Samsung SM951-NVMe Versus AHCI Versus SATA 850 Pro
Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
PCMark 8 Real-World Software
For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.
Here's your first real look at the two SM951s compared to Samsung's 850 Pro in real-world desktop applications. We didn't expect to see the SM951-NVMe improve over the AHCI model, but that's not the case; there is in fact a slight speed-up. Many of these tests run in a single thread at low queue depths, the Photoshop Heavy metric serving as the sole exception.
Singling out that benchmark, the two SM951s finish within two seconds of each other. The SM951-NVMe wraps up the job a full 10 seconds faster than Samsung's 850 Pro. Photoshop Heavy also shows the widest gap between the three drives. Most of the other benchmarks are separated by a few seconds or less.
Each run takes about 20 minutes to complete. Over that span of time, we see a large divide between the three products in question. The results above are presented in MB/s rather than time to complete, if only to show that those small time differences really do equate to a big impact on user experience.
Current page: PCMark 8 Real-World Software
Prev Page Random Write Steady State Next Page PCMark 8 Advanced WorkloadStay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
30-year-old Pentium FDIV bug tracked down in the silicon — Ken Shirriff takes the microscope to Intel's first-ever recall
Cyberpunk 2077 update 2.2 claims to improve Arrow Lake performance by up to 33%, theoretically matching the Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Empyrean Technology gives control to CEC after U.S. blacklisting — China’s top developer of chip design systems hands reins to state-owned firm
-
Amdlova hpv-2560 is rated 1.9A and the another one VPV-2560 is 2.7A Maybe you guys need test the power consumption.Reply -
atheus I find the preamble about comparing these M.2 drives to regular SATA drives a little odd. When SSD's first came out, of course they were compared to HDD's because that was precisely the question of the moment — how much more performance can one expect from the more expensive SSD's. With this new generation of SSD's, it's only natural to want to see them compared to the old, cheaper stuff. How else are we going to evaluate whether it's worth it to upgrade?Reply
If it only resulted in an extra 10% on a real-world test, then it wouldn't make any sense to spend double or more on a NVMe drive. With these solid numbers, though, the massive performance leap will be well worth the cost for those who can afford it. -
TechyInAZ Looks great! NVMe is defiantly the ideal solution for users that need high speed/responsive storage.Reply
I wish you guys would of compared this NVMe SSD to the Intel NVMe SSD that just came out. -
CRamseyer The Intel SSD 750 and the Samsung SM951-NVMe will show up side by side soon in another review.Reply -
CRamseyer Test systems: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/how-we-test-storage,4058.htmlReply
All three drives were tested in the PCIe test system. They are the only systems setup for testing queue depths beyond 32. -
dwnelson I'm sad the real world chart is misleading. If you show seconds instead of MB/s you'd see it doesn't justify the cost. Sad.Reply -
BoredErica The Intel SSD 750 and the Samsung SM951-NVMe will show up side by side soon in another review.
That is a natural comparison and I look forward to reading it.