Samsung 840 EVO SSD: Tested At 120, 250, 500, And 1000 GB

Results: 4 KB Random Writes

4 KB Random Write

The performance hit finally becomes apparent when we start ripping off 4 KB random writes. Samsung's 120 GB 840 EVO trails the rest of the crew, but then again it's only expected to hit 35,000 IOPS with a boost from Turbo Write. The 250 GB model plateaus with four outstanding commands. It does hit Samsung's specified target though, settling around 66,000 IOPS. Neither the 500 GB nor the 1 TB versions quite make it to 90,000 IOPS, though the largest configuration nearly gets there at a queue depth of eight.

Without question, random write performance is extremely important. Early SSDs didn't do well in this discipline, seizing up even in lightweight workloads. Newer drives proffer more than 100x the performance of solid-state storage from 2007. However, we also see a point of diminishing returns on the desktop.

It'd be easy to single out the 120 GB 840 EVO as the family's misfit. Just remember that it's only slow by comparison. In absolute terms, it still blows away the responsiveness of a mechanical disk.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
64 comments
    Your comment
  • Surely it would make sense to compare it to the vanilla SSD840. Also, there's no 840 Pro in the power charts.

    While the 1TB drive coming down to ~65c/GB is nice, seeing the 120 GB drives get near there would be nice. Especially since this is meant to be the value king.
    1
  • I have 2 840 pro 512 GB SSD's (1 on my notebook 1 on my PC)

    I got them on a sale on Newegg for around $500 for both of them. :)

    A 1TB would be cool if I find it on sale....
    or maybe I should try out writing a letter to someone fat in some weird red costume...
    -2
  • The performance gap between the 840 Evo and 840 Pro is discouraging for the lower capacity models. I understand that the Pro is the flagship product but I was expecting less of a gap in in the 120GB models since this is a newer generation product and the 840 Pro is still based on the 21nm MLC NAND. However, the 1TB model is is a great choice for mass SSD storage. Lets hope the prices drop below $0.50 per GB soon.
    6
  • MLC is faster than TLC, and bigger node NAND is usually faster. Only reason to go smaller is price and power.
    1
  • I wonder if samsung plans on releasing a pro evo series since the regular series evo is to replace the older non pro versions.
    0
  • ripoff, high prices for triple level flash especially at 19mm, the lifespan will likely suck and their shortened warranty represents that.
    -3
  • Cost for performance = Very High . ofcourse its not going to perform like a Pro but for the cost im amazed its that much better than the Regular 840.
    0
  • Samsung makes some good looking drives. I'm loving the matte grey.
    3
  • Glad this review also refutes the perception of low TLC write endurance in normal desktop workloads. Been using a 128GB 840 in a daily-use desktop for eight months now and the endurance counter hasn't decremented at all. I'll have replaced the entire rig long before it wears out.
    0
  • Interesting review. I think the point to remember is that the 840 EVO is not a high end enthusiast ssd like the 840 Pro. Instead, consider the 840 EVO as a mainstream ssd suitable for most consumer and home office scenarios.
    4
  • Interesting review. I think the point to remember is that the 840 EVO is not a high end enthusiast ssd like the 840 Pro. Instead, consider the 840 EVO as a mainstream ssd suitable for most consumer and home office scenarios.
    -2
  • Very interesting article. I would love to see it compared to m-500 in the charts as that seems to be the really direct competition. Is the caching feature in magician windows only? No OSX or Linux?
    1
  • Very interesting article. I would love to see it compared to m-500 in the charts as that seems to be the really direct competition. Is the caching feature in magician windows only? No OSX or Linux?
    0
  • The question is, does it suffer from the sudden bricking some SSD (including the 840 Pro) experience? And is RAPID the first fruit from the Nvelo acquisition? If so that is a data-loss bonanza. I hope Tom's can check into that further as promised.
    0
  • hmm was going to buy a regular 840 because it was on sale for $90. Think ill just hold off for the EVO
    0
  • Nice, but I still run an X58 system, with slower SATA, so I can't take advantage of this.

    Samsung: I need this drive with 2 SATA connectors so it makes possible to create a virtual RAID, and squeeze the drive performance.

    Is clear that newer drivers are bottlenecked by the fastest SATA, so out of PCIE drives, virtual RAIDS are necessary.
    0
  • I really like that the new Evo 120GB is able to achieve 410 MB/s of write speed! That's such a big jump from the disappointing 130 MB/s of the previous 840 it replaces. When you think about it that was pretty much the same write speed as a mechanical drive lol.
    2
  • I really like that the new Evo 120GB is able to achieve 410 MB/s of write speed! That's such a big jump from the disappointing 130 MB/s of the previous 840 it replaces. When you think about it that was pretty much the same write speed as a mechanical drive lol.
    0
  • Sorry for the double-post guys the website is acting funny. I got "an error occurred" after trying to post the first comment, but it looks like it went through anyways.
    3
  • You don't get the 120 GB's 410 MB/s all the time, but you should get a substantial increase in day to day activity. If you look at the Robocopy results, you'll see that if you try copying 16.2 GB worth of stuff it's not much faster. On the other hand, if you're just copying a few GB from one drive to another, the EVO 120 GB can be almost as fast -- almost -- as the 840 Pro.

    Regards,
    C. Ryan

    186433 said:
    I really like that the new Evo 120GB is able to achieve 410 MB/s of write speed! That's such a big jump from the disappointing 130 MB/s of the previous 840 it replaces. When you think about it that was pretty much the same write speed as a mechanical drive lol.
    3