SATA. Most people do not need the write endurance that the MLC SSDs have.Second, the performance is quite good, and although there is still a huge price premium over SATA SSDs, the massive performance increase is much more justifiable in terms of cost premium compared to say, the 960 Pro, which is for people who want the best. It will remain that way, until the 970 Pro and Evo come out, or perhaps until a 3D XPoint SSD comes out.
Third, I expect an enterprise version to come out too, with power loss protection. The only real issue i see is if there is something like the 840 Evo that caused performance drops, but so far Samsung's TLC drives since then have been solid.
TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
I believe the 840 evo was planar NAND, whereas the newer designs are 3D NAND. That may be part of the reason.XabanakFanatik - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
I see no mention of Samsung's silent delays of these drives. As of now most models of both the pro and evo are listed as ship by late December or January.Kind of disappointing you would gloss over a 2-3 month delay like that.
haukionkannel - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
It seems that Samsung was lucky that their 250GB unit did fail...http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-960-ev...
It seems to completely another series than 1Tb version.
TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
What are you trying to say here?