Samsung’s 850 EVO 2TB SSD reviewed

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.

Comments closed
    • ronch
    • 4 years ago

    Hi Scott. Maybe I’ve missed it, but is TR doing another SSD endurance test?

    • ronch
    • 4 years ago

    As much as these new Samsung SSDs seem very good, my first foray into the land of SSDs is with my current SSD, an 840 EVO. It works well enough but I guess it’s left a sour taste in my mouth. I hope I make a better choice on my next SSD. Crucial or Intel, probably. Heck, maybe even OCZ as Tosh owns them now.

    • TwoEars
    • 4 years ago

    It’s a fine drive but the m2 standard is much more exciting. Once we get some good 1TB m2 drives everyone will, or should, go with that instead. You can even boot from m2 these days.

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 4 years ago

    No thanks.

    • ColeLT1
    • 4 years ago

    Look at what I just received! (not really for me but for a ESXI server I am building to expand my DR)
    [url<]http://imgur.com/SDXkSnv[/url<]

    • DPete27
    • 4 years ago

    Did Geoff take all his scatter plot data with him when he left? Haven’t seen the huge data set on the last couple SSD reviews. It’s like we’re starting over from scratch.

      • willmore
      • 4 years ago

      New test rig, so, they are starting from scratch. 🙁

    • anotherengineer
    • 4 years ago

    You know what I expected to see more?

    Occasional posts/comment from Cyril or Geoff here and there.

    Seems they have written TR like cold turkey?

    (Unless Cyril is still ‘lurking in the shadows’)

      • Dissonance
      • 4 years ago

      I’m lurking regularly, just been busy with the new gig along with some other things. But my blood still runs TR blue.

        • ClickClick5
        • 4 years ago

        Are you the ghost of Christmas past?

        • anotherengineer
        • 4 years ago

        Thanks for saying ‘hi’ 🙂

        And busy……..wait until you have a few children running around!!!!

        Hope the new gig is fun and challenging!

    • Freon
    • 4 years ago

    I understand this is on a new system and from a new reviewer, but I feel it’s critical to get the older drive numbers into these reviews. The greatest part of TR SSD reviews in the past has been the inclusion of a wide selection of prior SSDs so readers can understand where the new product stands in relation to the landscapes of products.

    I hope TR can find some time to work back in at least some of those drives from the past year or two (ex. BX100, MX200, 850 Pro, smaller varieties of the 850 EVO). I feel quite lost in the last two reviews without being able to compare to the usual suspects.

      • Chrispy_
      • 4 years ago

      Yeah, relative performance scores to other drives means a lot more than absolute performance results.

    • Milo Burke
    • 4 years ago

    I’m really excited to see TR make sustained I/O rates a part of its standard SSD reviews. This is excellent and shows us the shortcoming of many SSDs (in certain use cases).

    Thanks, Tony!

    • cobalt
    • 4 years ago

    I’m not too bothered about the 840 EVO; they admitted the problem and came up with a workaround. I mean, I’m not happy about it, and I completely understand why someone would swear them off for it, but if it were only that, I might consider a Samsung drive again.

    What I can’t forgive is the fact that they deny the vanilla 840 even HAS this same problem. So either their QC department is so bad they can’t detect such problems, they’re too lazy to check, or they’re simply lying. None of those inspire much confidence.

      • swaaye
      • 4 years ago

      I don’t think confidence is an emotion that should be attached to any corporation. They all pull this sort of thing in one way or another. Samsung just got a lot of review site publicity on this one.

    • snowMAN
    • 4 years ago

    “the 2TB model is rated for 150TB of writes”

    So only 75 writes per cell? Has flash become that bad? Or are they assuming a really high write amplification?

      • f0d
      • 4 years ago

      they always rate much lower then what they are capable of
      i wouldnt be surprised if it was capable of 10X more

      • Freon
      • 4 years ago

      That’s still a lot. I’ve barely gone over 13TB on my old Samsung 830 that was a boot drive for something like 3 years. I wasn’t doing anything particularly stressing with it, but I think I’d have a hard time wearing it out even over 10-15 years.

      As f0d say, that’s likely conservative based on TR’s SSD death march. Some other drives only quote 72TB, also likely to last hundreds of TB.

      • bwcbiz
      • 4 years ago

      My thoughts, exactly. 150 TB is either extremely conservative or they are binning their worst V-NAND for these things, assuming that people won’t actually be writing enough data to approach the limit.

