Samsung SSD 850 Pro (128GB, 256GB & 1TB) Review: Enter the 3D Era
by Kristian Vättö on July 1, 2014 10:00 AM ESTFinal 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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
160 Comments
View All Comments
Squuiid - Saturday, March 14, 2015 - link
Plus, the MX100 reliability is horrible. Just google MX100 BSOD, disappearing drive.I have 2x MX100 512GB SSDs and I recommend you don't buy one, no matter how cheap they are.
nightauthor - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link
For business purposes, I would rather pay twice as much and get a 10 year warranty vs the 3 year supplied by Crucial. Though, for my daily, I would probably go with the Crucial.TheWrongChristian - Wednesday, July 2, 2014 - link
No current SATA drives push low queue depth random IOs to the point of saturating SATA II, let alone SATA III.At high queue depths, perhaps. But then, that is not a typical workload for most users, desktop or server.
Plus, it's a new drive, prices will come down.
jwcalla - Monday, June 30, 2014 - link
Unless they're doing 5% OP the capacities are kinda... off.melgross - Monday, June 30, 2014 - link
I think there's a slight misunderstanding of manufacturing cost. While the die size may be the same, or even smaller than a competing technology, the 32 level chip does cost more to make per area. There are more masks, more layers, more etching and washing cycles, and more chance of defects.Right now, I do see why the cost is higher. I can on,y assume that as this technology progresses, that cost will drop per area. But it will always remain higher than an SLC, MLC or TLC chip.
So there is a balance here.
Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link
You are correct. I did mention yield and equipment cost in the final paragraph but I figured I won't go into detail about masks and etching since those would have required an in-depth explanation of how NAND is manufactured :)R0H1T - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link
It would be great if Anand or you do a writeup on 3d NAND & deal with the specific pros & cons of it as compared to traditional 2d NAND & if possible include something related to manufacturing processes of these & how they're different OR more/less expensive, certainly as in case of V-NAND?MrSpadge - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link
You wouldn't need too much detail - just saying that the number of process steps increases by probably around an order of magnitude should make this pretty clear.frenchy_2001 - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link
It is probably more than that, as Samsung is currently manufacturing 32 layers of cells. Each layer requires multiple operations (deposit, etching, washing...). Their biggest advantage comes from regressing to 40nm: at that technology, each operation is *MUCH* cheaper than the equivalent one at 1X pitch (15~19nm).So, total cost is an unknown, but should be very competitive, after recovering the initial R&D investment.
Spatty - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link
And not to mention 3D NAND is still basically bleeding edge. It's still in the stages of where a new DDR generation arrives, much higher costs then current gen.