The Samsung 860 PRO (512GB And 4TB) SSD Review: Replacing A Legend
by Billy Tallis on January 23, 2018 10:00 AM ESTMixed 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%.
The Samsung 860 PRO is the fastest SATA SSD on our mixed random I/O test, with the 4TB model scoring slightly better than the 512GB model. This is a big improvement over the multi-TB 850s which were substantially slower than the half-TB models.
The 850 PRO is again the most efficient drive in the bunch, but the 512GB model is clearly more efficient than the 4TB despite being a bit slower.
 |
|||||||||
At every stage of the mixed random I/O test, the 860 PRO draws less power than any of its competitors and it is only outperformed by the 4TB model and momentarily by the 512GB 850 PRO.
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.
Neither capacity of the Samsung 860 PRO quite manages to top the performance of the 4TB 850 EVO on the mixed sequential test, but they're close enough.
The power efficiency gap between the 860 PROs and the rest of the SATA SSDs is huge. The 512GB model takes first place, and the 4TB model is tied with the PM981 for second place efficiency.
 |
|||||||||
Samsung's SSDs tend to show lower performance during the second half of this test when the workloads are more write-heavy. The 860 PRO continues this pattern, but with very shallow performance dips.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
64 Comments
View All Comments
Flunk - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
I agree, the low price makes the mx500 a really good buy. It certainly qualifies as "fast enough" while delivering very low cost/GB.GreenMeters - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Looking like it. The 850 EVO was on sale over Black Friday for less than the MX500 (at 1 TB size anyway), but outside big discounts like that (and assuming there's no simultaneous discount of the MX500) then it looks like Samsung is about to be irrelevant when it comes to SATA. Disappointing in some ways (have four 850 EVOs in various systems now, two of them picked up at the aforementioned sale, and they've been great) but as long as PCI is becoming more affordable I guess it's not a big deal.Alistair - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
You are comparing with the launch price of the MX500. I've bought 5 x MX500 1TB drives for $242 USD each. I'm pretty sure the Samsung 850 is more expensive.Samus - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
If you are going to compare sale prices of Samsung drives to the competition, it becomes even more obvious Samsung is a bad buy when you see the sale prices of competitors. The BX300 256GB drives were on sale for $70 at one point. No Samsung 250GB drive has been under $90 in over a year, even on sale.bug77 - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
SATA does not prevent performance improvements. 4k random reads are what give a drive its speed for home usage and we're not even at 100MB/s in this aspect. Plenty of room for improvement right there.In other news, if you have ~$250 to spend, you can either get a 512GB 850 Pro or a 1TB MX500. Imho, as good as Samsung is, there's no contest here.
zodiacfml - Sunday, February 11, 2018 - link
I agree. The only limit is in sequential. However, we have seen the performance/capabilities of the Intel Optane drives and that even that doesn't improve a desktop experience by any noticeable level.Round - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Sorry, but I disagree. What's so impressive about this, because I'm not seeing it? They improved the power spec, but for real world use, especially in a desktop, I'm just not seeing any benefit at those prices.I can't see buying any more Samsung drives (I have 6 850 Evos) or recommending them to anyone. The price/performance from Crucial is superior, and I doubt anyone is ever going to notice a performance difference between the MX500 and 850/860 Evos (the 860 Pro is priced ridiculously high and is not a wise purchase for any average user).
I find myself hoping Samsung gets punished in the market place....
StrangerGuy - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Yup, I fail to see whats so great about this SSD either for consumers either. MX500 beats it in 4K random IOPS while having a much higher GB/$. The extra endurance and warranty length is also completely irrelevant for 99.99% of consumers out there; I myself have a Crucial M550 1TB since 2014 and I still only have 11TB total writes on it.BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
While I don't find this drive particularly impressive (not much room to impress on SATA anymore), it does have the distinction of likely being the last MLC drive available on SATA. While normal consumers can (in theory) use TLC drive with no negative effect, there are cases of people who have experienced a TLC SSD failure and aren't too eager to get another. I've personally been involved with 7 TLC SSD failures (3 different Crucial models, 2 Sandisks, and 2 Samsung). While the NAND was not likely responsible for any of these failures and this makes up a pretty low percentage of total TLC SSDs deployed within my purview, it does start to leave a less reliable image when compared to the zero MLC SSD failures (Crucial, Intel, Samsung, Sandisk, Corsair, etc.) I've seen in my client base. Granted, this is all anecdotal and I use global data (including HDD vs SSD failure rates) to color my recommendations. However, clients who've experienced the drive failures have universally decided that TLC was not an option for them. I haven't sworn off TLC drives personally, but entirely coincidentally, I have yet to purchase one since I burnt one out under heavy load (improper cooling on the controller I believe).chrone - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Could you guys perform synchronous write test in Linux as well?```
dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=4K count=100 oflag=direct,sync status=progress
dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=4M count=100 oflag=direct,sync status=progress
```
Sadly, the synchronous write for older Samsung SSD 850 Pro is similar to HDD. Synchronous write are used by OS and app for data consistency and reliability in Linux environment.