Home Samsung’s 850 EVO 2TB SSD reviewed
Reviews

Samsung’s 850 EVO 2TB SSD reviewed

Tony Thomas
Disclosure
Disclosure
In our content, we occasionally include affiliate links. Should you click on these links, we may earn a commission, though this incurs no additional cost to you. Your use of this website signifies your acceptance of our terms and conditions as well as our privacy policy.

Samsung has some making up to do in enthusiast circles. A series of recent of SSD-related gaffes have earned it the ire of many consumers. Performance degradation on the 840 EVO SSD and a botched firmware update process for the 850 Pro aren’t issues that can easily be swept under the rug. Samsung probably has to hit a couple out of the park before it can expect some of its more jaded customers to return to the fold.

Fortunately, the company usually does just that. The aforementioned 850 Pro firmware update issue aside, the 850 series has enjoyed widespread success—a fact reflected by market data. Trendfocus reports that Samsung drives accounted for a hefty 43.8% of the SSD market share in the second quarter of 2015. 850-series drives have been available in capacities from 120GB to 1TB for some time now, but there’s a new kid on the block. It’s Samsung’s largest SSD to date, the two-freakin’-terabyte 850 EVO. Behold:

Pretty unassuming-looking, right? It comes in the same understated 2.5″ form factor we’ve seen with smaller 850 EVOs. The characteristic gray square on the case lets you know that you’re looking at an EVO and not a Pro. (Samsung has also released a 2TB 850 Pro, but we’re not reviewing that drive today.)

These two leviathans occupy a freshly-carved-out niche as the only 2TB 2.5″ SATA SSDs available on the market. Regardless of past issues with Samsung SSDs, you have to respect what the company’s engineers have achieved here.

Crack the case open and the difference between the EVO 2TB and its less capacious brethren still isn’t immediately apparent. Like its 1TB sibling, the 2TB EVO houses eight NAND packages—four on either side of the PCB. What’s new is the number of dies in each package. The EVO 2TB employs the same 32-layer 128Gbit 3D V-NAND chips found in smaller 850-series drives, but Samsung has stuffed 16 of them into each package rather than eight.

To handle this massive capacity, Samsung ships the EVO 2TB with an additional gigabyte of DRAM, for a total of 2GB. An upgraded Samsung MHX controller takes advantage of that DRAM increase. The MEX controller in the other 850 EVOs can’t work with more than 1GB of RAM.

The 850 EVO 2TB comes with all the bells and whistles we’ve come to expect in an EVO drive. On the peformance side, TurboWrite allows the controller to treat some of the NAND as an SLC cache to improve write speeds. Installing Samsung’s Magician software also grants access to RAPID Mode, which requisitions a chunk of main system memory to use as an even faster storage cache. We won’t test with RAPID enabled for this review, but check out our coverage of it in the 850 Pro review for more details. For the security-conscious, AES 256-bit hardware encryption and e-drive support are both available to keep your data from prying eyes.

The 850 EVO 2TB sells for about $750 at Newegg right now. That price puts it among the most expensive SSDs you can buy, but remember that the huge capacity makes the EVO pretty competitive on a cost-per-gigabyte basis. Some back-of-the-napkin math brings us to a $0.37-per-gigabyte figure, which is about the same as comparable drives from Crucial like the MX200.

Samsung backs all the 850 EVO variants with a five-year warranty, and the 2TB model is rated for 150TB of writes. That’s plenty of endurance for a standard client workload.

Now, let’s see what this whale of a drive can do.

 

IOMeter — Sequential and random performance
IOMeter fuels much of our latest storage test suite, including our sequential and random I/O tests. These tests are run across the full capacity of the drive at two queue depths. The QD1 tests simulate a single thread, while the QD4 results emulate a more demanding desktop workload. For perspective, 87% of the requests in our old DriveBench 2.0 trace of real-world desktop activity have a queue depth of four or less. Clicking the buttons below the graphs switches between results charted at the different queue depths.

Our sequential tests use a relatively large 128KB block size.



The EVO 2TB posts the fastest sequential write numbers numbers we’ve seen yet in our (admittedly nascent) data set. Reads are peppy too, keeping pace with the Ultra II 960 GB, which used to pass as a large SSD.

Next, we’ll turn our attention to performance with 4KB random I/O. The tests below are based on the median of three consecutive three-minute runs. SSDs typically deliver consistent sequential and random read performance over that period, but random write speeds worsen as the drive’s overprovisioned area is consumed by incoming writes. We’ve reported average response times rather than raw throughput, which we think makes sense in the context of system responsiveness.



Samsung’s drive delivers impressive performance in random workloads, too. The EVO’s response times are usually on par with (and sometimes even a tiny bit ahead of) the Arc 100, which we’ve rated highly in our previous testing.

IOMeter — Sustained and scaling I/O rates
Our sustained IOMeter test hammers drives with 4KB random writes for 30 minutes straight. It uses a queue depth of 32, which should saturate each drive’s overprovisioned area fairly quickly. This lengthy—and heavy—workload isn’t indicative of typical PC use, but it provides a sense of how the drives react when they’re pushed to the brink.

We’re reporting input and output operations per second (IOps) rather than response times for these tests. Click the buttons below the graph to switch between the results from the different SSDs.


The 850 EVO reaches a lofty peak, but the whole point of this particular test is to expose performance degradation as IOMeter exhausts each drive’s overprovisioned area. The steady-state results are what we’re really after. The next graphs highlight the peak random write rate and the average, steady-state speed over the last minute of the test.

It takes some time for the 850 EVO 2TB to fully consume its overprovisioned area, but once it does, its steady-state write speed is much slower than our budget darling’s. The Arc 100 won’t have to abdicate its throne just yet.

Our final IOMeter test examines performance scaling across a broad range of queue depths. We ramp all the way up to a queue depth of 128. Don’t expect AHCI-based drives to scale past 32, though—that’s the maximum depth of their native command queues.

We use a database access pattern comprising 66% reads and 33% writes, all of which are random. The test runs after 30 minutes of continuous random writes that put the drives in a simulated used state. Click the buttons below the graph to switch between the different drives. Note that the graphs for the 850 EVO and Arc 100 use a significantly larger scale than the other two.


The 850 EVO meets expectations by smoking the Fury and Ultra II, but it’s still a ways off from the remarkable speed of the Arc 100. The graph below illustrates the difference side-by-side. The buttons toggle between total, read, and write IOps.


 

TR RoboBench — Real-world transfers
RoboBench trades synthetic tests for real-world transfers with a range of file types. Developed by our in-house coder, Bruno “morphine” Ferreira, this benchmark relies on the multi-threaded robocopy command build into Windows. We copy files to and from a wicked-fast RAM disk to measure read and write performance. We also cut the RAM disk out of the loop for a copy test that transfers the files to a different location on the SSD.

Robocopy uses eight threads by default, and we’ve also run it with a single thread. Our results are split between two file sets, whose vital statistics are detailed below. The compressibility percentage is based on the size of the file set after it’s been crunched by 7-Zip.

  Number of files Average file size Total size Compressibility
Media 618 6.4MB 3.94GB 1.35%
Work 35,184 33.0KB 1.16GB 76.24%

The “media” set is made up of movie files, MP3s, and high-resolution images. It’s comprised of only a few hundred files in total, and the data aren’t amenable to compression.

The “work” set comprises loads of productivity-type files, including documents, spreadsheets, and web-optimized images. It also includes a stack of programming-related files, including the files for the Visual Studio test on the next page. The average file size is measured in kilobytes rather than megabytes, and the files are mostly compressible.

RoboBench’s write and copy tests run after the drives have been put into a simulated used state with 30 minutes of 4KB random writes. The pre-conditioning process is scripted, as is the rest of the test, ensuring that drives have the same amount of time to recover.

Let’s take a look at the media set first. We’re presenting our RoboBench results a little differently this time, so leave feedback in the comments if this change pleases or offends you. The buttons switch between read, write, and copy results.



The EVO consistently comes out ahead of the other drives in the media sets, especially in writes. Clearly there’s something to Samsung’s TurboWrite mojo.



The outlook is a bit less rosy in the work set. The EVO manages to top the write charts, but the other drives fare noticeably better with reads.

 

Boot times
Thus far, all of our tests have been conducted with the SSDs connected as secondary storage. This next batch uses them as system drives.

We’ll start with boot times measured two ways. The bare test depicts the time between hitting the power button and reaching the Windows desktop, while the loaded test adds the time needed to load four applications—Avidemux, LibreOffice, GIMP, and Visual Studio Express—automatically from the startup folder. Our old boot tests focused on the time required to load the OS, but these new ones cover the entire process, including drive initialization.

These results attest to the fact that there aren’t drastic differences between SATA SSD boot times. The 850 EVO’s numbers blend in with the rest. Nothing to see here—move along.

Load times
Next, we’ll tackle load times with two sets of tests. The first group focuses on the time required to load larger files in a collection of desktop applications. We open a 790MB 4K video in Avidemux, a 30MB spreadsheet in LibreOffice, and a 523MB image file in GIMP. In the Visual Studio Express test, we open a 159MB project containing source code for the LLVM toolchain. Thanks to Rui Figueira for providing the project code.

Again, there’s no big shocker here. The EVO was a bit faster in GIMP and a bit slower in Visual Studio than the other drives, but the real-world difference is minimal. Next, we’ll see how well the EVO performs in gaming scenarios.

The level load times are right within our expectations. The 850 EVO 2TB is as fine a choice as any for a gaming rig, and its 2TB capacity lets gamers keep an enormous library of games installed.

Power consumption
Now for a glance at power consumption. For idle power, we take the lowest value we get over a five-minute period, one minute after Windows has processed its idle tasks. For load power, we take the highest value over a five-minute period while hitting the drive with a write-heavy IOMeter workload.

The EVO stays lean with idle power usage, drawing about as little power as we’ve ever seen in an SSD. It’s a good candidate for a laptop drive, especially if you need high capacity on the go without fumbling with externals. The EVO’s draw under load is in line with the other drives in our dataset.

That concludes our performance testing. For details on the hardware and our testing methods, hit the next page. Otherwise, feel free to jump ahead to the conclusion.

 

Test notes and methods
Here’s are the essential details for the drives we tested:

  Interface Flash controller NAND
Kingston HyperX Fury 240GB SATA 6Gbps SandForce SF-2281 Kingston MLC
OCZ Arc 100 240GB SATA 6Gbps Indilinx Barefoot 3 M10 A19-nm Toshiba MLC
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB SATA 6Gbps Marvell 88SS9189 19-nm SandDisk TLC
Samsung 850 EVO 2TB SATA 6Gbps Samsung MHX 32-layer Samsung V-NAND TLC

All the SSDs were connected to the motherboard’s Z77 chipset.

We used the following system for testing:

Processor Intel Core i3-2100 3.1GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte H77N-WiFi
Platform hub Intel H77
Memory size 8GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR3 1866 MHZ
Memory timings 9-10-9-27
System drive Intel 510 120GB
Power supply Antec Edge 650W
Operating system Windows 8.1 Pro x64

Thanks to Gigabyte for providing the system’s motherboard, Intel for the CPU and system drive, Corsair for the memory, and Antec for the PSU. And thanks to the drive makers for supplying the rest of the SSDs.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

  • IOMeter 1.1.0 x64
  • TR RoboBench 0.2a
  • Avidemux 2.6.8 x64
  • LibreOffice 4.1.1.2
  • GIMP 2.8.14
  • Visual Studio Community 2013
  • The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
  • Tomb Raider
  • Sid Meier’s Civilization V

Some further notes on our test methods:

  • To ensure consistent and repeatable results, the SSDs were secure-erased before every component of our test suite. For the IOMeter database, RoboBench write, and RoboBench copy tests, the drives were put in a simulated used state that better exposes long-term performance characteristics. Those tests are all scripted, ensuring an even playing field that gives the drives the same amount of time to recover from the initial used state.

