Mixed Random Performance

Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write

The mixed random I/O performance of the Samsung SSD 850 120GB is substantially slower than the old 850 EVO, but is slightly faster than the 750 EVO and well ahead of all the non-Samsung drives.

The 850 120GB isn't particularly consistent across the mixed random I/O test, and there isn't a strong trend to its performance. It is somewhat slower on the write-heavy half of the test. It is slower than the old 850 EVO in every phase of the test and doesn't significantly pick up the pace at the end when the workload is almost pure random writes, but neither does it suffer any severe performance drops.

Mixed Sequential Performance

Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write

The Samsung drives are the four fastest drives on the mixed sequential workload test, with the 850 120GB coming in third place of the 120-128GB drives and only slightly faster than the 750 EVO. The 850 120GB is about 30% faster than the HP S700, the next fastest in-production model in this roundup.

The performance of the Samsung SSD 850 120GB drops significantly during the first half of the mixed sequential I/O test as the proportion of writes increases, but it stabilizes in the second half of the test. The other Samsung drives are the only ones that meaningfully outperform the 850 120GB at any point during the test,
but the 850 PRO is the only one that maintains a clear lead over the 850 120GB all the way through.

Sequential Performance Conclusion: It's a Good Option at 120GB
Comments Locked

31 Comments

View All Comments

  • boozed - Monday, November 27, 2017 - link

    This website really needs a "send corrections" link...
  • mr_tawan - Tuesday, November 28, 2017 - link

    corrections is a kind of participation. Using comments is not that bad idea.
  • dgingeri - Monday, November 27, 2017 - link

    This sounds like a great OS drive for servers. They don't change all that much, especially if the logs are offloaded to a different drive.
  • sonny73n - Tuesday, November 28, 2017 - link

    TLC for servers? No thanks.
  • dgingeri - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Why not? Write endurance is not a factor when dealing with the boot/OS drive, especially when logs are moved onto another drive. Most servers would see 10-15GB of writes per week on the OS drive, with updates bumping that up more once in a while. This drive would last for decades at that write level.
  • tmanini - Tuesday, November 28, 2017 - link

    meh - while there is nothing wrong with one as a boot drive only: once booted you won't benefit much. (this is not a reflection for complex server environs - which then you would never consider this SSD as a contender)
  • lilmoe - Monday, November 27, 2017 - link

    The EVOs are priced down on amazon now. Just saying.
  • Magichands8 - Monday, November 27, 2017 - link

    They better be. Nothing much to see here.
  • lilmoe - Monday, November 27, 2017 - link

    I know... I like Sammy and all, but I'd like to see them go even lower. 2TB SSDs shouldn't be a luxury anymore.
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link

    Still a very long way from where they used to be. 850 EVO 250GB is currently 85 UKP on Amazon; before the pricing went crazy it was 53 UKP.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now