The Samsung 860 PRO (512GB And 4TB) SSD Review: Replacing A Legend
by Billy Tallis on January 23, 2018 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 ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.
The Samsung SATA drives can mostly be distinguished from the other SATA drives by how much of their performance they retain when full; most of the competing drives show a bigger relative drop in average data rate. Between the Samsung drives, the differences are insignificant, and the peak performance of the competitors is pretty close to that of the Samsung drives.
The average and 99th percentile latency scores on the Light test show that most of these SATA drives perform almost identically, but the 860 PROs have smaller full-drive performance hits than the other drives.
The average read latencies on the Light test tend to be a bit lower than the write latencies when the test is run on an empty drive, but when the drives are full, the read latencies climb to be slightly higher than the write latencies. The Samsung SATA SSDs all show smaller performance hits from being full than most of the competing SATA SSDs.
The 99th percentile read latencies are in the 2-3ms range and the 99th percentile write latencies hover right around 3ms. The Crucial drives provide the biggest outliers, but even the 5-6ms response times of the MX300 aren't bad as a worst-case performance measure.
The 500 GB Samsung 850 EVO is once again the most efficient Samsung drive while the 860 PROs improve upon the poor efficiency of the 850 PROs but don't entirely catch up to the competition.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
64 Comments
View All Comments
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
"Are the 256gb and 512gb pcbs the smaller pcb?"Correct. The small PCB shots are the 512GB drive, and the large PCB shots are the 4TB drive.
comma - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Awesome. Thanks for continuing to take apart the drives and showing us the innards :Dwill2 - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
You included some data on the EVO 860 but no consumption figures ! As the EVO 860 otherwise appears the more cost-effective than the Pro, any chance of adding the 2 Idle figures and the power efficiency for the EVO 860 ?cfenton - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
At this point, I usually recommend whichever drive from a major manufacturer has the lowest $/GB. It's been a while since that was a Samsung drive. I would be astonished if anyone could tell the difference between an 860 Evo and an MX500 in typical client usage, so I don't think it makes much sense to buy the more expensive drive. I'm sure there is a small market that, for some reason, needs the fastest and most durable SATA drives possible, but it's unnecessary for most people.Magichands8 - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
What a joke. Another SSD release crippled with the SATA interface? CHECK. Another SSD offered at the ridiculous $0.50/GB price point? CHECK. Another SSD with woefully low storage capacity? CHECK. Another customer convinced to avoid buying their SSDs? CHECK. Now my money isn't going anywhere near one of these so I admit I didn't read the whole article but just from reading some of the comments it appears that Samsung also managed to reduce both durability AND warranty coverage for this tripe. Samsung's really on a role these days. It's not all bad though, apparently someone in their corporate structure has been using their brains as Samsung has managed to avoid the M.2 format for each of these offerings. What they should have done in addition to giving buyers that special feeling of owning an SSD with the letters "PRO" on it is wrap the drives with flashing multicolored LEDs so the kids can really get their bling bling on! Samsung is definitely taking on 2018 by storm!Round - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
While I agree with most of what you just said, I disagree on SATA. I think SATA drives are great for 90%+ of the population. They work everywhere, they're cheaper, and besides running some fake bench mark tests and moving files on the drive, they give people the same feel/real world performance.NVME is the real rip off in SSDs IMO. Same memory, same format for M.2 SATA/NVME, different controller, but the NVME is significantly more expensive. Why charge so much? No reason other than they can get away with it.
Magichands8 - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Anyone moving around any data over a couple hundred MB will notice the difference IMMEDIATELY. And there is absolutely, positively, no excuse whatsoever for hogtying a storage technology NATIVELY capable of vastly better performance. The "it's good enough" argument doesn't work any better for SATA vs. PCIE than it did for HDD vs. SSD. We all moved from 32 bit to 64 bit, from HHD to SSD and now we are able to move from SATA to PCIE because the technology for the latter is here, it's present and it has, literally, made SATA obsolete.chrcoluk - Friday, April 12, 2019 - link
if you think sata is obsolete then I assume you dont use netflix, youtube, and other mainstream media services as these services run of spindles not flash storage, the reason been flash storage cannot compete on capacity.For a home user nvme offers little benefit vs sata for ssd's, for a datacentre user, its good for performance sensitive loads such as database caching, but doesnt shine in raw storage capacity.
SATA as long as its good enough for spindles will survive.
For NVME to wipe out SATA ssd's the pricing needs to be improved to match SATA pricing, in addition m.2 form factor is a step backwards, board manufacturers are struggling to fit even only 2 slots per board, and they are a pain to install vs simply slotting in a sata drive into a drive bay.
How often do people move enough data around that the performance of nvme really matters? Most of my writes to my ssd are me downloading games, and the bottleneck in that case is the speed of my internet.
NVME is faster but thats its only win at the moment, it loses on many other things, and because of that SATA is not obsolete.
overseer - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
My Intel X25-M was bought before wedding and it still has 90+% writes left. Guess I may pass it to my grandson...Hixbot - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
What is with the PM981 idle wake up latency. Almost 8 seconds to wake up?!