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

  • eanazag - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    Turbowrite is a default feature. It is marketing speak for optimizations to increase write performance in write workloads. It can't be turned on or off.
  • erple2 - Wednesday, December 10, 2014 - link

    Well, it has to be able to be turned on/off, as Kristian has a chart showing the difference in write speeds with it on/off. However, unlike "RAPID", there is no downside to leaving it on.
  • geniekid - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    Well written conclusion.
  • andrewbaggins - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    It's hard to understand why your SSD reviews fail to include Idle Power Consumption charts. For the hundreds of millions of PCs and laptops in use which do not support the so-called Slumber Power it would be far more useful if you included a chart for typical or average power consumed during Idle state.
  • metayoshi - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    "Hundreds of millions of PCs and laptops in use which do not support the so-called Slumber Power."

    Woah... I don't know where you got that "hundreds of millions" number from, but any system that supports SATA is able to support Slumber. Slumber has been in the SATA spec since forever, and pretty much all 2.5" drives, and some 3.5" drives support this power state.
  • metayoshi - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    P.S. As an example, I have a Core 2 Quad Q6600 sitting in my cubicle at work on an Asus PSE WS Pro motherboard. I have no Idea how old this thing is, but it's running a SATA-II 3.0 Gbps interface, and that great grandfather of a system supports HIPM+DIPM, and does Partial and Slumber on a variety of SSDs and HDDs.
  • eanazag - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    Newegg has a promotion for these drives ending 12/14/14 (US $) -
    120GB @ $89.99
    250GB @ $139.99
    500GB @ $249.99
    1TB @ $469.99
  • eddieobscurant - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    I think an 120gb 850 evo usb thumb drive would be awesome .
  • dwade123 - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    Realworld: all modern ssds have similar windows boot and game loading time. All these synthetic tests are just for reviewers to have something talk about, and marketing purposes. Meh.
  • StrangerGuy - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    I would rather want a SSD that has 90% of a MX100 but only 50% dollar per GB, instead of extra performance that 99% of SSD buyers will not never benefit for more money.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now