850 pro 512gb $289 @ amazon currently.

Better hurry because I bet it is temporary. 850 pro 256GB is $160.

And evo 500gGB $200. Evo 256GB $109 and 1TB $390.

These are all awesome deals. Better get on it.

 

Does the 850 EVO suffer from the same read bug as the 840 Series?

 

Too early to tell. I would go pro. Reliability is more important to me than potential headaches.

 

The Pro is so overpriced though...

 

A little bit. But $289 is easily the best price I've seen. RMA'ing my two I got @ $320 apiece for this. And it is a top tier drive so the price has to be paid. The evo is too much a gamble even @ $200. The apple emmc TLC on the new iPhone 6's were the tipping point for me to avoid TLC. Apple tried saving even a few more cents and there are gonna be some pissed iPhone owners out there.

 

Does anyone know if the 256GB and 512GB versions are eligible for a free copy of Assassin's Creed Unity? Newegg still has this promotion but I am not sure about Amazon as I don't see it anywhere on the product pages.

 

Doubt it. Newegg's price is closer to msrp. I just received my 850 pro's the other day that I bought @ $320 and fixing to RMA so I can get the cheaper price do not include any voucher/coupon/disk for assassin's creed. I'd take the cheaper price and run.

 

If Samsung paid me those sale prices I wouldn't buy another Samsung SSD again.

And certainly not smaller than 500GB capacity either.

 

You don't like the pro either?

 

He likes the 850 Pro, at least he did, not the price.
Newegg has the SEPro 480GB for $260. Not the cheapest Ive seen it but close. Pay less for the higher performer win-win.

 

Well the $20 disparity is justified at that price. Hardware encryption and 32gb difference. Don't know what the difference is formatted. And it looks like sandisk will have to compete on price soon. Win win for everybody.

 

(Still steaming at Samsung about the 1TB EVO's I dumped a huge pile of cash in early 2014 though and, their associated read speed fails... but I'll try the 500GB+ 850 Pro sometime this year...). The Pro models are likeable, just not in the smaller than 480/500/512GB nominal capacities. At least not for any type of real/normal workflow going forward in 2015 anyway and, when the highest (sustained) performance from each notebook component is the goal.

Also, for myself, hardware encryption is not a benefit or a wanted feature. Locking myself out of my data is not what security is about (I need to move my drives to different platforms as I see fit, sometimes the same drive to a dozen different systems in a month).

Also, nominal capacity is also a non-issue at purchase time. OP'ing is not optional for sustained performance over time - and a mere 32GB (nominal) spread is equally non-consequential too. That is

The SSD's that have OP'ing built in have always performed the best for me over time (shown in the 'snappiness' of the O/S, mostly) - even if all models are OP'ed by an additional 30 to 50% or more.

As I may have mentioned in previous posts, paying up to double to get the 'right' component is cheaper in the long run than saving $20 and having to pay for the right part at some (near) future date (and adding the time/cost to re-install/clean install the O/S and Programs and Updates for both).

Yeah, I too watch what I can save when purchasing components like storage subsystems. the difference is I'd rather get the seller to give me a $20 discount/unit on the 'right' component in the first place, rather than just purchase on the absolute sale price by itself.

 

$289 for a 512gb pro. Get to it tiller. Lol.

Isn't it 487 formatted? Think 450 will get me where I need to go? Don't need absolute fastest performance. I just don't want it crawling on it's knees in future.

 

You need the absolute fastest (advertised) performance so you that you don't see it crawling to it's knees in the future.

Formatted, 512GB is ~476GB and to me, really only ~333GB maximum usable capacity at 30% OP'ing.

That means 150GB for C:\ Drive and the rest (~180GB) for data.


The prices here are closer to $420 with taxes (no shipping), so meh.

The recent (huge) price drops on Samsung products actually has me a little worried though. I can understand the 50% off sales on the horrid/tarnished EVO line. But, is this just a move to make the Pro's price comparable to other lines, or, does Samsung know something we don't?

 

These will end be in storage drives after a proper m.2 drive comes out so I don't need that much OP. I think it's competition. The pro series and 830 and before were great drives. The evo is probably being clearances out so they can keep clearancing them out.

 

Huh (bolded text, mine)?

The 840 Pro's I don't hold it too high regard. Same Samsung laggyness as all previous Sammy's to me. But (from reports) the 850 Pro's seem much better, in both responsiveness and sustained performance over time.

Even as a storage drive, a laggy/non-responsive drive can adversely affect the whole user experience. Even just clicking on Computer or This PC, for example.

I don't excuse poor storage subsystem performance no matter what usage model is considered. Especially when the supposedly/technically superior SSD's fail at things a HDD doesn't hiccup over. And a laggy drive simply drives me nuts (like there is a virus running at all times on the system).

 

Lol. That last comment was intentional. Basically undersell the junk so they can sell more and more junk.

 

Samdung Samdung.. Scamming customers forever! Samdung Samdung

 

You mean like they screwed me over here:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/unable-to-get-warranty-on-samsung-ssds-in-dubai.765310/

 

I remember this

 

Price is still holding. So is the performance for me. Need some damn m.2 pcie or SATA ssd's already. Damn the market is slow.

 

Yeah, the performance of the 1TB EVO's was great for the first few days (right until the return period was passed) when I bought a few samples a year ago. Hope yours fare better.

With the prices staying this low though, my original post keeps coming to mind.

 

I got two 850 pro's. Avoided the evo bwvuase I remembered the issues apple was having with TLC emmc. That right there was tell tale sign.

 

Take it from a guy who's tried both the SanDisk Extreme Pro 960GB and the 850 Pro 1TB that the 850 feels "laggy" compared to the Extreme Pro in daily use. I know benchmarks and reviews say otherwise, but the 850 Pro felt like it was always half a step behind. No I don't have numbers or anything it's all just a subjective feeling, so take it for what it is.

I'm all about snappiness and I can say the 850 Pro is NOT the champion of snappiness; even the 840 Evo felt snappier lol. But the Extreme Pro claims the snappiness crown this round, and at a lower cost than the 850 Pro I just can't justify (to myself anyway) why I should spend more on the Sammy.

 

So the infamous Sammy laggyness continues?

Maybe I won't waste my money on testing an 850 Pro either. And I am very attuned to the snappiness of a system too.

 

Looks to be that way sadly. And I think I now finally understand what you meant when you said the 840 Pro felt laggy. In the same vein, the 840 Evo is "laggy" in the sense that sometimes it seems to skip a beat here or there, but maybe that's the "inconsistency" kicking in. Yeah I don't know, but the Extreme Pro gave me the best overall experience so I'm sticking with that.

 

This snappiness you're talking about. Is it latency? I'm coming from an 830 256gb in np5160 and everything seems fine to me. Ive only benchmarked once to make sure my drives were up to par as far as rated speeds but everything has been great. Encoding and transfer of files to and fro and from usb3 to 850 pro and from usb3 enclosures with 830's and Intel 320 being quick. Maybe I don't notice because my system was a 4 year jump and from mobile CPU to desktop CPU, not to mention a 540m to 980m. Anything you can point me to test this snappiness or latency so I can compare side by side. My boot time is ~10 seconds if not less since I haven't counted and programs load up quick. Even chrome with my 30 tabs or so load up much faster, but I attest that to Intel 7265 seemingly being less latency prone and having better signal.

 

Latency/responsiveness I guess yeah

No real way to test it apart from using different SSDs and getting a "feel" for them. Like I said this is all very highly subjective and as long as you're happy with your SSD it doesn't really matter.

 

I just put a 1TB 850 Pro into my NP8265-S. I haven't noticed this lag that people claim, and I've found it to be a bit quicker than my 256GB 840 Pro, which would occasionally lag when rendering large files (ie: movies) through GeForce Experience. I have a feeling that the larger RAM-Cache in the larger SSDs has helped me in this regard. The 512GB version has a 512MB LPDDR2 cache, whereas the 1TB version has a 1GB LPDDR2 cache. Maybe that extra cache helps reduce the lag to it to some extent. I don't get the lag with or without R.A.P.I.D. mode on, so I'm a happy guy with it.

The reason I didn't go with the 840 EVO (or the 850 EVO) is because I do game-testing. I don't want to have the constant writing and re-arranging of game assets (I average 30 to 40GB of writes per day, assuming that I'm not doing game videos), to do excessive havoc on the triple-layer-cell flash. Yes, it has an SLC cache, but that's only good until the cache (3GB on the 120GB models, up to 12GB on the 1TB models) is filled, and then write speeds drop significantly depending on the size of the SSD (and how many chips the controller can flood with information). Again, this is subjective.

My boot time, once the UEFI is up and running on my NP8265-S (yes, I switched it into UEFI mode for GPT and other benefits), is about 5 to 6 seconds (if I time the little dots dancing around in circles to when the login window appears). Once I'm logged in, there's no lag in getting into programs that I want to use. Even with the 840 Pro i had a slight amount of lag, and the startup was a bit slower. Turning on R.A.P.I.D. mode made startup about a 4 second proposition, but at the same time it does up the amount of writes to the drive to 70 to 80GB per day on a consistent basis. I'm not too worried though, the Samsung product has never given me a problem, and I favor absolute reliability over absolute speed.

