Samsung 960 Pro 512GB vs 960 Evo 1TB

[Imdmn04]

Making a new build, need to decide between the 2 960 series from Samsung.

The budget is less than $450 for the SSD, so it rules me out of the 960 Pro 1TB. Based on the published specs from Samsung, it looks like the 1TB 960 Evo is actually faster than the 512GB 960 Pro in terms of 4KB random read/write. But sequential read/write speeds seems to be slightly slower.

All the pre-production reviews I can find are on the larger 1TB 960 Pro, which makes sense, as Samsung wants to send out their fastest variant for reviews.

Perhaps somebody have some data for the already released OEM versions between SM961 (Pro 960 equivalent) and PM961 (EVO 960 equivalent)?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I can only share my own plans. I saw the spec bench comparisons of the two models on the Samsung web-site. "Slightly slower" is such a small difference in performance that it wouldn't matter to a lot of enthusiasts who -- "unnecessarily" -- choose M.2 NVMe as a step up, even though many usage scenarios might not reveal a "look and feel" difference. Instead, the order of magnitude difference between SATA SSD and either EVO or Pro M.2 NVMe performance is the same regardless of EVO/Pro differences.

But if you have M.2 NVMe slots on your motherboard, the prices of some models might encourage you to use them sooner rather than later.

In my perspective, I have two lower tiers of storage I want to use in addition to the higher tier of RAM: SATA SSD and HDD -- for capacity at low cost. If I can cache these lower tiers to a higher tier such as M.2 NVMe, I may reduce wear and tear on the electro-mechanical storage and show performance benchies even for HDD that might come close to 80% of M.2 NVMe levels. I am already doing this with SATA devices, and the whole enchilada gets cached to DDR4 RAM, for which even 16GB-worth offers enough that I can afford to use it that way. Even for 1.5 GB allocated to a single RAM-cache, the performance benchies -- subject to criticism of course -- are ridiculous: I've seen 9,500 MB/s seq read-rate for simply caching an SSD to RAM.

I could get a single 1TB drive and put dual-boot OS configuration in two 400GB volumes, leaving 200GB to split into cache space for each OS with both SSD and HDD sources. But that's expensive. I'm likely going to buy a 256GB 960 EVO for those purposes (something around $130), and leave the OS volumes on SATA SSD.

This approach has a mixed reaction here in the forums. There is the criticism that it adds "complexity" while it reduces other aspects of it. I can only say I've been doing it on four systems for 2.5 years, and it hasn't contributed any inconvenience, disasters, or problems to any of those systems.

I'm just explaining my own plans, constituting a sort of "experiment" which I'd bet will be quite successful.

 

[UsandThem]

Is your use for the drive going to be impacted by slightly slower sequential speeds? If not, I think having the larger space would be nice.

Outside of that, I have not seen any trustworthy published reviews on the performance of the lower capacities yet, although TechSpot mentions this on their last page of testing the 960 EVO:

The 250GB 960 Evo is said to deliver similar performance to the 500GB unit we reviewed although there are some conflicting reports about that online, so we'll have to test that later until we can recommend the otherwise attractive priced $130 drive.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1281-samsung-ssd-960-evo/page7.html

I'd imagine the lower-capacity reviews will start popping up after the units begin to ship out, which as of right now still shows the middle of this month.

 

[Valantar]

For 99% of home/enthusiast/gamer/whatever usage, the 960 Evo would be the better bet. What is the intended use of the build? I'd say both drives are overkill for almost any non-enterprise workload, but that at least the Evo makes up for that somewhat by having a decent storage capacity.

 

[TemjinGold]

There isn't really a noticeable speed difference I wouldn't think but what about longevity and things like that? I imagine the Pro's MLC beats the EVO's TLC here?

 

[UsandThem]

There isn't really a noticeable speed difference I wouldn't think but what about longevity and things like that? I imagine the Pro's MLC beats the EVO's TLC here?

The 1TB 960 EVO and the 512GB 960 PRO both have the same 400TB endurance rating, but the 960 EVO has a 3 year warranty as apposed to 5 years for the PRO.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10833/the-samsung-960-evo-1tb-review

 

[bigpow]

I want to join the NVMe bandwagon, but I'm still running my trusty 2500k + Z68 + 2x RAID0 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSDs

 

[UsandThem]

I want to join the NVMe bandwagon, but I'm still running my trusty 2500k + Z68 + 2x RAID0 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSDs

Depending your use, you might not be missing 'real-world' performance much........yet.

All that extra speed looks nice though, and I will be grabbing one sometime this spring (probably the 512GB 960 EVO or the Plextor M8Pe)

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...rucial-mx300-vs-wd-red.2493272/#post-38605201

 

[TemjinGold]

The 1TB 960 EVO and the 512GB 960 PRO both have the same 400TB endurance rating, but the 960 EVO has a 3 year warranty as apposed to 5 years for the PRO.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10833/the-samsung-960-evo-1tb-review

Interesting... I pre-ordered the 1TB PRO but now wondering if I should switch my order to the EVO...

 

[UsandThem]

Interesting... I pre-ordered the 1TB PRO but now wondering if I should switch my order to the EVO...

I think the $/performance is awesome with 960 EVO, pretty much like the 850 EVO was when put up against the 850 PRO. People who need/want that extra little bit of performance pay a nice "tax" for it.

 

[Valantar]

Buying a high-end SSD now, in the face of 2-3 quarters of flash shortages, seems silly unless you don't specifically need the performance. Prices are already higher than they ought to be (and supplies near non-existent), and it's not like your regular SSD will all of a sudden start feeling excruciatingly slow in the coming 6-9 months. Wait it out, and reap the benefits both in cost savings and more choice.

 

[UsandThem]

Buying a high-end SSD now, in the face of 2-3 quarters of flash shortages, seems silly unless you don't specifically need the performance. Prices are already higher than they ought to be (and supplies near non-existent), and it's not like your regular SSD will all of a sudden start feeling excruciatingly slow in the coming 6-9 months. Wait it out, and reap the benefits both in cost savings and more choice.

Of course very, very few actually people "need" it, but this is hardware enthusiast site. Most don't "need" a GTX 1080, 6700k, 32GB DDR4 3600, $300 motherboard, or 4k monitors. But there were people who were buying two GTX 1080 cards at launch over MSRP just to be one of the first people to own it. Did I think that was reasonable? Absolutely not. However, that's up to whoever is spending their own money.

So far the new Samsung 960 EVO pre-orders have stuck to the MSRP. I'm sure the price will likely increase after they actually start shipping (just like the Plextor M8Pe has), and then it will be up to the person to decide if it's worth it. Once again, I want one of these drives, but I've decided to wait to spring/summer until the dust settles.

 

[Valantar]

Of course very, very few actually people "need" it, but this is hardware enthusiast site. Most don't "need" a GTX 1080, 6700k, 32GB DDR4 3600, $300 motherboard, or 4k monitors. But there were people who were buying two GTX 1080 cards at launch over MSRP just to be one of the first people to own it. Did I think that was reasonable? Absolutely not. However, that's up to whoever is spending their own money.

So far the new Samsung 960 EVO pre-orders have stuck to the MSRP. I'm sure the price will likely increase after they actually start shipping (just like the Plextor M8Pe has), and then it will be up to the person to decide if it's worth it. Once again, I want one of these drives, but I've decided to wait to spring/summer until the dust settles.

I agree mostly, and I want to upgrade along these lines myself, but I don't see the point of paying through the nose for nigh-unnoticeable performance gains. If we all go along with companies raising prices way beyond the reasonable, they'll just keep going.* There's a difference between being an enthusiast and letting yourself be led by the nose by gigantic, profit-seeking corporations. It's not like they have much goodwill towards users, so why should we indulge them when they go crazy with pricing? No thanks. I'll wait it out until things normalize.

*Yes, I know what we're going to see in the next few months is the combination of essentially no high-end competition and a flash shortage due to (still low) 3D NAND production replacing planar. That still doesn't excuse price jacking. And yes, it will happen.

 

[bigpow]

Depending your use, you might not be missing 'real-world' performance much........yet.

All that extra speed looks nice though, and I will be grabbing one sometime this spring (probably the 512GB 960 EVO or the Plextor M8Pe)

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...rucial-mx300-vs-wd-red.2493272/#post-38605201

Ran this just now - man, this was very fast back in 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.2.0 Shizuku Edition x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 978.954 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 432.914 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 405.472 MB/s [ 98992.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 233.883 MB/s [ 57100.3 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 892.730 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 427.377 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 25.457 MB/s [ 6215.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 70.319 MB/s [ 17167.7 IOPS]

Test : 1024 MiB [C: 22.3% (99.7/446.6 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2016/12/06 17:40:46
OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 14393] (x64)

Of course I don't have any needs to go faster, but "We're burning daylight!"

 

[UsandThem]

Ran this just now - man, this was very fast back in 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.2.0 Shizuku Edition x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 978.954 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 432.914 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 405.472 MB/s [ 98992.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 233.883 MB/s [ 57100.3 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 892.730 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 427.377 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 25.457 MB/s [ 6215.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 70.319 MB/s [ 17167.7 IOPS]

Test : 1024 MiB [C: 22.3% (99.7/446.6 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2016/12/06 17:40:46
OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 14393] (x64)

Of course I don't have any needs to go faster, but "We're burning daylight!"

That's actually not too bad all (pretty impressive actually) for an 'old' system, but I know the "need for speed" feeling all too well. I don't need one of these drives either, but it's going to happen.

 

[Imdmn04]

I can only share my own plans. I saw the spec bench comparisons of the two models on the Samsung web-site. "Slightly slower" is such a small difference in performance that it wouldn't matter to a lot of enthusiasts who -- "unnecessarily" -- choose M.2 NVMe as a step up, even though many usage scenarios might not reveal a "look and feel" difference. Instead, the order of magnitude difference between SATA SSD and either EVO or Pro M.2 NVMe performance is the same regardless of EVO/Pro differences.

But if you have M.2 NVMe slots on your motherboard, the prices of some models might encourage you to use them sooner rather than later.

In my perspective, I have two lower tiers of storage I want to use in addition to the higher tier of RAM: SATA SSD and HDD -- for capacity at low cost. If I can cache these lower tiers to a higher tier such as M.2 NVMe, I may reduce wear and tear on the electro-mechanical storage and show performance benchies even for HDD that might come close to 80% of M.2 NVMe levels. I am already doing this with SATA devices, and the whole enchilada gets cached to DDR4 RAM, for which even 16GB-worth offers enough that I can afford to use it that way. Even for 1.5 GB allocated to a single RAM-cache, the performance benchies -- subject to criticism of course -- are ridiculous: I've seen 9,500 MB/s seq read-rate for simply caching an SSD to RAM.

I could get a single 1TB drive and put dual-boot OS configuration in two 400GB volumes, leaving 200GB to split into cache space for each OS with both SSD and HDD sources. But that's expensive. I'm likely going to buy a 256GB 960 EVO for those purposes (something around $130), and leave the OS volumes on SATA SSD.

This approach has a mixed reaction here in the forums. There is the criticism that it adds "complexity" while it reduces other aspects of it. I can only say I've been doing it on four systems for 2.5 years, and it hasn't contributed any inconvenience, disasters, or problems to any of those systems.

I'm just explaining my own plans, constituting a sort of "experiment" which I'd bet will be quite successful.

Usage will be for gaming and Adobe Lightroom cataloging/workflows.

Buying a high-end SSD now, in the face of 2-3 quarters of flash shortages, seems silly unless you don't specifically need the performance. Prices are already higher than they ought to be (and supplies near non-existent), and it's not like your regular SSD will all of a sudden start feeling excruciatingly slow in the coming 6-9 months. Wait it out, and reap the benefits both in cost savings and more choice.

I can't hold off an entire build for 9 months just because one particular component of a build is facing supply constraints. I need an SSD for the new build, so I might as well get a high end one now and be done with it in one shot instead of getting a cheaper/lower performing drive for now and hope the higher end models come down in pricing in 9 months.

 

[Valantar]

I can't hold off an entire build for 9 months just because one particular component of a build is facing supply constraints. I need an SSD for the new build, so I might as well get a high end one now and be done with it in one shot instead of getting a cheaper/lower performing drive for now and hope the higher end models come down in pricing in 9 months.

I understand that, which is why my initial advice was to go for capacity. The quote was more of a general statement in reply to UsandThem's "enthusiast" argument. If you need the drive for a new build, waiting makes no sense. You likely won't notice the difference between the speeds of the drives at all, so doubling the capacity is the best thing you can do. Otherwise, you'd risk spending $330 on an SSD that needs upgrading in a year or less.

 

[RaistlinZ]

Between the two, I'd go for the 1TB 960 EVO. Over time I think you'll appreciate the higher capacity of the EVO more than the slightly faster speeds of the PRO.

 

[KentState]

I'm going with the EVO myself. Have it on pre-order at Newegg. Have wanted a nvme drive for months, but haven't found a good price/performance version until now. The speed advantage of the Pro just ins't there for the added expense and I have yet to use an SSD longer than 3 years before moving on to something newer.

 

[deustroop]

The 1TB 960 EVO and the 512GB 960 PRO both have the same 400TB endurance rating, but the 960 EVO has a 3 year warranty as apposed to 5 years for the PRO.

Thing that impresses me is not the warranty since the drives in this threat appear to well surpass their warranty- but the 1.5 Million Hours Reliability (MTBF) of both drives--in fact that's the norm for Samsung drives at this stage. 1,500,000/ 24x7x52 is ~170 years.That is a while.

 

[Ranulf]

1tb evo is the best choice unless you're moving data around a lot. Even my 480-512 drives seem small these days when you start installing a bunch of games, especially all of the 30-60gb ones.