  • We run almost all of our tests three times and report the median of the results. Our sustained IOMeter test is run twice to verify the results of the first test, and we only run it again if it shows inconsistencies. The sustained test runs for 30 minutes continuously, so it already samples performance over a long period.

  • We work to ensure the CPU’s power-saving features don’t taint any of our results. All of the CPU’s low-power states are disabled during our tests, effectively pegging the frequency at 3.1GHz. Transitioning between power states can affect the performance of storage benchmarks, especially when dealing with short burst transfers.

The test systems’ Windows desktop was set at 1920×1080 at 60Hz. Most of the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

 

Conclusions
Samsung’s TLC V-NAND continues to impress. Despite the extra stored bit bogging it down versus MLC flash, it keeps pace with and often surpasses the performance of other manufacturers’ MLC drives. This particular drive’s 2TB configuration is a good showcase for 3D V-NAND’s potential. The vast number of dies keeps all eight of the controller’s channels saturated, ensuring consistently high performance.

Should you buy one of these 850 EVO 2TB drives? Given its cost, the 2TB EVO is decidely a niche product. Samsung has set the MSRP for this drive at a lofty $800, but the street prices are a bit lower. Newegg currently sells the drive for $750. Though that’s a scarily large number on its face, the cost per gigabyte works out to about 37 cents. That’s about the same as it is for smaller drives from other manufacturers.

Most users will get more bang for their buck by getting a 250 or 500GB SSD for their most-used programs and relegating the rest of their data to a plain old 3.5″ mechanical drive. But that’s not always an option—many laptops and compact mini-ITX cases only provide space for a single 2.5″ drive, and some workloads like photo and video editing can quickly overrun smaller drives. If you need a huge chunk of speedy solid-state storage in a single SATA form factor, you can’t go wrong with the 850 EVO 2TB.

If you still harbor grudges against the very idea of TLC NAND, the 850 Pro 2TB could also be an option. While we haven’t reviewed that particular model, we historically haven’t found the pricing jump inherent to the Pro series to be worth it for the average consumer. The 850 Pro 2TB commands an even $1000. These days, we don’t generally want to swallow four-digit price tags for anything other than PCIe-based storage.

Looking forward, Samsung has already revealed its intent to shake up the PCIe/NVMe SSD market. We can’t say much more about the company’s 950-series drives just yet, but stay tuned. Samsung’s about to be at bat again, and it’ll surely be swinging for the fences.

Latest News

Ripple Dumps 240 Million XRP Tokens Amid 17% Price Decline
Crypto News

Ripple Dumps 240 Million XRP Tokens Amid 17% Price Decline

Crypto Expert Draws A Links Between Shiba Inu And Ethereum
Crypto News

Crypto Expert Draws Link Between Shiba Inu And Ethereum

The founders of the second-largest meme coin, Shiba Inu, have been a mystery. However, many people within the crypto industry have made some probable suggestions regarding the coin’s fundamentals. Del...

The Lucrative FTX Bankruptcy Trade and Ongoing Legal Battle
Crypto News

The Lucrative FTX Bankruptcy Trade and Ongoing Legal Battle

The FTX cryptocurrency exchange crash in November 2022 left a trail of aggrieved investors and customers who had their funds frozen due to the complex bankruptcy case.  However, the collapse...

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Set to Enter “Danger Zone” – Time to Back-Off or Bag More Coins?
Crypto News

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Set to Enter “Danger Zone” – Time to Back-Off or Bag More Coins?

SNB to Kick Off Rate Cut Cycle Sooner Than Expected
News

SNB to Kick-Start Rate Cut Cycle Sooner Than Expected

Top Crypto Gainers on 18 March – AVAX and RNDR
Crypto News

Top Crypto Gainers on 18 March – AVAX and RNDR

smartphone security organization
Community Contributions

How to Successfully Tackle Smartphone Security in Your Organization