How come the 850 PRO 256GB beats the 1TB?

I have always seen that the bigger an SSD, the better the performance...

Yet......with the 840 PRO, the 256GB version was faster than the 512GB version according to benchmarks I've seen....

Now the same scenario again, the 256GB 850 PRO beats the mighty king that would drain a big while in your wallet....the 1 TB.....

AnandTech | Samsung SSD 850 Pro (128GB, 256GB & 1TB) Review: Enter the 3D Era

anyone care to explain?

PS: I just bought an 850 PRO 256GB and am awaiting shipment

 

This is nothing unusual. The last two gens of SanDisk Extreme II and Extreme Pro is the same the 240GB is the sweet spot, on paper. The Intel 520 240GB beat the 480GB. Those are three examples. There could be many explanations, firmware team has more time, experience dialing in 256GB size class, it's still the target for manufacturers, controller - NAND combo.

The Interesting thing to me is the 512GB 850 Pro is the dog in the family. Both SEPro and SEII whip it. Samsung 850 Pro 512GB SSD Review - PCMark 8 Consistency Test

 

that's why I sold the 512GB 850 PRO I just recently had. Wasn't pleased with its performance at all......

Furthermore, call me crazy, but the fact that not many sites reviewed it and only focused on the 1TB and 256GB versions messed with my mind.

 

Hi Ferris,

What kind of work do you carry out that requires very high performance SSDs? Games? Software Development?

 

nothing, just surfing then net and watching movies.....very rarely I might play FIFA 2014 or Counter Strike Global Offensive

why do I need the fastest SSD on the planet? because I want to push my system to the max I can achieve out of it on the sucky SATA III as possibly as I could.....I am obsessed with having the fastest crap even though my system is now old with a slow CPU and a below average GPU......until I can get some money, I will be ready to upgrade to the latest Alienwares when they have PCIe slots for the next Gen SSDs

 

word 10char

 

But the question is can you feel any difference? Benchmarks may give you different numbers but if subjectively it all feels the same then it's just a waste of money. If you're too OCD about this stuff then you may end up worrying all the time and not be able to enjoy your system.

 

*reads n=1´s post about "subjectively feeling the same", looks at his sig config, shakes head in bewilderment*

 

LOL I OC my ram to 2400 simply because I can. 1600 to 1866 smoothed out a few corners, but I can honestly say going from 1866 to 2133 or even 2400 made no difference to how the system felt in terms of handling mundane daily activites (surfing, gaming, watching videos etc).

 

same argument above, just cuz!

 

That's fine, but what I am (or was) saying is that one should set it and forget it, and not unnecessarily worry whether the system is performing as intended or whether it's performing at 100% instead of 99%. I mean even benchmarks run back to back can have up to 5% variation, so there's really no point losing sleep or hair over it. Catch my drift?

 

aaaaaah well yeah, thats what benches are for: find the sweet spot, set it and be happy that u got the most out of ur system, tru that

 

So, you're one of "them?"

Actually, I don't mind being on the cutting edge of technology as long as it doesn't cost me a fortune.

Still, it has to be practical. Like my ram. I'd have the 1866 but not the full 32 GB without the programs like After Effects, Photoshop and others that could utilize it.

Speed is always good, but I'd rather have a system that could support beyond 32 GB of ram long before I'd desire more speed. The one thing I do really need to upgrade are my SSDs.

Preferably 1 TB 850 Pros in all slots (I just keep running out of space). With 4k video coming into view so quickly, even that will be gobbled up in short order.

 

Yeah, 4K is going to change the whole storage scene significantly. Heck, hopefully it will drive considerable improvements in internet bandwidth too.