The Samsung 860 PRO (512GB And 4TB) SSD Review: Replacing A Legend
by Billy Tallis on January 23, 2018 10:00 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.
The burst sequential read speeds of the 860 PROs are good but not record setting, and the differences between the SATA drives are all dwarfed by the performance of the NVMe drive.
Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.
With the exception of the 500GB 850 EVO, all of the Samsung SATA drives in this bunch offer about the same sustained sequential read speed. These drives have a substantial advantage over the competing drives, which are led by the Intel 545s at about 85 MB/s slower than the 860 PRO.
The two Samsung 860 PROs have the clear lead for power efficiency during sequential reads, above even the fast PM981 NVMe drive.
 |
|||||||||
The sequential read speed of the Samsung 860 PROs starts out quite close to the SATA limit, but they don't actually reach it until QD4. After that point, they are completely steady while the competing drives tend to be both slower and less consistent.
Sequential Write Performance
Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.
Both models of the Samsung 860 PRO show a bit of a regression on the burst sequential write test, with the 4TB 860 PRO coming in at 13 MB/s slower than the 4TB 850 EVO, and the 512GB 860 PRO is behind the 512GB 850 PRO by twice that margin.
Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
The sustained sequential write speeds of the Samsung 860 PRO are slightly lower than some of the 850s, but not noticeably. Only the Intel 545s and SanDisk Ultra 3D are slow enough to really care about.
The power efficiency of the 860 PRO continues to be a huge improvement over the 850s, with the 512GB 860 PRO taking a big lead over everything else in its class.
 |
|||||||||
Most of the SATA drives are at full speed by QD2 or QD4, but the SanDisk Ultra 3D takes a bit longer to get up to speed and the Crucial MX300 can't maintain that speed. Once they've all (mostly) plateaued at the same performance level, it is clear that the 860 PRO requires less power than any of its competitors or predecessors.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
64 Comments
View All Comments
Flunk - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
I agree, the low price makes the mx500 a really good buy. It certainly qualifies as "fast enough" while delivering very low cost/GB.GreenMeters - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Looking like it. The 850 EVO was on sale over Black Friday for less than the MX500 (at 1 TB size anyway), but outside big discounts like that (and assuming there's no simultaneous discount of the MX500) then it looks like Samsung is about to be irrelevant when it comes to SATA. Disappointing in some ways (have four 850 EVOs in various systems now, two of them picked up at the aforementioned sale, and they've been great) but as long as PCI is becoming more affordable I guess it's not a big deal.Alistair - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
You are comparing with the launch price of the MX500. I've bought 5 x MX500 1TB drives for $242 USD each. I'm pretty sure the Samsung 850 is more expensive.Samus - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
If you are going to compare sale prices of Samsung drives to the competition, it becomes even more obvious Samsung is a bad buy when you see the sale prices of competitors. The BX300 256GB drives were on sale for $70 at one point. No Samsung 250GB drive has been under $90 in over a year, even on sale.bug77 - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
SATA does not prevent performance improvements. 4k random reads are what give a drive its speed for home usage and we're not even at 100MB/s in this aspect. Plenty of room for improvement right there.In other news, if you have ~$250 to spend, you can either get a 512GB 850 Pro or a 1TB MX500. Imho, as good as Samsung is, there's no contest here.
zodiacfml - Sunday, February 11, 2018 - link
I agree. The only limit is in sequential. However, we have seen the performance/capabilities of the Intel Optane drives and that even that doesn't improve a desktop experience by any noticeable level.Round - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Sorry, but I disagree. What's so impressive about this, because I'm not seeing it? They improved the power spec, but for real world use, especially in a desktop, I'm just not seeing any benefit at those prices.I can't see buying any more Samsung drives (I have 6 850 Evos) or recommending them to anyone. The price/performance from Crucial is superior, and I doubt anyone is ever going to notice a performance difference between the MX500 and 850/860 Evos (the 860 Pro is priced ridiculously high and is not a wise purchase for any average user).
I find myself hoping Samsung gets punished in the market place....
StrangerGuy - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Yup, I fail to see whats so great about this SSD either for consumers either. MX500 beats it in 4K random IOPS while having a much higher GB/$. The extra endurance and warranty length is also completely irrelevant for 99.99% of consumers out there; I myself have a Crucial M550 1TB since 2014 and I still only have 11TB total writes on it.BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
While I don't find this drive particularly impressive (not much room to impress on SATA anymore), it does have the distinction of likely being the last MLC drive available on SATA. While normal consumers can (in theory) use TLC drive with no negative effect, there are cases of people who have experienced a TLC SSD failure and aren't too eager to get another. I've personally been involved with 7 TLC SSD failures (3 different Crucial models, 2 Sandisks, and 2 Samsung). While the NAND was not likely responsible for any of these failures and this makes up a pretty low percentage of total TLC SSDs deployed within my purview, it does start to leave a less reliable image when compared to the zero MLC SSD failures (Crucial, Intel, Samsung, Sandisk, Corsair, etc.) I've seen in my client base. Granted, this is all anecdotal and I use global data (including HDD vs SSD failure rates) to color my recommendations. However, clients who've experienced the drive failures have universally decided that TLC was not an option for them. I haven't sworn off TLC drives personally, but entirely coincidentally, I have yet to purchase one since I burnt one out under heavy load (improper cooling on the controller I believe).chrone - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Could you guys perform synchronous write test in Linux as well?```
dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=4K count=100 oflag=direct,sync status=progress
dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=4M count=100 oflag=direct,sync status=progress
```
Sadly, the synchronous write for older Samsung SSD 850 Pro is similar to HDD. Synchronous write are used by OS and app for data consistency and reliability in Linux environment.