Performance Comparisons – Client QD Weighted
These results attempt to simplify things by focusing on what really matters – the Queue Depths that folks actually see when using these products. A dimension is eliminated from the previous charts by applying a weighted average to those results. The weights were derived from trace recordings of moderate to heavy workloads, which still ended up running closer to QD=1-2 even on a slower SATA SSD. The intent here is to distill the results into something for those wanting 'just the facts' to grab and go when making their purchasing decisions. Don't be alarmed by the low figures. Remember, these are low queue depths – the place where these SSDs actually operate when in use by those not just running benchmarks all day!
Samsung has (rightly) been focused on low QD performance for some time now. They even went as far as to proudly place QD=1 specifications on their product page. It has paid off for them here, as weighing the results towards the more used Queue Depths results in superior real-world performance.
Again, Samsung cleans house in sequentials as well, and the 960 EVOs are not that far behind the 960 PRO (and they both beat the 950 PRO)!
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 ?