The Samsung 860 PRO (512GB And 4TB) SSD Review: Replacing A Legend
by Billy Tallis on January 23, 2018 10:00 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.
The burst sequential read speeds of the 860 PROs are good but not record setting, and the differences between the SATA drives are all dwarfed by the performance of the NVMe drive.
Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.
With the exception of the 500GB 850 EVO, all of the Samsung SATA drives in this bunch offer about the same sustained sequential read speed. These drives have a substantial advantage over the competing drives, which are led by the Intel 545s at about 85 MB/s slower than the 860 PRO.
The two Samsung 860 PROs have the clear lead for power efficiency during sequential reads, above even the fast PM981 NVMe drive.
 |
|||||||||
The sequential read speed of the Samsung 860 PROs starts out quite close to the SATA limit, but they don't actually reach it until QD4. After that point, they are completely steady while the competing drives tend to be both slower and less consistent.
Sequential Write Performance
Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.
Both models of the Samsung 860 PRO show a bit of a regression on the burst sequential write test, with the 4TB 860 PRO coming in at 13 MB/s slower than the 4TB 850 EVO, and the 512GB 860 PRO is behind the 512GB 850 PRO by twice that margin.
Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
The sustained sequential write speeds of the Samsung 860 PRO are slightly lower than some of the 850s, but not noticeably. Only the Intel 545s and SanDisk Ultra 3D are slow enough to really care about.
The power efficiency of the 860 PRO continues to be a huge improvement over the 850s, with the 512GB 860 PRO taking a big lead over everything else in its class.
 |
|||||||||
Most of the SATA drives are at full speed by QD2 or QD4, but the SanDisk Ultra 3D takes a bit longer to get up to speed and the Crucial MX300 can't maintain that speed. Once they've all (mostly) plateaued at the same performance level, it is clear that the 860 PRO requires less power than any of its competitors or predecessors.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
64 Comments
View All Comments
MayDayComputers - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
It wakes up in 8 milliseconds. The graph is in nanoseconds.MayDayComputers - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Yikes. Actually I was off, it wakes up in 8 nanoseconds, not milliseconds. Even at 8 milliseconds, you would never notice. This is 1000x faster than that.“A microsecond is equal to 1000 nanoseconds or 1/1,000 milliseconds. ” -source Wikipedia
stux - Saturday, February 17, 2018 - link
Actually a million times faster.letmepicyou - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
So...tests were done a while back that showed that 2x 850 EVOs in RAID 0 outperformed a single 850 Pro. The allure of putting 2 500gb EVOs in RAID for $300 and getting better performance than a single PRO 1TB for $450 was a no-brainer IMO, and boy does it scoot. My question is, what do RAID numbers look for the new 860's? Will it still make sense to RAID the EVO's? Or will the 860 series price/perf/space metric slant more towards the single PRO drive?BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Given that the 860 Pro struggles to distance itself from its EVO counterpart in a straight up comparison, I think its safe to say 2x860EVO will outperform 1x860PRO in the same metrics that 2x850EVO outperforms 1x850PRO. Also, MSRP shows 2x860EVO 500GB costing $340 vs $480 for the 1TB 860PRO. Your price/perf/space metric will not be slanting towards the PRO drive.Luckz - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
SATA SSD RAID0 only makes sense if you need 'left to right copying' and can't do NVMe (which is much faster).Roen - Monday, January 29, 2018 - link
I'd like to see what Enterprise SATA / SAS SSDs the author has in mind that is a better balance of specs and price, especially price.The cheapest Seagate Nytro SAS SSD I've found with 1700 / 850 Sustained R/W is > $1500.
peevee - Tuesday, January 30, 2018 - link
There is absolutely no point paying twice as much compared to other drives.JokerzWild - Sunday, February 11, 2018 - link
Good review, but it seems like there’s a “missing link” in the data presented. You mention in the Introduction that you are using a 512GB 850 PRO from, “the original generation using 32L 3D NAND and LPDDR2 DRAM, rather than the updated model with 48L 3D NAND and LPDDR3.” You also say that you are using the test results from the 2TB 850 Pro review, which I believe still used Samsung’s 2nd-generation (32L) 3D MLC NAND with LPDDR3 in the controller rather than their 3rd-generation (48L) product. I can’t tell which version of the 500GB 850 EVO is being presented for this review, but I suspect it is V1 as well based on its power usage compared to the 4TB 850 EVO (which was offered in V2 only) numbers. In your recent reviews of other current SSDs (e.g. the SanDisk Ultra 3D and the Crucial MX500) it also appears that you are using the 32L/LPDDR2 versions (which I’ll call V1) rather than the 48L/LPDDR3 (V2) iterations of the 850 PRO and EVO.Would you please add the data for 850 EVO/PRO V2s to your test results? Alternatively, it would be interesting to see an article that looks at the progress of Samsung’s NAND and controllers in V1 (32L/LPDDR2) and V2 (48L/LPDDR3) of the 850 EVOs and PROs along with the 860s (64L/LPDDR4), preferably in the 1TB configuration since that configuration seems to yield the highest overall performance (at least in the 850s) and is a popular choice. I’ve seen a couple of articles that compared V1 and V2 of the 850 EVO, and it appeared that both performance and power consumption improved in V2. I have yet to seen any comparison of V1 and V2 of the 850 PRO. I seem to also recall reading that Samsung was claiming a 30% reduction in power consumption was one of the benefits in switching from its 2nd-generation to its 3rd-generation NAND, which would wipe out most of the power management gains claimed for the 860 PRO. The changes between V1 and V2 of the 850s appear just as significant as the changes between 850 V2s and the 860s (1 generation DRAM, +16L each), so why not add this data to the mix? Using V1 of the 850s probably overstates the differences between a recent 850 EVO/PRO and an 860 EVO/PRO. Presenting data on V2 of the 850s would also give users of 850 V2s a better idea of what they may be missing. It would also help bargain hunters who want that last little bit of performance from a top performing SATA drive decide if it’s better to buy a marked down 850 or a new 860 for their use cases.
Lady Fitzgerald - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
SATA will be around for a long time, most likely well past 5 years from now. It's plenty fast for storage. Not everyone needs blazing speed for storing music, videos, documents, pictures, etc.