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 - The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage and unlike our Iometer tests, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test.
We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, a few data points about its latency, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.
The Destroyer has earned its name here. The 750 EVO is clearly the slowest modern SSD on this test, showing that it is not suitable for sustained intense workloads with a high volume of writes. Almost any other SSD currently on the market will perform better under pressure, including competing TLC drives.
The 750 EVO also sets new records for slow responses, with average service times on par with standard hard drive seek times. Though since The Destroyer has an average queue depth of about 5.5, a mechanical hard drive would still be several times worse by this metric. Conversely, the best MLC SSDs are almost ten times quicker than the 750 EVO.
With over 10% of operations taking more than 10ms, we can't quite refer to them as outliers anymore. At the 100ms threshold, the 750 EVO has twice as many outliers as anything else.
The substantially higher energy usage of the 750 EVOs is a straightforward consequence of them taking much longer than everything else to complete the test: The 120GB 750 EVO took just over 17 hours to complete this test while the 120GB PNY CS1311 took only 13.5 hours and the 128GB 850 Pro needed only 10 hours.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
ewitte - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link
System builders will likely go even cheaper there are a lot of 240GB drives around $60. Nearly a $20 difference.Murloc - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
They're going to put it into computers and write "Samsung SSD inside" and it will be cheaper for the system builders, but the average customer will not be able to tell the difference.So yes, it's a winner.
lilmoe - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
You think $10 is worth the downgrade? Bruh...5th element - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
To the 3rd party selling complete machines to the everyday masses yeah. Like haukionkannel said above. Most people out there aren't tech heads and the lower £££ matters.lilmoe - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
Sure, but the price difference is even lower with higher volume...nathanddrews - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
Meh.Thanks for the great review - as always. The "meh" is just for the drive itself.
nathanddrews - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
The problem I have with SSDs right now is that they're so boring to me. What I need in my life are consumer grade NVMe 2TB+ SSDs. I'm sick and tired of buying multiple SSDs or splitting my application and data across SSDs and HDDs. One drive to rule them all, please.TheinsanegamerN - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
We should probably work on getting 1TB drives out and purchasable before worrying about 2TB models.vanilla_gorilla - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
Samsung 850 EVO 1TB SSD are $291 on Amazon (Prime) right now. And the Samsung 850 EVO 2TB is the same price per gigabyte ($600 for 2TB).Meteor2 - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
I don't know about 2+ TB but definitely more 1 TB NVMe drives. SATA is yesterday's tech.