The Samsung 750 EVO (120GB & 250GB) SSD Review: A Return To Planar NAND
by Billy Tallis on April 22, 2016 8:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here.
The average data rate scores of the 750 EVOs allow it to blend in to the crowd as a solid performer and the fastest planar TLC drive on the Light test.
The average service time of the 750 EVO again places it as one of the fastest planar TLC drives and a reasonable performer compared to the SATA market overall. The 120GB 750 EVO is also relatively close to the 250GB version, while other 120GB models are considerably slower than their larger counterparts.
The number of latency outliers experienced by the 750 EVO in the Light test is normal for TLC drives but considerably higher than most MLC drives.
Power usage over the course of the Light test separates the drives pretty cleanly into different categories. The 750 EVO clearly requires more power than the 850 EVO, and all the other TLC drives require more power than the 750 EVO. The MLC drives all require less energy than all the TLC drives, except that the 850 Pro sacrifices efficiency to deliver its high performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
jabber - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
Yeah must admit I don't have the need or want to hoard masses of ripped off content. That is a psychosis I can do without. It just junk.Deelron - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
My wife has 200 GB of Life Event Photos/Videos going back 20+ years (and I'd imagine people with much better cameras then we had could have significantly more, particularly if they have a larger family) and there's not a bit of media on the machine. After OS and regular applications the minimum suitable single drive would be 480 GB, without a lick of pirated media.jabber - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
Would that 200GB+ be better backed up safely somewhere than sitting on the main drive? Keeping masses of mainly dead/unused data on a day to day machine seems odd nowadays. There are systems better suited for that kind of data.Deelron - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
It's backed up locally (two he's that switch every month) and via cloud. It's not just "sitting" there any more then a physical photo album would be.Margalus - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
It has nothing to do with piracy.. My Steam folder alone is over 1GB.erple2 - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
I think that I have save games that are larger than 1GB.Eden-K121D - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
You mean 1TBMargalus - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
lol, yes. that is what I meant...
Lolimaster - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
It's simply because you didn't embrace internet. That kind of low storage needs is more of the pre-2000's.Between movies, tv series, some cartoons, anime, manga it's easy to need more than 1 6TB drive. I have 4x 6TB's right now.
jabber - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
Yes but you appear to be 16 years aold. Some of us are over 30. If you are over 30 I see that as a cry for help.