dennisgorelik: (Default)
[personal profile] dennisgorelik
About half a year ago Samsung released two pretty fast SSDs:
Samsung 960 EVO
$479.99 for 1TB

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):
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):
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


dennisgorelik: (Default)
Dennis Gorelik

July 2017

9 101112 131415

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 20th, 2017 12:35 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios