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 - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.
The Heavy test doesn't write enough data to fill a 120GB drive, and when there's still spare area the 750 EVO performs better than any other planar TLC drive. When the test is run on a full drive the 750 EVO suffers more than most and falls to the bottom of the rankings.
The penalty that the 750 EVO pays when filled is even more apparent when looking at average service times, pushing it into last place.
Even when starting on an empty drive, the 750 EVO's latency outlier situation isn't great, beating the ADATA SP550 but little else.
The energy usage of the 750 EVO only stands out for the full drive case. When starting with an empty drive, the 750 EVO uses less energy overall than the other planar TLC drives.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
Coup27 - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
SATA is not yesterdays tech.abrowne1993 - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
More like yesteryearDeath666Angel - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
So, everyone with perfectly capable CPUs that are barely slower than current tech should upgrade because SATA is old? I'm not disputing that SATA is the older tech, I'm just looking for a more nuanced and realistic view here. If your workload is sufficiently dependant on IO throughput, by all means get those NVMe drives. But implying that a SATA3 device like a 850pro is not going to do the job for a lot of people.... I have a Z87 4770k running at 4.5GHz. I'm not going to upgrade just for the convenience of M.2 PCIe NVMe support. And I won't do so until 6+ core CPUs with comparable IPC and OC abilities get decently priced.Meteor2 - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
No, not at all, and no-one said SATA is inadequate. But it is part of the past, just like 486s and dial-up modems.Bleakwise - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
No, SATA has a place. You realize a 2.5 SATA drive has about 10x-20x the volume of a NVME drive. No reason you could n't have a 3.5 inch SATA SSD either.Thus SATA will always be the go-to for high volume storage. Flash memory isn't going to be shrunk down anytime soon either, it degrades both performance and reliability, so until we get something better than flash SATA is going to be the only place you can get something like a 4TB or 8TB SSD.
Bleakwise - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
Shinking thing smaller and smaller is also more expensive, and like I said in terms of flash it also degrades performance. It's much cheaper to build a big-fast thing than a small-fast thing.There is also the issue of RAID and mechanical drives for mass storage. I can setup a 20TB fakeraid with an SSD write-back cache for under a thousand dollars. Hardware raid would be about 2000$. The NVME version would be about 8000$ to 10000$.
Billy Tallis - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
There are 2.5" NVMe drives using the U.2 connector to provide the same 4 lanes of PCIe that can be supplied by the M.2 connector.slowdemon21 - Friday, April 29, 2016 - link
Agree. SATA is the skylake bottleneckewitte - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link
I hacked my bios to run a 950 pro in a z87 it was ridiculous to spend so much upgrading from a 4790k.Coup27 - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
Do you not think there is something wrong with the phrase "consumer grade NVMe 2TB+ SSD" ?You could also RAID some SATA 2TB SSD's to give you want you need. I doubt you "really" need all of that space on NVMe, so maybe a 256 or 512GB 950 Pro + some 850 EVO's in RAID would work well, and is available now.