Spotted: Samsung's 850 EVO SSD
Samsung appears to be working on a new mainstream SSD.
LesNumeriques has managed to catch a glimpse of a new product from Samsung at IFA – the 850 EVO SSD. The product hasn't been officially announced yet, but based on the information given at the booth and the target group of the existing 840 EVO SSD, we can make a handful of assumptions.
The information that was revealed at the booth is that the unit will be the first SSD geared at a mainstream audience with 3-bit 3D V-NAND. The first SSD to carry 3D V-NAND was the just-released Samsung 850 Pro SSD. The unit is also a 3-bit unit, which means that it will use TLC NAND memory.
The "3D" part in 3D V-NAND means that rather than shrinking the NAND cells to be smaller, Samsung is stacking the NAND cells in multiple layers in order to attain higher data densities. You might wonder what is the point of higher densities, but the answer is simple: lower cost per gigabyte of data. Combine that with using TLC NAND and you've got yourself a very affordable design for a mainstream SSD in the 850 EVO.
We don't really know much more about the units. Hopefully, more info will be available soon.
Follow Niels Broekhuijsen @NBroekhuijsen. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

10 year warranty!!! I gotta get my paws on one of these babies.
use 2 sata ports and software that sets it up as a raid 0, there, just increased the speed by two... could probably have 4 way without to much extra cost too.
use 2 sata ports and software that sets it up as a raid 0, there, just increased the speed by two... could probably have 4 way without to much extra cost too.
You have potentially doubled throughput, you have not doubled performance. What makes the SSD user experience so much better than traditional hard drives is not the higher throughput but the much quicker access time. Access time with SSD's is to the point it is nearly impossible to improve performance by a perceptible amount for every day computing.
stop typing out this smut.
I dare you to actually sit down and document the difference in the user experience between using a Samsung 800-series SSD on a SATA-II port vs SATA-III. Then you can decide if we want Samsung to focus on developing a faster interface or if we'd rather have them focus on increasing density and economy so we can have TB SSDs as cheap as platter drives.
I dare you to actually sit down and document the difference in the user experience between using a Samsung 800-series SSD on a SATA-II port vs SATA-III. Then you can decide if we want Samsung to focus on developing a faster interface or if we'd rather have them focus on increasing density and economy so we can have TB SSDs as cheap as platter drives.
Something about PCIx interface based SSDs...
No reason an 850 EVO couldn't offer a 2TB or 3TB capacity.
But the reason the drive became so popular is because of its cheap price, good overall performance, and nice feature set. Mix in that familiar Samsung brand name which naturally draws consumers towards your products and you've got a hot seller.
Also all drives generally reduce in speed after being over 50% full. Well now that might be a myth as I don't think no one has done any testing on that notion for SSDs but it's generally true for HDDs.
But the reason the drive became so popular is because of its cheap price, good overall performance, and nice feature set. Mix in that familiar Samsung brand name which naturally draws consumers towards your products and you've got a hot seller.
Also all drives generally reduce in speed after being over 50% full. Well now that might be a myth as I don't think no one has done any testing on that notion for SSDs but it's generally true for HDDs.
I’m not 100% sure as I’m old and forgetful but… No, the EVOs slow down the moment you put data on them, some nonsense about the 3bit cells. The only time I got the 400MBs-ish reads was on the parts of the drive with no data. The over 50-70% thing is an SSD thing, hard disc drives don’t have that issue.
So, you are paying way more but:
It’s really slow with small files, it slows down the moment you put data on it, It’s un realistically slow after you’ve used it for a time and or it get 50%+ full, it’s not a real TB, even though you have to or should overprovision it and make it even smaller. So your 1TB drive is not 1TB it’s 900GB before you overprovision and you can’t use more than half of it without it slowing to a crawl. Then people think the SATA ports are too slow. Not even.
They lie (about all HDs) and say a GB is 1000MB, it is not! It is and always will be 1024MB. Even though Apple caved in a recent OS update as they were tired of support calls from people wanting to know why their 500GB drive was not 500GB. So your 1TB drive is not 1TB it’s 900GB. I’m old enough to remember when they lied (made up their own rules) and said something like, well a MB is 1024K until 100MBs or some such BS and then it’s 1000k and that’s why when you by RAM you actually get 32MB when you buy 32MB. Oh really, so when the file is in RAM it’s 1MB but when I save it to the HD it’s now 1.024MB. Right!