      But it turns out this isn’t really a spec for drive endurance. It’s a warranty cap. The 150 TB limit is the same as the warranted durability of the 500 GB and 1 TB version of the 850 EVO. No scaling of the TBW in the warranty for the drive capacity.

      For comparison, the Crucial MX200 500 GB that was a Deal of the Week last Friday is rated for 160 TB of writes, and it’s 1/4 the size of this thing. And their 1 TB model has a scaled spec of 320 TB written.

    • meerkt
    • 4 years ago

    Side note: the grey bars in the chart PNGs are usually dithered, for whatever reason. An 256 color palette should be more than plenty.

      • willmore
      • 4 years ago

      Also, are they encoded as progressive, now? I don’t think they used to be. This causes them to look funny while loading–sort of like they’re being animated. They’re PNGs of a fairly simple image, I wouldn’t expect progressive to be a help–they’re probably larger than non-progressive encoded images.

      Can you check?

      Note: if people are nagging you about the format of the graphics files for your charts, it means there isn’t anything more substantial wrong with your review–this is a good thing! Good article!

    • HERETIC
    • 4 years ago

    Seems like 1/2 a review without TR DriveBench……………….

      • weaktoss
      • 4 years ago

      DriveBench, much like our value scatter plots, is down but not out. We’ve got some work to do getting it running on our newer Win 8.1 test rigs. It will be back!

    • dmjifn
    • 4 years ago

    Yeah, I may have gotten lazy but I always go straight to the back page looking for scatter plots and to see if there’s a little editors choice graphic. Am I just not looking hard enough or were they… you know… sent to live on the farm?

      • weaktoss
      • 4 years ago

      They’re haven’t been sent to live the farm, but they are on vacation. There’s some work to be done adapting the formulae to the current storage test suite, but those graphs will be back in the future! Hopefully sooner rather than later.

      • odizzido
      • 4 years ago

      I clicked on it just to see the price heh. As expected it was fairly high.

    • trek205
    • 4 years ago

    I have one of these as I wanted to put all my games on single SSD with my OS. TBH, I am not really impressed and cant tell any difference from regular HD other than faster boot. All that talk about how much snappier day to day tasks would be on an SSD turned out to be nonsense as for as I am concerned.

    EDIT: And why the hell do I keep getting logged out here EVERY day?

      • w76
      • 4 years ago

      We may live in parallel, but not identical, universes, which somehow overlap at TR, ’cause I want to dropkick any PC I have to interact with at work that doesn’t have an SSD. Spent money out of my own pocket to put one in my issued desktop. (As fate would have it, a much lower capacity version of the drive reviewed here)

        • trek205
        • 4 years ago

        well that is the kind of talk the made me feel like I was missing out on something by not having an SSD. after getting one, I feel like I am missing my 675 bucks much more than enjoying the seemingly minuscule performance difference.

          • meerkt
          • 4 years ago

          Sell the drive and get a 250-500GB model instead. No point in spending on 2TB when the goal is speed in general use.

          • Welch
          • 4 years ago

          Yeah your from another world man. If younare having speed issue then either your install of Windows is messed up (did you migrate or fresh install). You didn’t properly configure your SATA to AHCI and left it in IDE mode, or your particular drive is faulty.

          The difference is night and day. The system boots faster, you can load multiple thing without any performance hits, open and close programs that were left open forever and it not have to pull it back and recache…. Granted Windows 10 makes HDD performance much more bareable but its no SSD.

          You don’t have to defrag anymore and where a file is located on the computer doesn’t have an affect on the drives “seek” time.

          When you consider most HDDs are sub 100MB/s read/write with bursts only slightly higher… then you’ve got SSDs sitting ate the 500+ read and write and then the magic of random IOPS being 60,000k to 120,000k a second read and write… It is no accident that the performance is felt.

      • End User
      • 4 years ago

      What the heck are you talking about. SSD performance just smokes that of a HDD. From boot to app launch to file copies there is no comparison. If you don’t see a difference there is something wrong with your system.

        • trek205
        • 4 years ago

        No my system works and benches just fine and the SSD is performing just like it should. I already said the boot time was much faster but other than that, there is really no big difference in daily use. Some of you are just full of it with your outrageous claims of how much faster it will feel.

          • End User
          • 4 years ago

          You’re right. I’m totally full of it when it comes to SSD performance. SSDs offer next to no performance advantages over HDDs. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to come clean.