I see nothing wrong with the Samsung drives, so long as the system itself is set up to handle what they can do. (Again, this is all my subjective opinion, and your mileage WILL vary).

 

Didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with the Samsung drives or that they're slow in absolute terms. Just the overall experience was slightly better with the Extreme Pro since I had the chance to use both for a couple weeks, and I decided to keep the Extreme Pro in the end.

 

Not doubting you. In my guesstimation if there is more than 20-30ms of lag between the two you probably notice. 60ms of latency and 30ms of latency palyimg an online is the difference between life and death. I quit playing games but I told my friends to use Ethernet instead of WiFi and they shrugged it off. When I started using Ethernet exclusively there was a lot less frustration when I thought I got the kill. To me a few ms of latency difference between different ssd's is not a big deal. I'm quite sure it's there. Nonetheless it is still a big step up from HDD, and then there is also the huge advantage of parallel transfers. Perhaps there is a difference but it's mute to me. Reliability and consistency are more important and I'm very happy with my Samsung ssd's. Crucial was crap for me. Intel was good but it wouldn't consistently go I to standby 4 years ago. For now, I'm a Samsung guy as far as ssd's as concerned. I like the magician software too. Less tweaking in obscure settings and registries to get things tweaked the way you want.

And I doubt the average co sumer will notice these small latencies. The upgrade from HDD to ssd is huge even for more tecch savvy people like us.

 

The Sammy laggyness is something I've noticed without fail except initially on the 1TB EVO's I bought last year. They were (and maybe still are for some people) the snappiest drives I've ever used. Somewhere on this forum is my account of a Samsung SSD I sold immediately. On the system it was eventually installed on, it felt like a HDD was installed (to me).

A correction on the SLC part of the EVO's . There is no such thing. Pseudo-SLC and even then it makes things worse, depending on the workflow (because it is still writing internally to the SSD 30+ seconds after the actual transfer has finished).

My method of testing a new component (or new platform/system in some cases) has worked very well for me for the last few decades. With the EVO's I was sadly mistaken and blatantly fooled by Samsung.

With the confirmation by n=1 that the laggyness continues in their products (in the early examples the laggyness would manifest itself into full out PAUSES, in the second(s) range), Samsung has to come out with a completely new controller design for me to consider them again. You know, all that fool me once, shame on you stuff...

Will this break the usefulness of a Samsung SSD over a HDD? Of course not. But with everything else being equal (and it never is...), I'd rather buy the best performing product period. No excuses. And I wish the same for others too.

The even worse SF based Patriot Inferno experience showed me one thing clearly: EVERYTHING that was marketed as a positive for the SF based drives was the very reason to shoot and bury these poor excuses for performance storage subsystem components at birth.

I have always vaguely believe(d) the same thing about Samsung too - but lately, it has been hammered home in no uncertain terms to me (EVO TLC junk).

I've seen that it takes a while for someone (anyone) to come out and agree with what I may have said starting 3 or 4 years ago, but eventually someone sees the truth and shares it here for all. Thanks n=1.

 

I've played with my np5160/830 and np9772/850 and the 850 seems much snappier. And that is with boinc running modules in background so drive is being slightly utilized 100% of the time. Not 100% saturated, just small writes and reads call instantly. .5%-10% constantly. But mostly lower than 2% 99% of the time.

 

That workflow may not be a good test. When it is not utilized 100% of the time is when it feels slower.

 

I was just pointing out that loading up apps feels snappier. 830 wasn't slow but I does seem like a noticeable difference from the older generation. Sandisk extreme pro may be even faster but that wasn't my top priority. I like that Samsun went with 40nm lithography. Should prove to last quite long if the 3d v NAND isn't a fail. Also, the Samsung drives are use less power. And then the Samsung magician software is a bonus.

 

People people... As long as you're happy with how your SSD performs under your workflow that's all that matters. The 850 Pro is in no way a bad product, and my "laggy" comment was entirely relative. There was a minute but perceptible difference for me between how the 850 Pro and Extreme Pro performed. And as pukemon pointed out, if you're sensitive to lag, 20-30 ms is all it takes for it to be noticeable. Most of you probably wouldn't even notice what I'm talking about if we did a back-to-back testing with the 850 Pro and Extreme Pro. So be happy and enjoy your new SSD.