Random Performance – Iometer (IOPS/latency), YAPT (random)
We are trying something different here. Folks tend to not like to click through pages and pages of benchmarks, so I'm going to weed out those that show little to no delta across different units (PCMark). I'm also going to group results performance trait tested. Here are the random access results:
Iometer:
Iometer is an I/O subsystem measurement and characterization tool for single and clustered systems. It was originally developed by the Intel Corporation and announced at the Intel Developers Forum (IDF) on February 17, 1998 – since then it got wide spread within the industry. Intel later discontinued work on Iometer and passed it onto the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL). In November 2001, code was dropped on SourceForge.net. Since the relaunch in February 2003, the project is driven by an international group of individuals who are continuously improving, porting and extend the product.
Iometer – IOPS
The 120GB 750 EVO comes on strong but runs out of steam at QD=32 in our file server test, and carries through using TLC for the rest of the sequence, resulting in relatively low figures on the database and workstations runs. Bear in mind that such high QD sweeps are a bit extreme for consumer SSDs, and we are introducing new testing (on the next page) that focuses on consumer appropriate workloads and lower queue depths. Despite the higher demands of this testing, the 250GB capacity of the 750 EVO fared reasonably well.
Iometer – Average Transaction Time
For SSD reviews, HDD results are removed as they throw the scale too far to tell any meaningful difference in the results. Queue depth has been reduced to 8 to further clarify the results (especially as typical consumer workloads rarely exceed QD=8). Some notes for interpreting results:
- Times measured at QD=1 can double as a value of seek time (in HDD terms, that is).
- A 'flatter' line means that drive will scale better and ramp up its IOPS when hit with multiple requests simultaneously, especially if that line falls lower than competing units.
These are average latencies included for completeness. More relevant Latency Percentile results are on the next page.
YAPT (random)
YAPT (yet another performance test) is a benchmark recommended by a pair of drive manufacturers and was incredibly difficult to locate as it hasn't been updated or used in quite some time. That doesn't make it irrelevant by any means though, as the benchmark is quite useful. It creates a test file of about 100 MB in size and runs both random and sequential read and write tests with it while changing the data I/O size in the process. The misaligned nature of this test exposes the read-modify-write performance of SSDs and Advanced Format HDDs.
YAPT is a 'misaligned' test, in that it does not adhere to 4k boundaries. This makes some SSDs flinch a bit, and appear to cause the smallest 750 EVO to blow through its cache more quickly than expected. Remember that this is a bit of a torture test and is not necessarily what would be seen in simple consumer-type of use. It's also a safe assumption that these newer Samsung firmwares are heavily optimized around 4k operations (accepted standard for current file systems), so this test may hurt a bit more than normal.
it’ll soon be 10 cents per
it’ll soon be 10 cents per gb! ;-p
I thought Samsung had decided
I thought Samsung had decided to kill of the 120/128GB models as 250/256GB SSDs cost less than 100$.
I don’t see the point of
I don’t see the point of 120gb HDD’s anymore, at least not at only $20 less than a 240gb. Sure, they are just going to be used for boot drives only, but the 240’s always seem to perform better so you’d want to go that route for a boot drive anyway and reap the benefit of being able to put more of your most used apps on it.
They look ridiculous when
They look ridiculous when opened up. I guess we need a different form factor for SSDs.
hehe, I totally agree, 2.5″
hehe, I totally agree, 2.5″ doesn’t make any sense for these drives. Luckily we have m.2
Yeah this is what mSATA and
Yeah this is what mSATA and M.2 are for 🙂
I am almost surprised they
I am almost surprised they didn’t just put an m.2 SATA device in there with a little adaptor.
I don’t know if I can trust
I don’t know if I can trust Samsung after that massive Evo debacle, at least not without waiting a year or two while everyone beta-tests this drive. The three year warranty doesn’t really inspire much confidence either. Kind of puts me off SSDs entirely.
