Samsung’s 850 EVO SSD family now boasts a 4TB monster

Samsung is making another big splash in the storage market this morning. The company is doubling the top-end capacity of its popular 850 EVO SSD to a whopping 4TB using its 48-layer V-NAND flash memory. The sequential speeds of this enormous drive are similar to the rest of the 850 EVO lineup: it's claimed to deliver 540 MB/s read speeds and 520 MB/s write throughput. The drive can perform 98K random read and 90K random write IOPS at QD32, while QD1 IOPS fall to 10K reads and 40K writes.

Cross out that 1TB on the label and pencil in a 4

This largest 850 EVO will only be available in a 2.5" form factor. Samsung warrants the drive for five years or for 300 terabytes written, whichever comes first. The drive carries a hefty price tag to go with its hulking capacity: expect to see a $1,499.99 suggested price when the drive hits store shelves in over 50 countries and regions at launch (including the USA, Europe, China, and Korea).

Comments closed
    • DarkMikaru
    • 4 years ago

    Nice. Guess I’ll have to wait another few years before I can even think about getting that one. On the bright side, TR has brought my attention to that 960GB Sandisk Ultra II at just 164.99!!! That I can deal with. 1500 bones for the the 4TB Samsung is up there. We could buy 4x Ultra II’s for less than half the cost of the Samsung and get close to the same capacity.

    Nice seeing steady progress made.

    • BIF
    • 4 years ago

    Yay! Finally, a big SSD!

    And the price really is not that bad at all, what with 2TB SSDs going for $700 to $800.

    It does two things for me.

    1. Reduces the number of bays needed for drive usage in a laptop which re-opens the possibility of re-installing the DVD drive. Yeah, we don’t use ’em as often anymore, but it’s better than carrying a big external drive around when I travel someplace.

    2. Lowers the number of SATA connections needed in my workstation, also reducing the number and hassle of excessive cabling in the box.

      • smilingcrow
      • 4 years ago

      No 2. seems very minor unless you need a massive amount of drives.

        • BIF
        • 4 years ago

        Yes but every measure to simplify is helpful.

    • ptsant
    • 4 years ago

    I bought 2 Samsung drives and got the buggy version which loses read performance over time.
    I’m boycotting them for at least 2 more years.

    Intel has some great drives and is much more reputable.
    [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1UH40F6451[/url<]

      • sustainednotburst
      • 4 years ago

      Which model? Samsung fixed the 840 evo last year in april. the 840 evo M-sata toward the end of 2015 and the 840 non-evo about a week or two ago.

      • Glaring_Mistake
      • 4 years ago

      The Intel 540s does not perform as well in general as drives from Samsung.

      Also it uses practically the same hardware as is found in the ADATA SP550 which can be affected by read speed slowdowns just like the 840 EVO.

    • davidbowser
    • 4 years ago

    Crank up the fabs folks! We are starting a capacity/price race! Now I want to see Intel/Micron respond with something with the same capacity, but for $1250.

    Competition FTW!

    • egon
    • 4 years ago

    Not long to wait if you have have the money: “This item will be released on July 31, 2016” according to Amazon’s pre-order page.

    Wonder if anyone else has noticed that after the steep falls throughout 2015, prices on Samsung 850s (both EVO and Pro) basically stopped dropping. It’s quite pronounced for the 2TB EVO I’ve been keeping an eye on, which has actually [url=http://camelcamelcamel.com/Samsung-850-EVO-2-5-Inch-MZ-75E2T0B/product/B010QD6W9I<]risen in price[/url<], but it's also clear across most of the range that the 2015 trend [i<]hasn't[/i<] extended into the first half of this year.

    • vargis14
    • 4 years ago

    I want 4 of them:) But i am not getting any:(

    • costaianni
    • 4 years ago

    At 37 cents a gig is reasonable compared to other Samsung 250GB SSD of course you do pay a bit of a premium for the capacity.

