Performance Comparisons – Sequential and Random
Just as we did on the last page, I'll start us off with Sequentials:
Since the last review, I've tested *a lot* of SSDs on the new suite, but for these comparisons I'm keeping the selection limited to a reasonable 8 devices. I've included mostly NVMe parts, but also tossed in an Intel SSD 750 and an 850 EVO to represent SATA. Recall that all data points here are the result of cumulative sampling across multiple percentages of allocated space. If you see what looks like an outlier or a weird dip, rest assured that apparent aberration was repeatable and consistent.
Speaking to the above two charts, in reads, the 960 EVOs both take a bit of a queue to 'spool up' to to near the throguhput of the 960 PRO, and are actually bested by the 950 PRO at QD=2. Still a very impressive result. Writes are reasonably flat for most SSDs as they hit full speed at QD=1. The 960 EVO 250GB (orange plot line) sits relatively flat at just over 1.5 GB/s, while the 1TB model nips at the heels of the 960 PRO all the way acorss the chart.
Now for random:
While consumer usage rarely exceeds QD=8, we extend these charts out to QD=256 to evaluate manufacturers claimed performance maximums. Our exclusive burst test is the only way to properly evaluate the random write performance of caching SSDs. Here we saw the 250GB 960 EVO clip past 350,000 IOPS, while the 1TB model actually rode so closely to the plot line of the 960 PRO that it is hiding behind it nearly perfectly across the entire plot.
Hmm, maybe add 850 evo raid
Hmm, maybe add 850 evo raid into the chart? Obviously testing every single drive in raid takes way too long, but raid 850 evo or raid of a budget drive seems like an interesting data point that doesn’t take way too long.
As tempting as it may be I
As tempting as it may be I cannot find myself ever buying a TLC drive for anything other than a scratch drive, cache drive etc.
Why? Because of the lifespan
Why? Because of the lifespan of TLC drives?
https://us.hardware.info/reviews/4178/hardwareinfo-tests-lifespan-of-samsung-ssd-840-250gb-tlc-ssd-updated-with-final-conclusion
As an AMD owner, I’d love to
As an AMD owner, I’d love to see benchmarks of this on a motherboard with a PCIe 2.0 4x m.2 connector (like the Gigabyte 990fx-gamer). Does it completely saturate the 20Gb/s bandwidth?
Wow, poor showing in the
Wow, poor showing in the Intel 600p. I feel bad for those who upgraded to the Intel drive on the assumption NVME would be a big boost over a SATA6GB SSD.
The Client QD weighted chart makes it look like it might actually be worth upgrading from a SATA to NVME SSD for real world performance.
I’m curious where the OEM LiteON SSD in my Dell laptop would fit into the mix.
Awesome review. Really like
Awesome review. Really like the detailed info about the topic. I would love to ask one thing about these drives. Will I gain any performance boost by moving from X79 (DMI 1) to Z170 (DMI 3) ?
Thanks 😉
question about endurance or
question about endurance or TBW ssd 960 evo 250gb.
it’s said 100 TBW but is it true
for for example i have ssd mx300 and according to crucial software
and other software like crstal disk the total write is 500000gb and life of the ssd around 15%, in the website of crucial the TBW of the ssd 160 TBW so it clean way above that.
i am interesting in buying the SSD 960 evo 250GB SO MY QUESTION IS :
WHAT IS THE REAL TWB OF THE SSD 960 EVO or the max write of the ssd until it die ?