SSD Deathmatch: Crucial's M500 Vs. Samsung's 840 EVO
-
Page 1:Crucial's New m4 (Plus 496) Gets Reviewed
-
Page 2:Inside Of Crucial's M500 SSD
-
Page 3:Test Setup And Benchmarks
-
Page 4:Results: 128 KB Sequential Reads
-
Page 5:Results: 128 KB Sequential Write
-
Page 6:Results: 4 KB Random Reads
-
Page 7:Results: 4 KB Random Writes
-
Page 8:Results: Tom's Storage Bench v1.0
-
Page 9:Results: Tom's Storage Bench, Continued
-
Page 10:Results: PCMark 7 And PCMark Vantage
-
Page 11:Results: File Copy
-
Page 12:Results: Power Consumption
-
Page 13:Head To Head: Crucial's M500s Vs. Samsung's 840 EVOs
-
Page 14:We Like The High-Capacity Crucial M500 SSDs Best...
Results: Tom's Storage Bench, Continued
Service Times
Beyond the average data rate reported on the previous page, there's even more information we can collect from Tom's Storage Bench. For instance, mean (average) service times show what responsiveness is like on an average I/O during the trace.
It would be difficult to graph the 10+ million I/Os that make up our test, so looking at the average time to service an I/O makes more sense. For a more nuanced idea of what's transpiring during the trace, we plot mean service times for reads against writes. That way, drives with better latency show up closer to the origin; lower numbers are better.
Write latency is simply the total time it takes an input or output operation to be issued by the host operating system, travel to the storage subsystem, commit to the storage device, and have the drive acknowledge the operation. Read latency is similar. The operating system asks the storage device for data stored in a certain location, the SSD reads that information, and then it's sent to the host. Modern computers are fast and SSDs are zippy, but there's still a significant amount of latency involved in a storage transaction.
In the chart above, drives that finish closer to the bottom offer better write latency. Moreover, the further you go to the left, the better the read latency is.
With that in mind, all four M500s are comparably quick when it comes to read access times in our trace. Write latency is another story, though. We've already established that write speed is heavily dependent on a drive's total number of dies and the controller's ability to utilize them in parallel. Up to a point, more flash devices give you lower write latency. This is evident in the massive spread between 120, 240, 480, and 960 GB M500s. Clearly, they're a lot further apart vertically than horizontally.
The 480 and 960 GB drives are fairly similar in all of our benchmarks. In fact, the 480 GB model gets a slight performance edge, suggesting that's the sweet spot right now with 128 Gb NAND and Marvell's 9187 controller.
All of the SSDs we're testing occupy a very narrow range of service times. Really, every product easily knocks our real-world read-based workload out of the part. If we're to get specific, Samsung's drives are the quickest, though we can't say if that's from their three-core controllers or faster flash memory. It's entirely possible that a slower interface is to blame for the M500's slightly lower results.
This trace has over twice as many read I/Os as writes, though writes account for more throughput. And here's where the testing gets dicey for Crucial's smaller M500s.
The 256 GB-class m4 and M500 behave almost identically. Samsung's 840 EVO drives enjoy a huge advantage due to Turbo Write, which emulates SLC. SanDisk's submissions do as well, since they also sport a technology that replicates the behavior of SLC, called nCache. Likewise, the OCZ Vector leverages a similar capability, though each specific implementation is different. OCZ's approach is the quickest of the three, taking first place in our trace for writes and second place for reads.
Crucial's M500 doesn't benefit from those fancy caching features, but rather holds its own through a more conventional design. The two larger models, specifically, perform admirably.
- Crucial's New m4 (Plus 496) Gets Reviewed
- Inside Of Crucial's M500 SSD
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Results: 128 KB Sequential Reads
- Results: 128 KB Sequential Write
- Results: 4 KB Random Reads
- Results: 4 KB Random Writes
- Results: Tom's Storage Bench v1.0
- Results: Tom's Storage Bench, Continued
- Results: PCMark 7 And PCMark Vantage
- Results: File Copy
- Results: Power Consumption
- Head To Head: Crucial's M500s Vs. Samsung's 840 EVOs
- We Like The High-Capacity Crucial M500 SSDs Best...
The SSD 840 is rated for 1000 P/E cycles, though it's been seen doing more like ~3000. At 10GB/day, a 240GB would last for 24,000 days, or about
766 years, and that's using the 1K figure.You're free to waste money if you want, but SLC now has little place outside write-heavy DB storage.
EDIT: Screwed up by an order of magnitude.
You are totally correct! You win a gold star, because I didn't even notice. Thanks for catching it, and it should be fixed now.
Regards,
Christopher Ryan
Not only are consumer workloads completely gentle on SSDs, but modern controllers are super awesome at expanding NAND longevity. I was able to burn through 3000+ PE cycles on the Samsung 840 last year, and it only is rated at 1,000 PE cycles or so. You'd have to put almost 1 TB a day on a 120 GB Samsung 840 TLC to kill it in a year, assuming it didn't die from something else first.
