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
Gigaplex - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
I think they're trying to say the performance isn't great. Failing means we don't get to see the performance numbers.Dave Null - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
This is indeed frustrating. I was expecting the 960 Pro drives I preordered to arrive last week. Now Amazon is reporting January.Something major must have happened for Samsung to miss its release date so badly, but nobody is reporting it.
Flying Aardvark - Wednesday, November 16, 2016 - link
I went with the 600P 1TB instead.. had it for 2 weeks now.. I love it. Being M.2 I didn't buy it for heavy workloads anyway so it won't throttle. But if I needed performance I'd go with the Intel 750 instead of what I got.Phattio - Wednesday, November 16, 2016 - link
my 960 Pro 512GB arrives today. ordered from best buy online.Kristian Vättö - Thursday, November 17, 2016 - link
There is a simple explanation: NAND shortage.XabanakFanatik - Thursday, November 17, 2016 - link
Of course! I'm glad you had an article about it. Oh, wait.I'm fairly certain that people need to know that despite your reviews coming out on time that they won't be able to buy the products for months.
zanon - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
Interesting to see the rate at which these continue to progress, and I'm glad Samsung continues to ramp performance aggressively. One thing I wish you could find some way to integrate is at least a summary of reliability features like how a drive handles power loss, and (depending on feasibility if you are mainly testing short-term loaners) maybe some followup a few months down the line with longer term performance/reliability observations. While Samsung has long been at or near the pinnacle of out-of-box raw performance, they've also had a history of playing a bit fast and loose with reliability and support, and I think that deserves some sort of recognition. I have a lot of Intel 730s that replaced or were chosen over Samsung drives of the time after a number of poor experiences with the long term usage 840 series for example, and while the 840s were superior in many respects on paper and Day 1, by Day 100+ and under stress they developed issues that were not immediately apparent.Also, a small typo on the final page, looks like at least one of the $/GB (the 750@1TB) isn't right.
Billy Tallis - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
I am working on some longer-term data and performance retention testing, but the amount of extra equipment that requires means not many drives will get that treatment. Unexpected power loss testing might be more feasible, but for the near future the testbed is too busy for me to add something like this to the routine.The Intel 750 doesn't fit conveniently in the price comparison chart because of its unusual capacities. The prices listed are for the 400GB and 1.2TB models, and the 800GB model isn't listed in the table.
Bullwinkle J Moose - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
Speaking of long-term data retention......If I had 2 SSD's, one unplugged and stored in a closet and one plugged in with power on but idle and unused, would the one plugged in retain data longer even though it is unused????
patrickjp93 - Thursday, November 17, 2016 - link
Yes. There is wear leveling and data refresh in modern SSDs (840/Evo being the exception with cell band drift)