1TB Samsung Msata. Anyone with experience with it any heat issues?

I'm planning on putting one in my e7240 but there is so little space in it I need it to run fairly cool. I've heard the 1tb runs hotter than the 500gb and 250gb variant? Is this true?

 

My 1TB EVO mSATA ran cooler than a Crucial M500 when I did comparative tests.

I've just done a quick test in my E7440 (where my 1TB EVO has been since August): The SSD started off at 39C (computer has been on for about 10 hours) so I ran CrystalDiskMark which warmed it up to a maximum of 62C. That's noticeably warmer than my original testing, perhaps because the SSD is nearer the middle of the E7440 whereas it sits in the corner of the Samsung notebook (and has me wondering what temperature the Crucial SSD would reach in the E7440). Nonetheless, 62C under benchmark testing is comfortably below the 70C where the SSD might start to throttle itself. Unless the mSATA slot is next to the CPU in the E7240 then I don't think you need to worry about the temperature. CDM also showed that my SSD hasn't noticeably lost performance. In fact, the 4k write performance has improved.

If you get the EVO (there isn't much choice if you want 1TB mSATA) then also install the Samsung SSD Magician and if that doesn't update the firmware to EXT42B6Q (or higher number) then also see this thread.

John

PS: This really belongs in the SSD sub-forum so I'll move it.

 

70C will cripple an SSD's performance... throttling starts way below that temp for any modern SSD with a temperature sensor.

 

thanks again for the info guys. Very informative, but like you said I don't have much choice in the 1tb msata market. I could go for the 2 500gb msata but I know I'll need the 1tb msata in the future.

Thanks

 

This was my indecision too as well as before. My mSATA will be my boot drive along with all my applications, and currently holding 310 GB of my 512 GB SSD.

Just wondering if that will be enough as I move forward? I knew I would be adding programs but I never imagined I'd fill it as much as I did. Hopefully, I'd done but who knows?

Anyway, I've already updated before because I've run out of space twice. Now with raw photos, video and even 4k in the mix, I predict to consume a lot more space.

I'm just wondering if I should future proof now for my future expansion needs. It would be cheaper than having to upgrade another time because I ran out of space again.

 

Here is my mSATA 1TB 840 EVO, never overheated and always provided good performance and TRIM is working unlike what Anandtech claims!

 

Maybe it throttles at 70C but my EVO mSATA had very similar maximum speeds when I tested it just now in the E7440 (max SSD temperature during test of 62C) to those I measured originally in the Samsung NP900X4C (maximum SSD temperature 43C). Which, to me, suggests there is no significant slowdown by this SSD at 62C.

Anyway, I've investigated further and ran CrystaldiskMark in quick succession. Below are the results for the 3rd and 4th runs where the maximum SSD temperature (according to HWiNFO) was 69C and 71C respectively (which occurs during the 512k test group).



The 69C result compares well with the results of my original tests. The 71C result does show a slight slow down but I'd never call it crippled.

John

 

I don't care (or test for) throttling during benchmarks that last for minutes at most... I mean throttling over sustained work sessions lasting several hours if not the entire day at times.

Of course, all SSD's behave differently, but a temp sensor to me in an SSD is an indicator of a bad design for years now.

 

Agreed on that point.. I don't have a mSATA but my normal SSD and hard drives run way cooler than most people due to my 17's large size...

 

And that again, tiller, I think is where the concern differs. Most users won't have sustained workloads of constant reads/writes to their SSD's on a daily basis for more than a few minutes at a time. Copy an ISO, install a game, backup your files, whatever. If you have sustained work load then I agree, it likely is not good.

But not sure of your last comment "but a temp sensor to me in an SSD is an indicator of a bad design"... There's been temp sensors in everything for decades. Hard drives have had them. Not sure what that point is? It's good to have data.

 

SSD's have had temp sensors for just a few years (the first one I ran into... and returned promptly... was the Crucial M500).

The fact that a device has a temp sensor is not bad in and of itself. The fact that all new SSD's with temp sensors rely on the sensor to throttle the performance vs. older SSD's with no temp sensor is the thing that turns me off of them.

The absolute temp in all the notebooks I've used for a couple of decades now has been ~25C or less at idle to ensure adequate, sustained performance during a work session.

With today's SSD's in a modern chassis - 40C or more is their idle temp - ridiculous for a high performance platform.

 

Its a sign of the times. Throttle limiters appear to be ubiquitous these days. In cars, they throttle back or shut down completely if you take the vehicle beyond its safety envelope.

Push it anywhere near its safe limit zone, and the electronic grandma pulls you back in. (Is there any wonder certain Japanese cars last forever?)

The manufactures would call it an electronic fail-safe -- for your protection. Therefore, you most likely aren't looking at it from the correct perspective.

 

In which case, the 840 EVO would be a terrible choice to begin with. Once you fill up the TurboWrite buffer on these drives, performance goes to hell - with or without throttling. The 840 EVO is meant for light to medium usage, and John's CDM benchmarks accurately capture (if not exceed) the full extent to which casual users might stress it.

This is not the drive for you, nor is it meant to be.

 

Well I don't think a dinky Corolla was ever designed to be driven beyond 100 MPH for any sustained amounts of time. In any case my 2013 Corolla's limiter is set to 108 MPH, and I know this from firsthand experience.

But seriously when the hell would you ever come close to doing 100 on most days? Even when I was hauling it during the drive down to LA from SF I averaged maybe 85 if even that.

 

Well actually I was envision the skid-pad. But it was after all intended as an analogy.

 

Uhmm, you're speaking as an American, for whom somehow 100mph is a magical speed, that translates into "frighteningly fast". I'm pretty sure they sell Corollas in Europe as well. Generally speaking, 100mph is not particularly fast, and pretty much all modern cars that are sold in international markets can easily maintain speeds of at least 110mph indefinitely. I am talking about Corolla-class cars, mind you. For sportier cars, 130 is more typical.

P.S.: The reason many smaller/cheaper cars sold in the US throttle at 110mph is the speed rating on the S-rated tires (lowest speed rating, 112mph; H-rated is 130, V-rated is higher than 130) they come with.

 

Pirx, I can agree in spirit with your post,

But unless the throttling is automatically lifted when I put on a set of Michelin Pilot Super Sports (or at least, when I used to... ), then we are still babied WAY too much.

Again; let me buy the hardware and let me use it to it's full potential (even if that means it will break itself or me).

 

Ahh yes, but not everybody thinks that way, and some people will be more than happy to sue the hell out of anyone that smells like money if things go wrong. Because, as you know, it's always somebody else's fault.

Of course, to get at least vaguely back on topic, with SSDs the danger of lawsuits may not be quite as high.

 

If they're not thinking that way; they're thinking wrong.

 

I was simply responding to Krane's point about cars throttling when you push their safety envelope, as I didn't think Corolla class econoboxes were designed to hold up at 100+ MPH speeds for sustained periods of time. I figured the (over)engineering simply isn't there because manufacturers don't anticipate a car in that class being pushed to those speeds, and thus corners are cut and the materials and design simply isn't up to par.

FWIW my Corolla came with H-tires, which is why I was surprised the limiter was set to 108. But lowest common denominator I suppose.