Final Words

The 850 EVO is yet another showcase of Samsung's engineering talent and truth to be told there is a lot of good in the 850 EVO. By combining TLC with V-NAND technology, Samsung is eliminating any and all concerns that people might have had about the endurance of TLC NAND and to back that up Samsung is rating the 850 EVO's endurance higher than the MLC drives of most manufacturers. I never considered the endurance of TLC NAND to be an issue for average client workloads, but I saw many people who were doubtful about the sufficiency of 1,000 P/E cycles, so with twice that in TLC V-NAND I believe many will and should stop treating TLC as a second class citizen.

Not only is the endurance higher, but the 850 EVO's performance is also better compared to its predecessor. In our 2011 Storage Benches the 850 EVO matches up with the 850 Pro and is hence one of the fastest SATA 6Gbps SSDs for typical client workloads. In very heavy workloads, illustrated by our 2013 Storage Bench, the 850 EVO does okay, but it's clear that it's outperformed by drives that are more optimized for such usage.

NewEgg Price Comparison (12/7/2014)
  120/128GB 240/250/256GB 480/500/512GB 960GB/1TB
Samsung SSD 850 EVO (MSRP) $100 $150 $270 $500
Samsung SSD 850 Pro $105 $180 $320 $630
Samsung SSD 840 EVO $85 $125 $230 $440
SanDisk Extreme Pro - $150 $328 $531
SanDisk Ultra II $80 $110 $220 $420
Crucial MX100 $70 $113 $215 -
Crucial M550 $85 $163 $265 $450
Plextor M6S $80 $158 $290 -
Intel SSD 730 - $130 $220 -
Intel SSD 530 $75 $130 $240 -
OCZ ARC 100 $70 $100 $215 -

There is one huge 'but' however – the price. The 850 EVO is a very competitive drive in performance and features, but neither of these warrants the premium Samsung is charging. As I've said before, there are only two main segments in the SSD market that I recognize, which are the value/mainstream and high-end/enthusiast segments.

For the value segment, the key consideration is the price because these are typically users who don't push their systems to the limits and thus shouldn't pay a premium for a performance increase that is likely to be negligible for their usage. Our Light Workload suite highlights this pretty well because the difference between most drives is on the order of 10-20% and while a possible 10% increase in performance would be worth $5, $10 and maybe even $20 to some users, it's definitely not worth the ~$50 Samsung is charging for the 850 EVO over Crucial's MX100 and SanDisk's Ultra II for example.

As for the high-end segment, Samsung already has that one covered by the 850 Pro. The 850 EVO, especially at the smaller capacities, isn't fast enough under IO intensive workloads to really compete with the 850 Pro and Extreme Pro. Given that the Extreme Pro can be had for about the same cost (depending on the capacity, of course), I would much rather have that if I was looking for a high-end SSD.

In other words, the 850 EVO falls into the infamous middle-class. It doesn't have an obvious niche in the market because it's too expensive for the value-oriented buyer and it's not fast enough to be considered as a competitive high-end SSD. If Samsung shaved $30 to $50 off the price, the 850 EVO would be competitive against the other value drives because the five-year warranty and Samsung's top-of-the-class software suite add some value, but with the current pricing there are just better options on the market.

A part of me sees that it might have been worthwhile for Samsung to do one more planar NAND shrink to be more competitive in the mainstream segment because right now the 850 EVO is missing that market. While 3D NAND will eventually become more cost efficient as the number of layers increases, we are not there yet. I absolutely love all the performance and endurance benefits V-NAND is bringing to the table, but if the 850 EVO can't even compete with MLC drives in price, that's a bit alarming.

There is still hope that the MSRPs are just conservative and street prices could end up lower. If they don't, while the 850 EVO is clearly the best performing "value" drive, it likely won't see the same sort of success as its predecessor. Samsung also has a strong presence in the OEM desktop and laptop markets, but OEMs may not see enough to sway them over from the 840 EVO if prices are quite a bit higher.

Power Consumption
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • TEAMSWITCHER - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    I'm in complete agreement. I'm not going to buy another 2.5" SSD before I can get an 850 Pro (512 GB) equivalent with an M.2 interface. I have two motherboards with empty M.2 slots waiting for the market to catch up. I know about the XP941, but the pricing isn't great. M.2 drives should cost almost the same as a 2.5" drive...especially after eliminating the worthless metal/plastic box.
  • extide - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    Seems to me like TLC will become the standard mainstream for 3D/VNAND, where as MLC will be pretty much only for high end/enterprise, somewhat like SLC was back in the day.
  • MadDuffy - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    Newegg prices (USD) are up:
    120 GB - 90
    250 GB - 140
    500 GB - 250
    1 TB - 470

    Email I received indicates these are promotional prices available through Dec 14th
  • casperes1996 - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    Last page, fifth paragraph, last line:
    "If I was"
    Should be: "If I were"

    I know I'm a cunt for pointing it out, but I only do so because I generally think Anandtech offers fairly decently written articles, and I care too much about this sort of piss...
    Sorry.
  • apudapus - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    How is data retention with this type of TLC NAND? Can the drive be powered off for a week or a month before data gets corrupted? While the drive is powered on, I assume there are refresh features for stale (a.k.a. infrequently accessed) data.
  • hojnikb - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    If its up to jedec (i imagine it is) then its good for atleast a year.
  • kgh00007 - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    But in reality what are they going to be like? I don't think I'll buy another Samsung TLC drive after owning the 120 GB 840 EVO for the last while! It performs erratically, especially when resuming from hibernate. It can take anywhere from 10 secs to boot, up to 5 minutes, and I have applied the latest firmware and run the speed recovery app from Samsung. I have an mSata Crucial m500 240GB which is slower on paper, but in reality is much quicker and the performance is 100% consistent, it does the same thing, every time at the same speed!!

    MLC all the way for me without any turbowrite nonsense, just straight forward advertised speeds across the whole drive all the time, without loosing data due to poor charge retention along the way!
  • Lolimaster - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    Your EVO is 120 and your other drive is 240, less nand, more erratic, simple. Look at the chart, you get consistent writes/read with 500-1TB models.
  • kgh00007 - Saturday, December 13, 2014 - link

    Less nand equals slower performance, not more erratic performance. But it should perform at it's given speed consistentantly. I have over 30% of the drive free and 10% set as over provisioning on the 840 EVO. There is no excuse for a 5 minute boot time with an SSD. I don't trust these Samsung drives after my experience!
  • mlkmade - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    So I'm confused as its not very clear...Is Turbowrite turned on for all your benchmarks?

    Is turbowrite needed to hit the the 540/520 read/write times? I saw the chart with TurboWrite on and off. So with turbowrite off this drive only gets 100mb/s ?

    This article is very vague in regards to that.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now