Internals, Testing Methodology and System Setup
Internals
At the rear we have, well, nothing but a label.
I'm leaving the heat spreading labels in place and undisturbed until I can do some detailed temperature testing, which due to time constraints will have to be after this review goes up.
Finally here is the 960 PRO next to its older brother. For some reason, Samsung decided to flip the label around this time.
Testing Methodology
Our tests are a mix of synthetic and real-world benchmarks. IOMeter, HDTach, HDTune, Yapt and our custom File Copy test round out the selection to cover just about all bases. If you have any questions about our tests just drop into the Storage Forum and we'll help you out!
Test System Setup
We have several storage testbeds. A newer ASUS P8Z77-V Pro/Thunderbolt and an ASUS Z87-PRO. Variance between both boards has been deemed negligible when testing SATA devices. Future PCIe and SATA device testing, including this review, take place on a new ASUS Sabertooth X99, which comes equipped with USB 3.1, M.2, and can also handle SFF-8639 devices with the proper adapter.
PC Perspective would like to thank Intel, ASUS, Corsair, Kingston, and EVGA for supplying some of the components of our test rigs.
| Hard Drive Test System Setup | |
| CPU | Intel Core i7 5820K @ 4.125 GHz |
| Motherboard | ASUS Sabertooth X99 |
| Memory | 16GB Micron DDR4 @ 3333 |
| Hard Drive | G.Skill 32GB SLC SSD |
| Sound Card | N/A |
| Video Card | EVGA GeForce GTX 750 |
| Video Drivers | GeForce Game Ready Driver 347.88 |
| Power Supply | Corsair CMPSU-650TX |
| DirectX Version | N/A |
| Operating System | Windows 8.1 Pro X64 (update) |
PCPer File Copy TestHDTachHDTuneIOMeterYAPT- NEW TEST SUITE!!!
Perhaps fanciful, but i agree
Perhaps fanciful, but i agree it could be a killer app?
“Conclusion: we have now reached a new era
in which mass storage is capable of performing
at close to the same sequential performance
as volatile DDR3 DRAM. Four such M.2 SSDs
in RAID-0 mode == ~8TB (before formatting).”
My take on it would be a less ambitious 2 drive raid 0 of 512gm 960 ssds.Best performing and cheaper.
PCIe Gen 3.0 allows 1GB ps per lane, bidirectionally, so 2GB per lane theoretical max.
OR, 8GB ps for the 4 lane dual M.2 ports on moboS.
In theory thats sufficient to max out 2 raid 0 960 ssdS, but 3500MB ps sequential reads (writes are 2100MB), are of course unidirectional.
so in theory it seems raid 0 pair of 960s yields 4000MB sustained, read or write.
I am pretty sure we will see 8 lanes available to m.2 mobo sockets (even w/ bargain AMD Ryzen mobos & cpus (32 lanes BTW)), allowing 7000/4400 MB ps read write in theory, w/o fancy controllers.
I dunno the numbers for ram bandwidth. a lot better am sure. not sure thats a deal breaker for my argument.
point is, 7000/4400MB are numbers in a league of their own compared to anything before – even in the server world. Its a new paradigm for coders.
ok, using it for virtual memory isnt as fast as real memory, but shit its big. I dunno enough about architecture etc., but a TB of ram may open many possibilities for completely new approaches to old coding problems.
the killer benefit of ssdS was fast random access. It transformed our PCs.
~150MB ps sequential was livable, access times were the killer on HDDs performance.
As many have said re the 960, more of the same will be barely noticed by many.
give a gamer 1 TB of passable virtual memory, and apps which use it, then that could be revolutionary.
it bears repeating btw, that IOPS has shown even more stellar performance gains in the 960, and I imagine thats important for virtual memory. As we hear, many consider this the main reason to spend the extra for the 960 over the 950.
PS, upon reflection, poor
PS, upon reflection, poor mans raid 0 on 4 lanes is still attractive for swap/page files, even with little read speed gain. Write speed almost doubles from a theoretical 2200 MB ps to 4000MB ps.