The Samsung 950 Pro PCIe SSD Review (256GB and 512GB)
by Billy Tallis on October 22, 2015 10:55 AM ESTIdle Power Consumption
The idle power consumption I'm reporting here and in the Bench database is what's achievable on our 2015 testbed with PCIe ASPM disabled for the sake of system stability. Samsung's initial announcement of the 950 Pro specified an idle power consumption of 1.7W, which these drives manage to stay under. Samsung's later specs mention 70mW idle and 2.5mW DevSlp power draw. The former figure is something we hope to be able to verify in the future, but our power meter isn't sensitive enough for measuring DevSlp power.
As stated earlier, the power numbers for the PCIe drives are more of a worst-case scenario, due to our testbed being unable to enable their power saving modes. These active idle power levels have nevetheless been growing with each new PCIe drive from Samsung.
Trim Validation
Strictly speaking, NVMe doesn't have the TRIM command. The NVMe Deallocate command is the equivalent to the ATA Trim command, and since the trimcheck tool relies on the OS and filesystem to issue the command, it works without modification on NVMe drives.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
142 Comments
View All Comments
sorten - Friday, October 23, 2015 - link
'elsewhere' is one wordFrozenGiraffe - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link
And why would these people boot it every day?Rajinder Gill - Friday, October 23, 2015 - link
If speed matters that much, use S3 resume, it is the fastest way back to the desktop. :)Samus - Friday, October 23, 2015 - link
I reboot my PC 3 times a year. I could give two shits in a cup about boot times.5th element - Monday, October 26, 2015 - link
Couldn't. It's couldn't give two shits not could.Beaver M. - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link
With the beta NVMe driver it takes about 300 ms longer.geniekid - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link
http://techreport.com/review/29221/samsung-950-pro...Based on that link I would say issues with NVMe boot times are largely firmware issues that are being rectified.
Refuge - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link
If they updated their baseline every time new tech came out then they would be so busy retesting to have comparable results, that we would never see a new review ever again.AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link
Thanks geniekid! That review is far more valuable than what we have here on AT. AT said "loading a new level in a video game would be more likely to show noticeable difference from better performance here". More likely, huh. Then you go look at the actual data at techreport and find there's nearly zero difference. When will AT learn to measure an SSD in an actually useful way?StrangerGuy - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link
Game load times are actually the least sensitive to SSD speeds. Even a 15 year old game like Red Alert 2 with a next to zero RAM footprint certainly doesn't load instantly on a Crucial M550, much less current titles.