Final Words

The 850 Pro and EVO are undoubtedly the best SATA 6Gbps SSDs on the market. The Pro has been holding the performance crown for the past year and it's starting to look like no SATA drive can dethrone it, whereas the EVO provides very competitive performance at a much more affordable price point. From a performance standpoint, the 2TB models leave the Pro and EVO lines unchanged as the performance matches with the 1TB models already on the market. That's hardly a surprise given that the 1TB models saturate the SATA 6Gbps interface and AHCI presents its own limitations, so the 2TB SKUs are solely a capacity bump. There are minor performance differences in steady-state 4KB random write and random read benchmarks that favor the 1TB models, but to be honest that's merely an architectural observation (the internal SRAM caches in the controller may need upgrading to extract better performance out of +1TB of NAND) because the impact on actual user performance is in the order of a few percent. 

I'm very glad to see improved power efficiency in the 2TB models. A part of that is explained by the move from LPDDR2 to LPDDR3, but it's also possible that the MHX is manufactured using a more power efficient process node. Depending on the benchmark the power savings can be anywhere from 5% to close to 20%, so it's not a marginal gain especially because higher capacity SSDs usually consume more power due to the additional NAND. The 850 EVO in particular wasn't very power efficient before, but the new 2TB is mostly on par with the 1TB-class drives we have tested. It's no challenger to the BX100 though, but TLC is inherently less power efficient and the SM2246EN controller is also less powerful by being a single-core design while the MHX consists of three processor cores. 

At $800, the 2TB 850 EVO is very reasonably priced. The average going price for a 1TB-class value SSD is about $350-$380 with an occasional sale bringing the price closer to $300, so the 2TB EVO carries a small premium, but at $0.40 per gigabyte it's not overpriced by any means. The $1000 2TB Pro on the other hand has a much tinier niche because unless you have a The Destroyer level workload there won't be any difference in performance. Even under such an intensive IO workload the Pro only has a ~10% advantage, but the Pro is overall a little (~5-10%) more power efficient, so if you need a 2TB SSD and value every extra minute of battery life high, the $200 premium might be justifiable. The Pro also carries twice the endurance (300TB vs 150TB) and warranty (10 vs 5 years), but I don't consider those two having much value given that 150TB already translates to 82GB a day for five years and in five years time a SATA 6Gbps drive will most likely be obsolete anyway.

Since the 850 Pro and EVO are the first 2TB client SSDs on the market so they face no competition. They receive a strong recommendation from us for those who need/want a 2TB SSD. Both have excellent performance like the 1TB models we had already tested and the increased power efficiency is a welcome addition for mobile users. Out of the two the EVO is better value for the vast majority, but the 2TB Pro is there for those who want the added endurance and the most impressive SATA SSD in the market. 

Idle Power Consumption, ATTO & AS-SSD
Comments Locked

66 Comments

View All Comments

  • vFunct - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    Any info about the well known TRIM bug in these drives?
  • vFunct - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    TRIM bug reported here: https://blog.algolia.com/when-solid-state-drives-a...

    and here:

    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fstrim/+...
  • Kristian Vättö - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    The bug turned out to be in the Linux kernel, not in Samsung SSDs, as you can see in the first link once you scroll down the updates. Samsung has developed a kernel patch to fix the issue too.
  • BillyONeal - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    Well they patched the kernel to work around the firmware bug; but that doesn't mean it was a kernel bug.
  • Kristian Vättö - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    There was never a problem with TRIM under Windows or OS X.
  • DanNeely - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    IF you follow through to the mailing list discussion for the bug fix, the problem is with the kernel overwriting a pointer when it shouldn't be. If I'm following it correctly, it impacts any SSD brand in RAID0 with trim enabled.
  • leexgx - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    did not affect the Intel SSDs
  • mooninite - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    Kristian,

    There are two forms of TRIM these days. The original, Windows-supported, inline TRIM and the latest, queued TRIM. The latter is what is the problem on Samsung drives. I encourage you to fully investigate the issue.

    Inline TRIM is known to cause delays with certain drives and certain host systems because it can take over IO on a drive and freeze other commands until TRIM is complete. The number of drives and systems effected is quite low, but it is enough for some people to disable TRIM or use a nightly TRIM script (fstrim).
  • sustainednotburst - Friday, July 24, 2015 - link

    Algolia stated Queued Trim is disabled on their systems, so its not related to Queued Trim.
  • editorsorgtfo - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    That was my first reaction, too. But judging from the message on the mailing list and the patch, it is indeed a kernel issue and not specific to Samsung drives. It seems so stem from using queued TRIM on software RAID0, which is a moderately questionable configuration anyway. I guess Algolia did not tell the whole (probably embarrassing) story since there is only one mention of Linux software RAID in the entire article. Maybe they didn't configure their Intel drives the same way?

    I was set on an Intel 730 for a 7mm SATA role up until a few minutes ago because I had read about this, too. But in light of this, one can probably use Kristian's "best 6Gbps SATA SSD" without excessive worry.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now