The Samsung SSD 850 EVO mSATA/M.2 Review
by Kristian Vättö on March 31, 2015 10:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
While The Destroyer focuses on sustained and worst-case performance by hammering the drive with nearly 1TB worth of writes, the Heavy trace provides a more typical enthusiast and power user workload. By writing less to the drive, the Heavy trace doesn't drive the SSD into steady-state and thus the trace gives us a good idea of peak performance combined with some basic garbage collection routines.
| AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy | ||||||||||||
| Workload | Description | Applications Used | ||||||||||
| Photo Editing | Import images, edit, export | Adobe Photoshop | ||||||||||
| Gaming | Pllay games, load levels | Starcraft II, World of Warcraft | ||||||||||
| Content Creation | HTML editing | Dreamweaver | ||||||||||
| General Productivity | Browse the web, manage local email, document creation, application install, virus/malware scan | Chrome, IE10, Outlook, Windows 8, AxCrypt, uTorrent, AdAware | ||||||||||
| Application Development | Compile Chromium | Visual Studio 2008 | ||||||||||
The Heavy trace drops virtualization from the equation and goes a bit lighter on photo editing and gaming, making it more relevant to the majority of end-users.
| AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy - Specs | ||||||||||||
| Reads | 2.17 million | |||||||||||
| Writes | 1.78 million | |||||||||||
| Total IO Operations | 3.99 million | |||||||||||
| Total GB Read | 48.63 GB | |||||||||||
| Total GB Written | 106.32 GB | |||||||||||
| Average Queue Depth | ~4.6 | |||||||||||
| Focus | Peak IO, basic GC routines | |||||||||||
The Heavy trace is actually more write-centric than The Destroyer is. A part of that is explained by the lack of virtualization because operating systems tend to be read-intensive, be that a local or virtual system. The total number of IOs is less than 10% of The Destroyer's IOs, so the Heavy trace is much easier for the drive and doesn't even overwrite the drive once.
| AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy - IO Breakdown | |||||||||||
| IO Size | <4KB | 4KB | 8KB | 16KB | 32KB | 64KB | 128KB | ||||
| % of Total | 7.8% | 29.2% | 3.5% | 10.3% | 10.8% | 4.1% | 21.7% | ||||
The Heavy trace has more focus on 16KB and 32KB IO sizes, but more than half of the IOs are still either 4KB or 128KB. About 43% of the IOs are sequential with the rest being slightly more full random than pseudo-random.
| AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy - QD Breakdown | ||||||||||||
| Queue Depth | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-5 | 6-10 | 11-20 | 21-32 | >32 | ||||
| % of Total | 63.5% | 10.4% | 5.1% | 5.0% | 6.4% | 6.0% | 3.2% | 0.3% | ||||
In terms of queue depths the Heavy trace is even more focused on very low queue depths with three fourths happening at queue depth of one or two.
I'm reporting the same performance metrics as in The Destroyer benchmark, but I'm running the drive in both empty and full states. Some manufacturers tend to focus intensively on peak performance on an empty drive, but in reality the drive will always contain some data. Testing the drive in full state gives us valuable information whether the drive loses performance once it's filled with data.
In the Heavy trace the 850 EVO scores highly. As I've said before, it seems that only Samsung has found the secret recipe to boost performance under SATA 6Gbps because no other manufacturer comes close to it in this benchmark.
Moving on to latency and the 850 EVO still keeps its lead compared to other manufacturers' drives. The difference is nowhere near as significant as in the throughput metric above, but the 850 EVO is still without a doubt one of the highest performing drives on the market. The smaller capacities are a bit of a disappointement, though, because the 250GB mSATA loses to MX100 by a quite hefty margin, but it still beats the Ultra II for what it's worth.
The smaller capacities, especially the 120GB one, seem to have quite a few high latency IOs. I wouldn't say the situation for the 250GB model is critical, but I do think that individuals with heavier workloads should focus on the 500GB and higher capacities in order to avoid any storage performance issues.
But in terms of power the 850 EVO is very efficient at smaller capacities. Given that mSATA and M.2 standards are mostly used in mobile applications, this is very good news.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
58 Comments
View All Comments
Laststop311 - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link
Was really disappointed with the 1TB results. Also disappointed no ultra m2 interface. I wont be upgrading until I can get a pci-e 3.0 x4 interface on the drive. The samsung sm951 is where its at.Laststop311 - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link
Really annoying that I dont see this drive for sale anywhere and it's been talked about for a loooong timeKristian Vättö - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link
RamCity just got its first SM951 batch, so it's now available for purchase.https://www.ramcity.com.au/upgrade/data-storage/in...
bricko - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Is the 951 NVMe - How to they compare to the new Intel 750 series which are PCIe gen 3 and NVMeseen here
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/340041-intel-l...
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=...
Intel are launching the new 750 Series range of SSD's these are PCI-E 3.0 versions with 4 lanes and are NVMe based SSD's
goodyes - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link
Ya, but results that I have a 1TB 840 msata and write sequential at more than 500MBps around 520max MBps, and now I see than new 850 msata tops at ?? 480MBps ?? cannot be possible what my eyes look, AND WHY THE HELL NO ONE REVIEWER COMPARE With olders 840 msata, so I must think that all of you guys are a paid reviewers and you get money from samsung, if not, YOU MUST compare to older modelKenPC - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link
I am seriously concerned that the 840 evo, and TLC in general may indeed have an uncurable problem with slowdown after a period of time. This same problem has also been reported in multiple instances for Samsung OEM drives based on the 840 evo TLC technology.GIven that the 850 evo msata line was delayed by Samsung by about a month, it might be possible that the Anandtech review units were actually tested in late Feb and the go-ahead to publish the results only recently provided.
I did also notice that the estimated 'March" timeframe for a new 840 evo firmware has come and passed, as well as no drive magician support for the 850 evo m2/msata drives yet.
Anandtech results for the 1TB 850 evo unit are also quite concerning.
So, I also join the crowd asking for a look at the 850 evo 2.5 and msata drives after some time has passed to see if they suffer from the slowdown problem too.
And a rhetorical, but serious question - does anybody actually have a Samsung TLC drive that has NOT suffered from the slowdown as measured by the proper tools a few months after the drive was formatted/set up?
And kudos to Anandtech - for an SSD review that really tests the drives, not just a run of ATTO or such.
Per Hansson - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link
"anything that taxes the drive a bit more may run into the issue, which is basically that the drive stops for up to dozens of seconds (i.e. your system freezes). Until Samsung fixes that, I would advise against buying the 1TB version unless you have a very light workload (web browsing, email, etc.). I suspect it's fixable through a firmware update, but I'll have to wait for Samsung's reply to be sure of that."A wise man once said: if you wait for a firmware fix for your Samsung SSD's you will wait a long time.
He died of old age.
RIP Samsung 840 TLC drives.
Dzungpv - Friday, April 3, 2015 - link
Missing Temperature when idle, full load or stretch, i want this information before buy them .szhosain - Sunday, April 5, 2015 - link
As far as I can tell, you only tested the M.2 version of the Samsung 850 EVO in a 500GB size.Can we assume that the MSATA version of that drive and size will perform essentially identically?
voicequal - Monday, April 13, 2015 - link
Good catch on the poor mSATA 1TB performance during the performance consistency test. It harkens back to the early Jmicron stuttering days. I was similarly affected by the SanDisk U100 a few years ago. The system freezes, particularly when swap file is active, and disk throughput drops to low single digit MB/s. Hard to believe the most modern SSDs can still get into this state. Vanilla benchmarks don't show the problem.