Final Words

Samsung does not cease to amaze me with their SSDs as the 850 Pro just kills it in every aspect. The performance is there. The endurance is the best of the class. Heck, even Samsung's feature and software suites beat the competition by a mile. To be honest, there is not a single thing missing in the 850 Pro because regardless of the angle you look at the drive from, it it will still top the charts.

Samsung's heavy investment on NAND R&D and specifically 3D NAND is really paying off in the 850 Pro. Thanks to the more efficient structure of 3D NAND, Samsung has been able to improve all three main aspects of NAND i.e. performance, endurance and power consumption. It will be very hard for anyone to compete with the 850 Pro as the characteristics of V-NAND are superior compared to 2D NAND. The density is also very competitive against the smallest 2D NAND nodes, meaning that V-NAND should not carry a hefty premium over MLC. 

NewEgg Price Comparison (6/28/2014)
  120/128GB 240/256GB 480/512GB 960GB/1TB
Samsung SSD 850 Pro (MSRP) $130 $200 $400 $700
Samsung SSD 840 Pro $120 $190 $401 -
Samsung SSD 840 EVO $80 $140 $240 $420
SanDisk Extreme Pro - $200 $370 $600
SanDisk Extreme II $80 $150 $260 -
Crucial MX100 $75 $110 $210 -
Crucial M550 $104 $157 $280 $491
Plextor M6S $100 $145 $400 -
Intel SSD 730 - $270 $500 -
Intel SSD 530 $94 $165 $330 -
OCZ Vector 150 $115 $190 $370 -

Update: Samsung just provided us the updated MSRPs, which I have added to the table. The old MSRPs were $230 for 256GB, $430 for 512GB and $730 for the 1TB capacity. This certainly makes the 850 Pro more price competitive with the Extreme Pro, although the 1TB drive is still $100 more.

The MSRPs, on the other hand, are a bit of a letdown. I was hoping that Samsung would have priced the 850 Pro more aggressively because now they are asking anywhere between $30 and $130 more than what SanDisk is charging for the Extreme Pro. The 850 Pro is certainly a better drive in all areas but forking over up to $130 more for one can be difficult to justify. Of course, as with all MSRPs, they should be taken with a grain of salt and I certainly hope that the actual street prices end up being closer to the Extreme Pro ones the 850 Pro becomes available in the next few weeks. 

If you are looking for a SATA 6Gbps drive and want the absolute best, the 850 Pro is your pick. It is without a doubt the best drive in the market as long as you are able to justify the price premium over other options. 

 

Power Consumption
Comments Locked

160 Comments

View All Comments

  • emvonline - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    is the die size for the NAND chip 67mm^2? I assumed you measured it (pretty easy to do). I would think it would be much larger than that
  • Gigaplex - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    It's difficult to measure the die when multiple of them are on the same package.
  • emvonline - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    send me the package... I promise to have exact die size in a week ..... TEM cross sections in two weeks :-)
  • Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    Send me an email at kristian@anandtech.com and let's work this out :)
  • extide - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    Yes, 67mm^2, but remember that is 32 "deep"
  • emvonline - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    @extide: so you measured the die to be 67mm^2? how was this measured ? CSAM? XRAY? that seems odd to use such a small dies for SSD. and that would make it even smaller cell size than the one at ISSCC since it was 134 for a 128Gbit with 24 layers (periphery doesnt shrink as fast with lower density)
  • Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    No I didn't because I don't have the equipment to do that. The method I used to calculate the die size is explained on the fifth page of the review:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/8216/samsung-ssd-850...

    I'm not claiming that it is an accurate figure, hence the "~" sign in front of it. However, Samsung wouldn't disclose the die size when I asked them during the Q&A, so at this point I don't know for sure. However, I have a picture of the 32-layer wafer and once I get back home I'll do the math of the wafer to figure out the exact die size.
  • emvonline - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    Got it thanks. I am mainly wondering about redundancy, extra blocks and ECC overhead.
  • drwho9437 - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    The micrograph you say is an "x-ray", is almost certainly a transmission electron microscopy image. Given the oxides are light it is a bright field image. It could technically be a SEM image but the resolution is a bit to high, so it most likely is a STEM image with a bright field detector.
  • GTVic - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    Perhaps time should be added as a cost efficiency factor. Presumably the die has to stay in the process much longer due to all the layers being added one at a time.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now