dennisgorelik: (Default)
[personal profile] dennisgorelik
About half a year ago Samsung released two pretty fast SSDs:
1) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LXS4TY6
Samsung 960 EVO
$479.99 for 1TB


2) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LYRCIPG
Samsung 960 PRO
$579.99 for 1TB


As you can see, PRO version is exactly $100 more expensive than EVO.

Does it worth?

According to specification:
960 EVO sequential read is up to 3.2GB/second.
960 PRO sequential read is up to 3.5GB/second.

However the reality is about 40% slower than advertising specification:
On my home server I got about 2GB/second sequential read for 960 EVO, and about 1.8 GB/second for 960 PRO.

To benchmark my SSDs I copied several files with ~80GB size into nul in Far Manager.

I used this motherboard (which is quite modern):
---
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MR0H84F
ASUS Motherboard, (PRIME Q270M-C/CSM)

---

Do you know what could be the reason why I cannot get promised 3.2 GB/second?
And why PRO has slower performance than cheaper EVO?

I even swapped PRO and EVO between NVMe slots on my motherboard, but the results were consistent: PRO was slower than EVO.

Update (thanks to mugunin):
Finally the benchmark that looks similar to what I measured (sequential read):
---
http://www.storagereview.com/samsung_960_evo_m2_nvme_ssd_review
In our 2MB sequential benchmark, the Samsung 960 EVO recorded the best results in read with 2,308.5MB/s—even beating out the 960 Pro. On writes, it came in second with 1,660.9MB/s, only losing to the Pro version.
---

960 EVO

Date: 2017-07-10 02:10 pm (UTC)
yuras68: (Default)
From: [personal profile] yuras68
I could not justify going PRO but here are my results with 500GB 960 EVO:
Sequential: R: 3,374 MB/s, W: 1,803 MB/s
Random: R: 346K IOPS, W: 284K IOPS

Date: 2017-07-26 12:42 am (UTC)
krivye_ru4ki: (Default)
From: [personal profile] krivye_ru4ki
According to specs: https://www.asus.com/ca-en/Motherboards/PRIME-Q270M-C-CSM/specifications/
used M.2 slot might be 2.0 (not 3.0), which is only (roughly) 2GB/s.

Date: 2017-07-26 05:19 pm (UTC)
krivye_ru4ki: (Default)
From: [personal profile] krivye_ru4ki
Socket 3 means 4 PCI-e lanes. If I had extra PCI-e slot, I'd try smtg like Lycom DT-120 (M.2 to PCI-e 3.0 x4) to be 100% sure.

Date: 2017-07-26 07:15 pm (UTC)
krivye_ru4ki: (Default)
From: [personal profile] krivye_ru4ki
Yep, I remember I faced similar issue earlier with M.2 slots supporting only PCI-e x2 on Z97 mobos.

Date: 2017-07-26 07:32 pm (UTC)
krivye_ru4ki: (Default)
From: [personal profile] krivye_ru4ki
There shouldn't be any. Although, if it's only PCI-e 2.0 x4, it'd be the bottleneck (2GB/s).

Date: 2017-07-26 08:00 pm (UTC)
krivye_ru4ki: (Default)
From: [personal profile] krivye_ru4ki
It was for me because that M.2 slot was PCI-e x2 only.

Date: 2017-07-26 08:13 pm (UTC)
krivye_ru4ki: (Default)
From: [personal profile] krivye_ru4ki
It was much worse, like 850 MB/s on M.2 vs 1400 on PCI-e x4. SSD is SM951 512GB.

Date: 2017-07-26 09:40 pm (UTC)
krivye_ru4ki: (Default)
From: [personal profile] krivye_ru4ki
It was NVMe, after all it works pretty good with adapter.

Date: 2017-07-26 10:46 pm (UTC)
krivye_ru4ki: (Default)
From: [personal profile] krivye_ru4ki
Yes, SSD itself was NVMe. I wouldn't be able to insert NVMe SSD to SATA M.2 slot (they have different notches).

Profile

dennisgorelik: (Default)
Dennis Gorelik

September 2017

S M T W T F S
      12
34567 8 9
1011 12131415 16
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 05:49 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios