Samsung is taking the wraps off its new flagship 840 Pro SSD. It's promising better performance, lower power consumption, a five-year warranty, and aggressive pricing. Is such a compelling combination of benefits really possible in such a crowded market?
Test Setup And Benchmarks
We upgraded our storage platform's motherboard to Gigabyte's G1.Sniper M3, hoping to tinker around with HD Graphics 4000 for an image quality story. However, we still wanted to keep our SSD results as comparable to previous findings as possible. So, we're still using Intel's Core i5-2400 for testing.
mayankleoboy1Kudos to Samsung for getting ahead of the competition yet again. And the complete SSD is designed and manufactured in house! And thay are sure of its reliability, hence the 5 year warranty. I dont see why it did not get a Toms approved award.... its faster, uses less power, and offers better warranty than the competition. And the firmware is also stable, unlike SF.
Probably because it still costs $600 for a pathetic 512gb of memory. Once you can get 512gb for under $200 and have a life span that gets close to a decent HDD, then you can expect an award.
They keep increasing the speed, but they do nothing to reduce the COST. I would take an SSD half as fast as some that are out now if they cost me half as much and had a decent amount of storage. It's still pointless for someone like me who has over 1.5TB of space used. I can't load Windows and all of my critical programs on a 256GB SSD, and the 512GB wouldn't give me much wiggle room. Not to mention my sample libraries that would benefit from the speed... that are hundreds of GB each.
To those that complain about SSD life span, the truth is that in 3 years(typical warranty of an SSD) you won't be using the same SSD because the new SSD will be 40-50% faster. 3 year from now I'd be using the 860 Pro with anyway and when an SSD reach end life it just can't write anymore, you can still read all the files onto your new SSD unlike a hard drive that just breaks down.