    • The Egg
    • 4 years ago

    [quote<]Samsung warrants the drive for five years or for 300 terabytes written, whichever comes first.[/quote<] Yikes! With 4TB, I would expect a [b<]hell[/b<] of alot more endurance than that. They're basically warranting a mere 75 full write/erase cycles on the drive.

      • chubbyhorse
      • 4 years ago

      Stop using math!!! It’s 300TBW!! That’s the most endurance of any [consumer] SSD!!
      -Samsung Probably

      • Topinio
      • 4 years ago

      Samsung is basically scamming consumers on warranty here, people will see and think they understand the “5 years” bit, many will fail to notice or to grasp the other part — which is effectively “if barely used, otherwise SOL”.

        • smilingcrow
        • 4 years ago

        It’s a consumer drive so having a warranty for 168GB writes per day is fine.
        For prosumers it may be too little especially for video work but this class of buyers are more switched on generally.

          • Kharnellius
          • 4 years ago

          Yeah, seriously. Who they hell writes an average of 168GB per day for an entire 5 years? Maybe 0.1% of the people buying this?

            • Krogoth
            • 4 years ago

            Datacenter servers, but they would using enterprise-tier SSD media which are much more durable and expensive then this unit.

        • anotherengineer
        • 4 years ago

        Intel has the same thing IIRC in their warranty statement. 5 yrs or x TB written, whatever comes first.

        Kinda like vehicles, 5 yrs, or 60k miles whatever hits first.

        • cynan
        • 4 years ago

        The bigger picture being this is the only 4TB consumer-oriented SSD available. For most potential consumers right now that effectively means “this SSD, otherwise SOL”.

        When other consumer 4TB SSDs arrive, then Samsung can rethink its warranty policy.

      • just brew it!
      • 4 years ago

      Yeah, that was my first thought as well. Although in typical use it would not be an issue, it is still… disturbing.

    • Shinare
    • 4 years ago

    Please please please let this make the SanDisk Opimus MAX 4TB SAS SSD come down in price a bit.

    Pleeeeeeeeease

      • anotherengineer
      • 4 years ago

      You mean Western Digital right. Ya can’t see that happening.

    • flip-mode
    • 4 years ago

    Wake me when it is $200… so 18-24 months hopefully. And we better have jet packs by then. Where the hell is my jet pack? SSDs have come far enough, let’s get everyone focused on jet packs. No more traffic, no more parking meters, parking lots, park-and-rides, two-car garages, car washes, oil changes, etc. Or at least a 100% self-driving car… I’ll settle for that.

    edit: [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1SCu9yiBlo&index=7&list=PL3SsCG2KmRmjy7qp7TOeAzysgaRQrTuQG[/url<]

      • NeelyCam
      • 4 years ago

      I am disappointed that [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flge_rw6RG0<]we still have roads.[/url<]

        • anotherengineer
        • 4 years ago

        Comment below

        “Looks like we don’t need proper aspect ratio either.”

        lolz

      • Wirko
      • 4 years ago

      [i<]No more traffic?[/i<]

      • cynan
      • 4 years ago

      I don’t know about oil changes and garages… I mean jet packs will likely need maintenance and somewhere to store them and the requisite aerosuit when not in use. But yeah. Probably don’t need a 2-car garage – unless maybe you have a large family that needs some place to store their suits and jet packs.

      And what about when you arrive at your destination? Are you going to take your jet pack into the movie theater with you? So much for no more parking .. err, jet pack storage receptacle .. meters.

      You know what? Screw jet packs. Wake me when there’s teleporters.

        • Krogoth
        • 4 years ago

        Jet Packs are just a terrible idea through and through. Flying cars are up there as well.

    • tsk
    • 4 years ago

    Anandtech has a review of it already.
    [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/10481/the-samsung-850-evo-4tb-ssd-review[/url<]

    • Wirko
    • 4 years ago

    Wow, one could burn this thing to the ground in 160 hours!
    (with that said, very few real world Oracle/MSSQL/mail servers would actually do it in 6 months, and very few real world SSDs would actually die at the rated TBW)

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      TERRORbytes.

