The Samsung 860 PRO (512GB And 4TB) SSD Review: Replacing A Legend
by Billy Tallis on January 23, 2018 10:00 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
Our first test of random read performance uses very short bursts of operations issued one at a time with no queuing. The drives are given enough idle time between bursts to yield an overall duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is impossible. Each burst consists of a total of 32MB of 4kB random reads, from a 16GB span of the disk. The total data read is 1GB.
The 512GB Samsung 860 PRO has the fastest burst random read speed among these SATA SSDs, about 5% faster than the 850 PRO. The 4TB model is the same speed as the 4TB 850 EVO.
Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.
On the longer random read test involving some higher queue depths, the Samsung 860 PROs take a clear lead, and the 4TB model even outperforms the PM981 NVMe SSD.
The two Samsung 860 PROs offer the same power efficiency, which is a huge step up from the 850 PRO's efficiency and significantly better than any of the competition.
 |
|||||||||
Most of the Samsung drives hit the same limit of almost 400 MB/s around QD16. The two latest Crucial SSDs only just reach reach that level of performance at QD32, while the Intel 545s and Crucial MX300 never scale up that far. The PM981 NVMe drive scales far beyond any of the SATA drives, but at the cost of very poor power efficiency, especially at lower queue depths.
Random Write Performance
Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.
The 4TB 860 PRO has the fastest burst random write speed, while the 512GB model scores slightly worse than the 512GB 850 PRO.
As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.
The sustained random write performance of the Samsung 860 PRO is a very slight improvement over their previous drives. Most of the competition is significantly slower on this test, but the Crucial BX300 is pretty close.
The Samsung 860 PROs are again the two most efficient SATA SSDs, and the 512GB model manages to match the efficiency of the much faster but more power hungry PM981.
 |
|||||||||
The 860 PRO reaches full random write speed at QD4 and is steady through the rest of the test. The Crucial MX500 and Intel 545s are much slower to get up to speed, and the SanDisk Ultra 3D plateaus at a mere 200MB/s after QD2.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
64 Comments
View All Comments
Lady Fitzgerald - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
DVDs are those coaster like things that have over 600 of my movies on them. I don't plan on getting rid of them anytime soon.Lady Fitzgerald - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Wow! What did Samsung ever do to you?A roughly 50% decrease in idle current usage is huge if one has very many of these in use (I currently have four 4TB 850 EVOs in my desktop machine but will probably replace them with five 4TB Pros later this year), even if one doesn't factor in the reduction in heat output that will likely occur. Even when in use, the 860 Pros will draw roughly 30% less current.
mapesdhs - Tuesday, December 29, 2020 - link
Hello from the future! :) I was just curious, did you indeed in the end replace those 850 EVOs with 860 Pros?I was hunting for info on the 860 Pro (I bagged a 256GB on ebay a year ago), found this old review. I'm upgrading my daily desktop to a 2700X just now, was wading through my SSD pile to decide on the C-drive, use the 860 Pro I hadn't done anything with yet, or move stuff around and use an 850 Pro, or maybe a Vector (my existing system has had a Vector 256GB running for 7 years. :D)
S'funny actually looking back at what the landscape used to be before the 850 era began:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/6363/ocz-vector-rev...
OCZ of course took some hefty brand image flak from earlier times due to dodgy early fw releases for its older Vertex models, which is a pity because its much later Vertex4 and Vectors were rather good, indeed the older Vertex2E/3 were fine with fixed fw (I used dozens of 2Es and 3s, still do for general testing/benching).
I buy used 840 Pro units when I can, they're very good even today. Won a fair few 850 Pro 512GB/1TB units aswell. Was particularly pleased to nab four 1TB 850 Pros from a photo company which bought them for backup, because every drive had less than 50GB written. I look at modern QLC SATA products and it baffles me why anyone would buy them, I just hunt for used 850 drives, whether EVO or Pro, or an 840 Pro (I avoid the 840 EVO due to its data retention problems which thankfully never affected the 840 Pro). Sometimes I bid on an Extreme Pro aswell, they're still good.
I have a lot of Samsung SSDs, but over time the focus of many comments here have proven true, pricing has become kinda crazy. Moving on to NVMe, I bought a few 950 Pro, 960 Pro and 970 EVO/Plus drives (the former two mostly via the used market), but after that the competition could no longer be ignored. My more recent 1TB/2TB NVMe purchases have all been Adata XPG SX8200 Pro, just 100 UKP for the 1TB model as I write this (vs. 170 for the 970 EVO Plus, or a completely ridiculous 289 UKP for the 970 Pro). I found the Adata to be faster, which in my case involves substantial sustained sequential writes (which naturally rules out all QLC models); it's also more power efficient. The Adata is TLC of course, but then so is the 970 EVO Plus, and the former actually has a higher write endurance rating (both have 5yr warranties).
Samsung hasn't much moved their pricing though, so I guess despite the competition they're still able to sell the products they make, but I can't figure why anyone would buy a 970 Pro when it's almost three times the cost of the Adata or other models (they really are milking the perceived MLC advantage). I know the Sabrent Rocket is very popular, but so far I've not bought one as I've been unsure of the 4K block size issue, plus I've been able to find the Adata cheaper anyway.
I just wish the capacities would properly get a move on. Seems to me vendors are not releasing anything better because they don't have to, people are still willing to pay solid premiums for existing 2TB/4TB models. It's all a far cry from Sandisk's old promise of an 8TB SATA3 SSD way back. I guess nobody wants to rock the boat; why release an 8TB NVMe when the market is happy to splurge on 4TB and below?
I just think it's a shame how QLC has taken over, a race to the bottom via DRAMless designs, SATA and even NVMe models that tank once their SLC emulation phase is exceeded, in some cases giving performance slower than a rust spinner. It's bizarre to think that with modern benchmark suites an old SATA like a Vector, Vertex4, 840 Pro, Neutron GTX or Extreme Pro would actually be better in some cases, heck even the Samsung 830 would probably be quicker. Modern large capacity dies are killing performance by using so few memory channels. This could easily be resolved by allowing capacities to properly increase, but they just won't do it, not yet. They'll milk the 4TB for all its worth before considering 8TB. Makes me think the margins on modern SSDs must be very high vs. models from years ago, with the former using so few ICs on the PCB. Many modern SSD PCBs contain just a controller and one flash die.
Btw, good comment below about halving the time for a particular task being less relevant if the duration is very short in absolute terms.
Lady Fitzgerald - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Again, SATA is plenty fast for data storage. NVMe is an advantage only when used for the OS and programs; even then, it isn't all that much of an advantage. If you have a task that takes ten minutes to perform and you double the speed, that's taking it down to five minutes, which is huge. If you have a task that takes 10 seconds to perform and you double the speed, that will be now be five seconds, an improvement but nowhere nearly as as noticeable. If you have a task that takes 10 milliseconds to perform and you double the speed so it now takes only 5 milliseconds, you won't notice the difference. It won't be advantageous unless you move enormous amounts of data frequently.