Internals, Testing Methodology and System Setup
Internals
The 500GB model needed four flash packages so achieve the 500GB capacity, so the PCB is a bit larger than the comically small version present in the 120GB and 250GB capacities.
The 750 EVO lineup uses 16nm planar (non-3D) flash at 128Gbit (16GB) per die. Note that there is no external DDR on the 120 and 250GB models, as that 256MB is integrated into the controller package.
Given these are octal die packages, we need four for the 500GB, two for the 250GB, and only a single package for the 120GB model.
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. We have developed a custom test suite as off-the-shelf tests just no longer cut it for in-depth storage testing. More details on the next page. 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 a Gigabyte Z170X SOC Force (for RAID testing). 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, Gigabyte, 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!!!
On the page “Performance
On the page “Performance Focus – 750 EVO 250GB” under the first graph it says “Very impressive speeds for the 1TB 960 EVO. […]”.
Clearly that’s wrong 😀
Fixed. Thanks!
Fixed. Thanks!
You’re welcome 😉
You’re welcome 😉
Was Samsung 840 EVO really
Was Samsung 840 EVO really worth Editor’s Choice Award?
840 EVO? Back when it
840 EVO? Back when it launched? Sure. There were issues that were fixed, but could not be discovered at the time of the review.
hey Allyn, is it possible to
hey Allyn, is it possible to include some raid0 SATA devices on your chart? for example samsung 850 pro raid 0 or 960 pro raid 0 to see how it fairs with single drives.
I understand due to raid latency, QD1 performance would drop but since your chart shows average of 1-4QD this would see some improvement in terms of raid, also see how well does SSD caching with intel RST would benefit us over single drive.
Isn’t the 750 EVO EOL now?
Isn’t the 750 EVO EOL now?
I love your write up about
I love your write up about the Latency Percentile. Your storage reviews are by far more realistic with some real engineering behind it. Keep up the great work!
Still waiting on a Storage
Still waiting on a Storage Leader board, like have the stats of all of them on an consistently updated page.
The 500GB 750 Evo is $241,
The 500GB 750 Evo is $241, the 500GB 850 Evo is $170. You’d be a fool to buy the lesser 750 for more than the better 850.
You would be a fool to pay
You would be a fool to pay that, especially since you can get one practically anywhere for ~$145-155 depending on tax/shipping.
Hi Allyn.
Wishing you all a
Hi Allyn.
Wishing you all a happy festive season………………
Samsung and Sandisk(rip)were the only ones to get a grip
on planer TLC.That Ultra 2 result in the write cache test
is really strange.
I remember when you did a comparison a while back I asked
if you could include ultra 2 which was using folding on
each individual die-obviously you were too busy.
Guess something was going on in the background there…..
As to the 750 EVO’s-the 250 and 500 pass my requirements.
1.More than 8000 IOPS read QD1.(must for a boot drive)
2.Write more than 200MB after the cache(cant have it slower
than my spinning rust)
Would be great if this huge
Would be great if this huge chart was searchable and not as an image. I wonder if my Toshiba Toshiba THNSNJ is somewhere there…