Power Consumption

Low power consumption has always been a staple of Samsung's SSDs, and the EVO is no different. Idle and load power are among the best here. I'm also expanding our DIPM testing, first introduced in the SanDisk Extreme II review:

We're introducing a new part of our power consumption testing with this review: measurement of slumber power with host initiated power management (HIPM) and device initiated power management (DIPM) enabled. It turns out that on Intel desktop platforms, even with HIPM and DIPM enabled, SSDs will never go into their lowest power states. In order to get DIPM working, it seems that you need to be on a mobile chipset platform. I modified an ASUS Zenbook UX32VD to allow me to drive power to the drive bay from an external power supply/power measurement rig. I then made sure HIPM+DIPM were enabled, and measured average power with the drive in an idle state. The results are below:

SSD Slumber Power (HIPM+DIPM)

The EVO is almost as good as the Pro from a slumber power perspective, and significantly better than anything else in the list here.

Drive Power Consumption - Idle

Drive Power Consumption - Sequential Write

Drive Power Consumption - Random Write

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 Final Words
POST A COMMENT

138 Comments

View All Comments

  • chizow - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - link

    Nice review Anand, I'm really glad to see almost all the top SSDs from numerous makers (Samsung, Crucial, SanDisk, Intel) are creeping up and exceeding SATA2 specs across the board and nearly saturating SATA3 specs.

    It really is amazing though how Samsung seems to be dominating the SSD landscape. I know this review is a bit skewed though since you presumably tried to include almost all the Samsung capacity offerings (for comparison sake), but the impact of the 840, 840 Pro and now the 840 EVO on the SSD market are undeniable. They really have no weaknesses, other than perhaps the Seq. Write Speeds on the 840/EVO.

    I guess this is why there's so many deals currently on the 840, I bought the 250GB version earlier this month and don't really regret it given the price I got it for, but the EVO is certainly a step up in nearly every aspect.
    Reply
  • Riven98 - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - link

    Anand,
    Thanks for the great article. I had just been thinking that there had been a downturn in the number of articles like these, which are the main reasons I visit on an almost daily basis.
    Reply
  • chrnochime - Friday, July 26, 2013 - link

    Still recommending a technology that's known to not last as long as the MLC. Yes the *extropolated* result indicates that its lifetime is far longer than advertised, but really, why when even M500 is not that slow in the first place and cost about the same, why risk going with the TLC? Not to mention Samsung's 830 has its fair share of horror stories as well... Reply
  • watersb - Friday, July 26, 2013 - link

    Excellent review.

    How does write amplification scale as the disk fills up? Wouldn't a full disk fail more rapidly than a half-full one?
    Reply
  • BobAjob2000 - Tuesday, January 28, 2014 - link

    Hopefully wear leveling and TRIM/garbage collection algorithms should take care of your concerns. They should take existing unchanged 'cold' data and move it around to make way for regularly changed 'hot' data. This should reduce the impact of both data longevity and write amplification as it guides new writes to hit the 'freshest' unused or rarely written blocks on the disk and also helps to ensure that data goes not go 'stale' after being untouched for years. Different vendors use different algorithms that have evolved and improved over time. I think Samsung (being a RAM manufacturer) can possibly provide better RAM caches for their disks that may provide advantages for garbage collection and wear leveling algorithms by improving the available 'thinking space' for the caching and sorting/organizing of 'hot' data.
    Its all to do with managing the 'temperature' of your data somewhat like a data 'weather forecast' which can be very useful in the short term or for simple predictable/settled patterns but less practical for long term or unseasonal data storms.
    Would like to see these things tested by 'what if' scenarios though to demonstrate the differences between different vendors algorithms.
    Reply
  • xtreme2k - Friday, July 26, 2013 - link

    Can anyone tell me why I am paying 90% of the price for 33% of the endurance of a drive? Reply
  • MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - link

    Because endurance doesn't matter (very likely also for you), but price does. Reply
  • log - Friday, July 26, 2013 - link

    Can you partition this drive and still take advantage of its features? Thnaks Reply
  • Timur Born - Friday, July 26, 2013 - link

    I don't quite understand exactly why the Samsung RAPID software cache brings higher performance in *practice* than Windows' own cache? Using two software caches will lead to the same information being stored in RAM twice or even thrice, which is exactly what the Windows cache tries to avoid since XP days.

    That the usual benchmark programs get fooled is visible, as they think to be working without a software cache. So the higher values ​there are not surprising. But I am a bit puzzled why the Anand Storage Bench results increase, too?! Why is RAPID software caching better than Windows' own cache in this scenario? Or does the ASB bypass Windows' cache, too (like most benchmarks)?

    By the way: ATTO allows the Windows cache to be turned ON for testing. My "old" Crucial M4 256 gets sees very high read results once ATTO makes use of Windows' cache. Only the write rates remain significantly smaller.

    Therefor an ATTO test with combinations of either or both software caches (RAPID and Windows) would be interesting.
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - link

    I think it's because Samsung is being much more agressive with caching than Win dares to be, i.e. it holds files far longer before writing them, so they can be combined more efficiently but are longer at risk of being lost. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now