        • cynan
        • 4 years ago

        (That would really) TeraBITE

    • f0d
    • 4 years ago

    once this sucker is $149.99 instead of $1499.99 you can pretty much say goodbye to hard drives

      • Chrispy_
      • 4 years ago

      It would seem that the price of larger sized mechanical drives has already been climbing slowly, probably as a result of a shift away from consumer storage and towards enterprise storage. There’s also far less low-end business than there used to be because many mobile devices ship with all-NAND storage.

      With falling NAND costs and rising mechanical costs, that day might come sooner than you think (but it’s still a few years away, I suspect!)

      • albundy
      • 4 years ago

      $200 for an 8TB HDD vs $3000 for 2x of these is still a long way to go.

        • Kretschmer
        • 4 years ago

        Yes, but the vast majority of users don’t need >1TB any more. Streaming video and music killed the general need for huge disk drives.

          • Whispre
          • 4 years ago

          Disagree…. my steam drive is >900GB, my son’s is 1.2TB, my 15 year old daughters is 1.1TB.

          My non gaming daughter has 1.5TB of data due to photo and video’s she’s taken, plus software installed.

          I would say most don’t need more than 2TB… but many need more than one.

            • w76
            • 4 years ago

            As someone who learned to get by with a 128gb SSD, most photos can live happily in the cloud except those you directly wish to work on locally, possibly video too, and I never found the need to have more than a couple Steam games installed at once. I never forgot the key advantage of digital distribution through Steam; I can re-install, at any time. Thanks to broadband (I’ve got a 60mb connection, regardless of what my IPS claims), most games install fast, the largest of the large require just a little pre-planning.

            Heck, I’ve met girls with probably 500gb of BS, silly pics and selfies, all managed from their little iPhone up in the Google Photos cloud. No traditional hard drive or SSD needed at all.

            The exception might be gaming style; I only play 1 game at a time generally, with a 2nd waiting in the background (in so far as I actually get around to playing at all). If you’re seriously playing 18 games (a generous estimate of 900gb / 50gb each, most are far smaller) then, well, I’d put forth that’s an unusual number for people with full time jobs.

            Anyway, I suspect Kretschmer is right, the vast majority of average Joe’s don’t need over 1TB. Enthusiasts and professionals are a mixed bag, I got 300gb worth of database files floating around right now and almost as much worth of architectural PDFs and CADs but we also make up a somewhat small part of the market.

            • Whispre
            • 4 years ago

            I do have over 20 games installed, and I play them depending on my mood at the time… if they weren’t already installed it would be too much of a pain when I have say 30 minutes to play. Also not all my games are Steam… many actually are older games installed from DVD etc or from sites that don’t have quick/easy cloud installs.

            I also have over 350GB of photo’s on my computer. I’m an amature photographer, and I work with 15-20MB photo’s on a regular basis. Since I also like to do some video editing here and there, I have nearly 250GB of video files as well… and let’s not forget how much swap space you need to work on things like multi-layer Photoshop projects.

            I do not keep my data in the cloud, other than for offsite backup. I work day in and day out with cloud providers in my job, I’ve seen what can and does go wrong, and I frankly don’t trust them. Call me old fashioned or whatever, but I like having control over my own data, and I like having multiple revisions to restore from should I need to do so (I back up everything to a Server 2012 R2 essentials server). Also, not everyone has unlimited data… many people are on lower bandwidth or metered connections making large cloud stores less desirable.

            My mother, who is a photographer, and also uses her computer for other craft/creation type stuff is 71 years old… I just was helping her on her computer yesterday and saw she had 1.6TB of data on it. Fact is after these posts yesterday I took a poll of my family members immediate and some extended and found that out of about 20 computers, just under half were very near to or over 1TB of data. (9 out of 20).

            I could go on and on with examples of people who have more than 1 TB data, but to sum up… I agree that many, maybe even most people don’t need more… but to say the “vast majority” of people don’t just because your personal use case doesn’t require it… is short sited in my opinion.