            • trek205
            • 4 years ago

            maybe you fail at basic reading comprehension. I said it does not “feel” any faster on daily tasks other than the much faster boot times. I spent 675 bucks so I certainly feel like I can say my opinion on using an SSD and I personally think its nothing but waste of money all things considered.

            • ferdinandh
            • 4 years ago

            I have put an SSD in existing computers for 9 people I know. These are people who barely want to use a computer but they have to. Every person just feels how much faster the whole computer is. And every other person that uses their pc wants an ssd too.
            The only place where ssd’s aren’t much faster than hdd’s is with gaming.

            • Noinoi
            • 4 years ago

            I think that’s exactly the thing – video games probably aren’t that affected, and I suspect that’s probably the whole thing about them not performing much better…

            • trek205
            • 4 years ago

            that is because you told them they were getting a faster drive. other than boot times, most people would not see the difference.

            • wierdo
            • 4 years ago

            I use an SSD at work to improve compilation and multitasking between various tools, the difference is night and day for me.

            What do you generally use your computer for? Perhaps your use case is unusual.

            • Lazier_Said
            • 4 years ago

            Consider what the average technically illiterate person’s desktop looks like: five years and a dozen tray applications worth of crapware, another half-dozen browser helper addons and toolbars, at least one antivirus that’s usually set to run a scan every. single. time. it boots up, and between it all the computer sits there thrashing the mechanical disk for literally 3-5 minutes before you can even check your email. A SSD is worth its weight in gold there.

            With 8-16GB of RAM for caching, not rebooting unless necessary, and the nerdskills to recognize crapware and turn it off a mechanical disk can be tolerable most of the time but that’s not a standard usage case.

      • Noinoi
      • 4 years ago

      SSDs are pretty much faster in every way, at least theoretically and in terms of system boot times, compared to HDDs. However… when you give a HDD-based system some time so that the OS’s own caching mechanism can work its magic, they’re also surprisingly fast in application load times. Application load times may or may not end up feeling faster with an SSD in the end. (To me, they feel slightly faster, not significantly faster, compared to a 7200 RPM HDD in a desktop.)

      (Of course, all bets are off when we’re talking about 5400 RPM laptop drives. They’re dog slow compared to even 7200 RPM drives.)

      • albundy
      • 4 years ago

      try loading the games. i guarantee that you will notice the load times. numbers-wise, i cant find any HDD to SSD comparisons for 4KQD1, which i assume would ascertain concerns of snappiness.

        • trek205
        • 4 years ago

        yes games load faster but it the 20 or so games I have tried it is not a big difference. sure if you put them side by side it would be a bit more obvious but we are only talking about a few seconds in the end.

        no one here is going to change my opinion. again this is my first SSD and I am not impressed at all. it is by far the dumbest purchase I have ever made.

          • albundy
          • 4 years ago

          i hear you. i felt the same way going from a hitachi 2TB 7200rpm to a seagate 240gb SSD a few years and $80 ago. perception is what marketing does best to manipulate. at the time, it did not feel much more than a meh in performance upgrade, but it is what it is. i didnt spend much on it and it was my first ssd. the wow factor came when i added a sandisk extreme pro. extracting 10x 1GB rar files from one ssd to another was beyond my expectations. that’s where you really see performance…in file compression and file copy. Sadly, i did not find any SSD to SSD real world performance benchmarks throughout my search. most review sites only showed numbers when copying files to the same drive.

            • End User
            • 4 years ago

            If you hammer your storage throughout the day then you will notice a difference. My world revolves around VMs. Best thing I ever did was upgrade my worksations and server to SSDs.

            My primary home rig has a 128GB SSD as a cache drive. It is very apparent when I access data that is not on the cache drive. This EVO 2TB SSD looks like a perfect upgrade for me.

      • f0d
      • 4 years ago

      i think your disappointment is related to how much you spent

      if you had got say a 120 or 240gb drive (for like $60-$100) and used it for your boot drive and a few of the more demanding games you have (if you have any) you probably wouldnt have been as disappointed

      ssd’s make a difference but with how much you spent and with your expectations so high i probably would have been disappointed too

      • Krogoth
      • 4 years ago

      It is because load time on demanding applications is typically CPU-bound.

      SSDs are definitely better at loading up multiple applications at once as long you have enough cores to go around.

      For mainstream and gaming usage patterns. SSDs don’t yield that much of an improvement over a HDD outside of a cold boot.

