Page 1:Meet Samsung's mSATA-Based 840 EVO
Page 2:Test Setup And Benchmarks
Page 3:Results: 128 KB Sequential Performance
Page 4:Results: 4 KB Random Performance
Page 5:Results: Tom's Hardware Storage Bench
Page 6:Results: Tom's Hardware Storage Bench, Continued
Page 7:Results: PCMark 7 And PCMark Vantage
Page 8:Results: File Copy Performance With Robocopy
Page 9:Results: Power Consumption
Page 10:TRIM Testing: How Much Does The 840 EVO Benefit?
Page 11:Samsung's 840 EVO Shrinks; Gives Up Very Little
Results: File Copy Performance With Robocopy
Microsoft's Robocopy, a CLI directory replication command, gradually replaced the older xcopy. It's multi-threaded, has a ton of options, and generally outperforms vanilla Windows copy operations. Best of all, it's built right in to Redmond's operating system. Especially useful for network copy operations and backups, Robocopy doesn't stop to ask you one hundred questions while it copies over your music collection, either.
The reality of benchmarking file copy performance is that you need something fast to move data from and fast hardware to move it to. This is most important with SSDs. It doesn't matter if your drive can write sequentially at 500 MB/s if the source files are hosted on a USB 2.0-attached external hard drive. We're copying our test files from an Intel SSD DC S3700 to the drives in the chart below, taking source speed out of the equation (mostly). Moving to faster storage would increase the faster test disks' ultimate file copy performance. It begs the question though -- what is the point? Most users copying data from one source to another (in this case, a SSD) won't have the benefit of copying from a SSD RAID array or PCIe-based solid state storage, so relying on just one SSD as the source gives us the best case average.
There are 9065 files comprising the 16.2 GB payload. Some of the files are huge (up to 2 GB), while others are best described as tiny. On average, that's around 1.8 MB per file. The files are a mix of music, program, pictures, and random file types.
It's fair to say that this chart would look much different if we were copying from a hard drive to a SSD. Even if the disk drive's sequential throughput wasn't a bottleneck, it'd still choke on the smaller files.
We aren't presented with many surprises. The big SSDs are fast; the little ones are still pretty quick. Samsung's 500 and 1000 GB models take second and third place, respectively. The 120 and 250 GB units are more modest in their performances, though still quite a bit faster than their 840 progenitors, despite the transition from 2x nm 64 Gb dies to 19 nm 128 Gb dies.
- Meet Samsung's mSATA-Based 840 EVO
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Results: 128 KB Sequential Performance
- Results: 4 KB Random Performance
- Results: Tom's Hardware Storage Bench
- Results: Tom's Hardware Storage Bench, Continued
- Results: PCMark 7 And PCMark Vantage
- Results: File Copy Performance With Robocopy
- Results: Power Consumption
- TRIM Testing: How Much Does The 840 EVO Benefit?
- Samsung's 840 EVO Shrinks; Gives Up Very Little