        • The Egg
        • 4 years ago

        It’s more like $330 for a WD Red and goes up from there, but yeah…..still no-contest.

      • Freon
      • 4 years ago

      It’ll take a lot less price movement than that to put the last nail in the coffin.

      • DataMeister
      • 4 years ago

      Or even if the 2TB model reached that low and $300 for the 4TB, that would probably be enough to send hard drives into the history books.

        • egon
        • 4 years ago

        Wouldn’t want HDDs consigned to history until SSD prices near parity. Because backups.

        When 4TB SSDs are $300, you’d expect 4TB HDDs would be under $100. For someone who keeps two full backups:

        Three 4TB SSDs = $900

        One 4TB SSD and two 4TB HDDs = <$500

      • Jigar
      • 4 years ago

      Don’t know about others but i would buy it in a snap as soon as they are available at 10% of current price.

        • f0d
        • 4 years ago

        wont be too long imo just 3 or 4 years
        $1100 1tb ssd in 2011 [url<]http://gizmodo.com/5851546/the-worlds-first-25-inch-1tb-solid-state-drive-needs-to-get-in-my-laptops-belly-like-now[/url<] $249 1tb ssd now [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226596&cm_re=1tb_ssd-_-20-226-596-_-Product[/url<]

      • sweatshopking
      • 4 years ago

      Hence seagate laying off 6500

        • w76
        • 4 years ago

        Which is a shame, because Seagate doesn’t have to spin the drain, it didn’t have to be this way. They just didn’t embrace this new technology, certainly didn’t take an opportunity to be a leader in it. Nor do they seem to have a new big technology in the wings close to release, either. They made a choice to be dinosaurs, whittling away at a single technology, a frail company waiting for an innovator to knock them over, and, well… here they are.

    • xeridea
    • 4 years ago

    From Samsung:
    [quote<] 5 years or TBW (120GB/250GB: 75TBW; 500GB/1TB: 150TBW; 2TB/4TB: 300TBW), whichever comes first.[/quote<] Does this mean up to 300TBW per day for 5 years?

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 4 years ago

      Nope, 300TB over its lifetime or for five years.

      • crabjokeman
      • 4 years ago

      Was this a serious question?

        • xeridea
        • 4 years ago

        Just seems low considering 300TB/4TB is 75 writes per cell, including overprovision. I know this is warranty, and they are likely to write a lot more as seen in the TR endurance test, I was just clarifying.

          • Whispre
          • 4 years ago

          Don’t forget though that most data is written once and then sits idle. How often do you actually re-write all the data on a HD?

          Not saying it shouldn’t be a higher number… but 300TB writes will last longer than it sounds.

            • smilingcrow
            • 4 years ago

            168GB writes per day is a lot for a home user.

    • Krogoth
    • 4 years ago

    Four years ago, you could get a mere 1TiB SSD for the same price point.

      • UberGerbil
      • 4 years ago

      And eight years ago, you could get all of [url=http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/03/ssds-in-2008-fast-speeds-200mbsec-over-price-cuts/<]maybe 96GB[/url<] for the same amount of money (in SLC form, granted, but much slower also)

        • Neutronbeam
        • 4 years ago

        I believe that I bought my first Intel 80GB SSD for $600 in 2008 for the first desktop I built.

    • themattman
    • 4 years ago

    I’m glad that 4TB drives are starting to come into existence at somewhat reasonable prices. In a year or two it should be possible to put all storage on flash rather than a SSD/mechanical drive combo.

      • Bomber
      • 4 years ago

      I have a 4tb hybrid drive. This, once a bit more reasonable in cost (to my budget….really that’s reasonable), would be a worthy replacement for sure.

      • shank15217
      • 4 years ago

      This storage makes way more sense in the enterprise than in the consumer space for now.

      • The Egg
      • 4 years ago

      ….unless it’s storage that you’re going to leave unpowered for 6+ months.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This