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
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.