      • FireGryphon
      • 4 years ago

      It’s possible your system is bogged down in other areas, such as not having enough RAM or a slow CPU. It’s also possible you do not use programs that take advantage of faster storage. For example, if all you’re doing is surfing the web and using MS Office, an SSD is not going to be a big deal. Anything that is storage intensive, like audio/video/picture editing, gaming (large level loads), etc. will be where you see a difference.

      • odizzido
      • 4 years ago

      I mostly agree with you. There are a couple of things I do which benefit greatly from the SSD but for the most part I didn’t notice much of a difference going to an SSD.

      • Milo Burke
      • 4 years ago

      If you’re not impressed with an SSD now, try going back to a mechanical hard drive for a week. You’ll notice the difference then.

      • Freon
      • 4 years ago

      My work PC is a Xeon E5 1620 (Sandybridge-EP, 32nm) with a spinner HDD, home PC is an older i7-950 (Bloomfield 45nm) but with SSDs. The difference in speed in things like launching 10 apps after login, compiling and running large unit test suites in Visual Studio, etc. is staggering despite the fact my work PC has a superior CPU. Only extended computation on my work PC is faster. I’m sure it’s great at Cinebench, but typical activity that takes less than a few seconds is better with the superior storage and slower CPU.

      My own home experience moving to a boot drive is vastly superior app launches even after boot. Just launching Firefox or Chrome is sub-second vs a few seconds, for instance. It’s similar for most other apps as well. Plus with an SSD I feel I can launch all the apps at once after login, not slowly chain them. Post-login on my work PC is hell because Outlook, three copies of Visual Studio with large solutions, SQL studio, Lync, etc, etc. just takes friggin forever and the more I try to do at once the slower it gets. It’s painful. At home, I launch everything at once and it’s faster to overlap loads, not slower.

      Yes, beyond that, adding games and your MP3/divx collection to SSD doesn’t make as much difference as your boot and core apps. You may not really notice game launch time changes from 12 seconds to 9.5 seconds, or you may still have to wait for other people in your multiplayer game anyway. It won’t really change your framerate (maybe reduce hiccups in some games a small fraction of the time?).

      • NeelyCam
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<]EDIT: And why the hell do I keep getting logged out here EVERY day?[/quote<] I have the same problem :/

        • zzz
        • 4 years ago

        Trek205, if an SSD doesn’t ‘feel faster’ than you haven’t used a computer with an OS on a mechanical drive in a while OR something IS wrong with your computer.

      • joselillo_25
      • 4 years ago

      I have my SSD plugged in a old Q6600 system, only SATA1 and no AHCI and is like buying a new computer.

      In fact my system feels faster that some modern laptops with an HDD that I have tried recently.

        • strangerguy
        • 4 years ago

        There are way too many people out there who thinks SATA3 is a bare requirement for a SSD and don’t understand that ~90% of a SSD perceivable speedup over a HDD has to do with random 4KB read/writes + much lower latency regardless of the SATA interface and SATA3/AHCI is just a cherry on top.

    • NeelyCam
    • 4 years ago

    This must be the First 2TB SSD! Hooray for progress!

      • chubbyhorse
      • 4 years ago

      First 2TB consumer SSD!
      FTFY 😉 (Intel already has 2TB and up models; but not consumer priced)

      I agree though, exciting times are ahead. I for one am ready for solid state storage to become mainstream and HDD cheap; and we’re gradually getting there.

        • NeelyCam
        • 4 years ago

        The main storage on my desktop is HDD, but it always takes a while to spin it up, which is annoying.

        Why do I enable spin-down and sleep on an HDD? Because it’s loud and makes weird clicking sounds all the time when not sleeping – also annoying.

        A 2TB SSD would solve this major 1st world issue for me. $800 is a bit steep, though. Maybe when it’s below $500…

          • egon
          • 4 years ago

          Would’ve thought a HDD that doesn’t make weird clicking sounds would be a cheaper way to solve the issue 🙂

            • NeelyCam
            • 4 years ago

            Good point. 🙂 Maybe I should look into a HDD upgrade instead. How much HDD would $500 buy me…?

          • HERETIC
          • 4 years ago

          If those HDD’s are seagates-there’s a fix-it fixed a couple of my-ST2000DM001

          [url<]http://www.postcount.net/forum/showthread.php?8923-Seagate-issues-firmware-to-fix-chirping-issues-with-some-hard-drives[/url<]

            • NeelyCam
            • 4 years ago

            Sadly it’s not. I try to stay with WD (it’s a Green 3TB)

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This