Regards,
Christopher Ryan
You may be thinking of the controller failures some of the Sandforce drives had, which are completely unrelated to the type of NAND used.
I would like to see, can TH use SSD put this 10GB/day and see for how long it will work.
After this I read this article, I think that Crucial's M500 hit the jackpot. Will see Samsung's response. And that's very good for end consumer.
Show me a report with a reasonable sample size (more than a couple of dozen drives) that says they have >50% annual failures.
A couple of years ago Tom's posted this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html
The majority of failures were firmware-caused by early Sandforce drives. That's gone now.
EDIT: Missed your post. First off, that's a perfect example of self-selection. Secondly, those who buy multiple SSDs will appear to have n times the actual failure rate, because if any fail they all appear to fail. Thirdly, that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a 1bpc or 3 bpc SSD - that's what you started off with.
Sounds a bit like a sore loser argument, unfortunately.
SSDs aren't perfect, but they generally do live long enough to not be a problem. Most of the failures have been overcome by now too.
Just realised there's an error in my original post - off by a factor of ten. Should have been 66 years.
Tell that to all the people on this forum still running intel X-25M that launched all the way back in 2008 and my Samsung 830 that's been working just fine for over a year.......
See what you're paying attention too is the loudest group of ssd owners. The owners that have failed ssd's.
See it's the classic "if someone has a problem, there going to be the one that you hear and the quiet group, isn't having the problem" issue.
Those that dont have issues (such as myself) dont mention about our ssds and is probably complaining about something else that has failed.
Those don't seem like opinions to me. It's customary to include some form of leeway in the sentence, like 'IMHO', 'often', or 'I've heard' etc.
Assuming the system has more than enough RAM to avoid needing any significant amount of swapping. If someone with 4GB RAM uses a 16GB swapfile to avoid upgrading to the 8-16GB RAM he really should have, he could end up writing over 1GB/minute.
I have ended up over-crowding my RAM many times in the past and it has a tendency to make my computers practically unusable when using mechanical HDDs at which point I had to spread my programs and swapfile across multiple HDDs to reduce the IO load on individual drives. I imagine this would burn through SSDs fairly quickly.
Anecdotal evidence is pretty useless. People with very good or very bad experiences tend to write reviews. People generally don't write reviews for random pieces of hardware that just work as expected. Provide citations with statistics to support your statements if you want anyone to take them seriously.
You are entitled to your opinion but you are making bold statements without any facts. A lot of people use forums like these to research products they are thinking about buying and you are spreading misinformation about SSD's without and evidence for your statements. I personally have 4 computers with SSD's in them that are over 2 years old and I haven't had a single issue or failure. It really pisses me off when people start spreading inaccurate statements that may turn away a potential user of a SSD. Out of all the PC upgrades I have done in the past 12 years the SSD has been the best most noticeable improvement I have done.
Just to stick an oar into the reliability issue, my Samsung 830 has run reliably for over two years now. The only SSDs I had fail in use were a couple of Sandforce drives, but their replacements have thus far been reliable. I think InvalidError has a good point about RAM though; I tend to use at least 8GB, which probably cuts down swapping quite a bit. I also prefer to close programs completely rather than have a lot of windows open, which would also reduce swapping. With a SSD, they re-open pretty quickly anyway.
LOL, when you come onto an article about SSD's and say nonsense like you did, you have to expect to get hate buddy. MLC/TLC is very viable and lasts much longer than a year kid, some drives do fail, and if they do you get your replacement. Other peoples drives are not lemons and last a normal lifetime, common sense bro.
Oh, I highly recommend getting the drive migration kit from Crucial for ~$20. It makes like much easier. It's a USB 3.0 SATA drive connector for your M500. Then just boot the supplied CD and run it in auto mode to copy over your drive exactly and make any sizing adjustments needed to the partitions to get it to fit. It works very nicely.
Once again the 840 Pro is in the top three of nearly every test and is the clear performance leader IMO. While the EVO is interesting, the Pro has the chops to be the best without tricks like "turbo-cache," which is an interesting feature.
It seems like the quality of each new generation of nand memory goes down and not up. The smaller die sizes seem to be the culprit. It reminds me of the race to increase the number of pixels in cameras. Having more pixels does not guarantee better pictures and too many pixels can actually hurt the camera sensor's performance.
The never ceasing shrinking nand sizes appear to have the same types of diminishing returns.
well next gen's equivalent to 840 pro will be shrunk with similar performance im sure. They will figure out the smaller nand deficits to make up for the performance im sure. Otherwise they wouldnt be pushing it so much.
Did I read this correctly?
I chose a single SSD over a Raid 0 SSD to make sure TRIM command was supported.
Is this true about Intel RST?