I agree with you, and we will
I agree with you, and we will leave data on these for safe keeping / future retests, but Samsung specifically pointed out to me that the 750 EVO will not see a repeat of the slow down issue seen on the 840 EVO. I believe them for four reasons:
I have two 840 EVO 250 GB
I have two 840 EVO 250 GB running as extra drives on this system (with an 850 EVO 500GB as system drive) and I still see the slowdown after the firmware fix. Every 3-4 months or so I have to run the Advanced Performance Optimization in Magician, the firmware itself is not enough for older files.
Now I have hammered these drives a bit using them as temp/caching for torrents etc. but still…
Random writes from torrent
Random writes from torrent writing will slow down drives for reasons other than the fixed issue – you're fragmenting the flash itself. Performance optimization forces a defrag of the flash (in addition to rewriting everything), which explains the recovery you are seeing.
But who on earth would buy a
But who on earth would buy a 120GB SSD at today’s prices? I wouldn’t even touch a 250GB drive now, the cost per GB has fallen so much, but at least that should be the new entry level, just drop the 120GB unit and do the cheapskates a long term favour.
120GB actually still works
120GB actually still works when you consider typical desktop folks using mostly productivity apps, especially if they have the bulk storage handled by their home NAS. Can't disagree on that $20 difference to double the capacity though. It's almost a no brainer decision.
“Lets compare those prices to
“Lets compare those prices to what we saw for the 840 EVO launch back in July of 2014”
You mean 2013.
Fixed. Thanks!
Fixed. Thanks!
Even more interesting pricing
Even more interesting pricing wise is launch 840 Evo 512 GB vs 950 Pro. 950 Pro is less for like 5x performance in 2.5 years. Can we get another 5x in next few years?
How do you feel about raid 0
How do you feel about raid 0 with 2 (or 4 because of price) 750’s
These should do just fine in
These should do just fine in RAID-0, and a 4-SSD array of these would be 1TB for $300. Also, it might actually outperform a single 950 Pro when it comes to low latencies seen in SSD RAID.
I wish companies would stop
I wish companies would stop cranking-out these cookie-cutter SATA-limited drives and start focusing on PCIE nvme.
I’d love to replace the slow PM951 m.2 PCIE drive that shipped in my new XPS15 with an 850 Pro, but the price per GB is still too high.
Some competition would be nice to drive prices down, and really, every SSD these days pegs SATA, so why keep ‘innovating’ in that space?
It’s all in the name of
It’s all in the name of driving down $/GB. I agree that we would all like to see m.2 PCIE nvme $/GB come down as well, but I think a lot of the more casual users and OEMs are just looking for the lowest $/GB, and with SATA maxed out that’s more than enough performance for that class of user.
They cant drop SATA as then
They cant drop SATA as then the market shrinks by a massive amount, probably 90%+, blame intel for choosing to not provide nvme bios updates for older chipsets.
Maybe I missed it, but will
Maybe I missed it, but will there be an M.2 form factor?
“I don’t see the point of
“I don’t see the point of 120gb HDD’s anymore,”
“But who on earth would buy a 120GB SSD at today’s prices? I wouldn’t even touch a 250GB drive now,”
“I wish companies would stop cranking-out these cookie-cutter SATA-limited drives and start focusing on PCIE nvme.”
“Maybe I missed it, but will there be an M.2 form factor?”
Guys-go back to page 1-
“Samsung will drop the 120GB capacity of that line and replace it with a new OEM / system builder destined 750 EVO:”
These drives are mainly for OEM’s-And they pay much less than we do.I’d much prefer to see a 120 GB SSD in a $300 lappy than
5400 RPM Spinning rust….
It’s not certain yet what availability of these drives will be in retail……………………………………….
The 120GB are really for
The 120GB are really for legacy computers. Some older hardware is limited in the amount of storage it can recognise. I just installed a 120GB 750EVO in my old Netbook. I use Lubuntu and a limited number of applications, I still have 112GB free as it stands, largely because I don’t put movies or music on my netbook.