The Samsung 960 EVO (1TB) Review
by Billy Tallis on November 15, 2016 10:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here.
As with the previous ATSB tests, the 960 EVO can't quite keep pace with Samsung's MLC-based 950 Pro and 960 Pro SSDs, but it is slightly faster than the OCZ RD400. On this test the 960 EVO suffers relatively more from a full drive, where it falls behind the RD400.
Average service times are slightly slower for the 960 EVO than Samsung's other PCIe SSDs, and the competing PCIe SSDs are a step further behind.
The 960 EVO is tied for first place with minimal high-latency outliers, but all of the PCIe SSDs are much better than the SATA drives.
Once again the 960 EVO's power efficiency is about the same as Samsung's other drives, showing that its higher instantaneous power draw than SATA drives is compensated by it completing the test quicker.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
87 Comments
View All Comments
ex_User - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
Vaporware. 'Nuff said.Magichands8 - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
This is magnificent! Not only has Samsung produced an SSD that under performs its own previous generation product but one that manages to do so while using even MORE power at an even HIGHER price per GB! They even put it on a form factor that makes the drive almost entirely irrelevant! The only thing missing is a feature that makes the modules randomly explode upon contact with the users computer.Dug - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
What are you talking about?BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
You have a unique perspective. :)Daggoth - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
I have a question, isn't the z97 chipset capped at 2GB per second due to DMI 2.0? Isn't this a problem for the max sequential reads?Billy Tallis - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
I test PCIe SSDs in the primary PCIe 3.0 x16 slot, because the riser card used for power measurement is a 16-lane low-profile card.Bullwinkle J Moose - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
The 960 Pro is much better price over the duration of WarrantyI can generally kill 1 out of 4 SSD's within the warranty period
so if I buy 4 960 Pro's and 4-960 EVO's, here is the breakdown @ 500GB
4-960 Pro's = $330 X 4 or $1320 divided by 5yr warranty = $264 per year for 5 years
or
4-960 EVO's = $250 X 4 or $1000 divided by 3 years = $333.33 per year for 3 years
per year cost under warranty is WAY better for the PRO!
3 year warranty with TLC just doesn't do it for me
Bullwinkle J Moose - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
I would REALLY need to be trying to kill at least 1 out of 4 but I could prolly do itSo tell me more about the internal speed Billy.....
How many seconds does it take to copy and paste 100GB to and from the same 960EVO?
and from the 960PRO?
shabby - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
Why wasn't the 256gb version tested? Tom reviewed it and it was kinda meh compared to the rest of the mlc drives, it was as bad as the 600p in some cases.Billy Tallis - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link
The 250GB was tested. It died. See page 1 for details.