Samsung SSDs to have 7% Factory OP right?

My 512GB 840 PRO has a total of 476GB in Windows so if we do the math, that is a 7% factory OP right?

Hence why Magician only recommends 10% to the user for extra OP

But then while reading the 850 PRO review, my eye caught this:

They're wrong right? the 840/850 PRO DO have factory OP?

Samsung 850 Pro 512GB review | Disk drives (hdd & ssd) Reviews | TechRadar

 

I just learned that that is NOT factory OP that is the correct binary value for 512 GB

Then why does Samsung only recommend a 10% OP rather than 20??

also, since I only use 75 GB with all my programs and games installed, is it better to OP the drive by 50%?

 

You will have upgraded the SSD and/or your computer long before NAND wear becomes an issue.

 

Ferris, are you suffering from paranoia? You've made a lot of posts lately.

Stop worrying about it. Even the NAND in the Samsung 840 EVO has a good chance of lasting longer than the life of your PC itself.

 

LOL no bro, I'm just so crazy about squeezing every bit of performance out of my hardware. So if OP will do that, I don't care OPin by eve 60% coz I don't need the space

Why did I go for the 512GB version of the 850 PRO instead of the 256GB? simply for performance as I am aware usually the bigger the SSD the better its performance with the exception of the 840 PRO 256GB that particular drive beats the 512GB version of it according to most benchmarks I've seen...very fishy

 

I see tiller doing a happy dance right now. OP won't help much unless you do lots of drive writes on a regular basis. But even if you don't need the space OP 30% at most.

 

For simple web surfing and movie watching, 30% or 50% OP won't make a difference. I know because I tried OPing 50% for a week and I couldn't feel the difference compared to 30% OP.

 

The reason higher-capacity SSDs have higher performance relates to the amount of NAND on each package, the number of total packages, and the number of channels the controller supports. Put simply, SSDs are like multi-core processors: they're faster when they can take advantage of all their cores/channels. For each SSD series, the NAND packages all contain the same capacity for all the drives in that series. The controller is designed to use up to a certain number of channels, and smaller-capacity SSDs just don't have enough NAND packages to saturate those channels. Just like a quad-core processor computing a program with a single thread, it means lower performance. However, once capacity increases enough that there are enough NAND packages to saturate the number of channels on the controller, further capacity increases will not increase speed. So if a 256GB 840 Pro can use all the controller channels, the 512GB version will have essentially the same performance as the 256GB version.

 

It's not unusual for the 256GB size class to perform better than the bigger brother. On paper, the SanDisk Extreme Pro 240GB is the fastest in that model line (520 vs 515 Seq, Wr.). The 240GB SEII was the sweet spot with the higher numbers. The Intel 520 240GB was better than the 480GB version.

 

well sometimes the manufacturer actually uses smaller-size nand packages in order for the smaller size ssd models to saturate all available controller channels as well. so in theory, if u have saturated all channels in the 256gb drive by implementing smaller size nand packages and the next tier nand size would saturate the channels at 1tb then, naturally, the 512gb model in between would suffer a bit of a performance hit in comparison.

 

The SSD *IS* OP'd 7% by default. 512GB (decimal) to GiB (binary) conversion always leaves 7% OP. The NAND has to be binary so it's actually 512GiB less the 512GB (~476 GiB) = 37GiB/512GiB ~ 7%.

 

"OP'ing" the drive is completely unnecessary for pretty much anyone who does work or games on their PC. You are all just wasting money by wasting space on your SSD. These SSD's are guaranteed for years, sometimes decades at factory "OP." Wasting storage like that is laughable at best. People usually don't even own cars for 10 years, let alone a PC. Your computer will be replaced before the SSD performance even begins to degrade (from every day use). By that time, there will be better SSD's available, so optimizing your current SSD is pointless - you'll end up replacing it with something better. If they (e.g. Samsung) only released one SSD every 10 years, then yes, it would be worth it.

 

Not only is the 'factory op' to be completely ignored (it is only there for warranty/claims purposes by the manufacturer, imo), but so is your opinion too.

With Anandtech recommending OP'ing for almost every drive they reviewed since the Samsung 840 Pro (a very inconsistent drive, btw), I don't see why you'd make statements like this?


Yes, OP'ing does prolong nand life - the byproduct is that the SSD is faster over time (sustained).

Wasting storage capacity with OP'ing? Sure, that is one aspect of it. But gaining performance (from ~30MB/s lows) is far outweighed from paying 1/3 more per GB.


See:
AnandTech | Samsung SSD 840 EVO Review: 120GB, 250GB, 500GB, 750GB & 1TB Models Tested

See:
Samsung 840 EVO read speed drops on old-written data in the drive


The issue as described in the link above seems to affect all TLC nand in as little as a month of use - so much for your statement that an SSD will outlive the useful life of the system it's installed in.


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

OP'ing was always about performance (for me). Without it, SSD's are not worth considering. But essentially 'paying' 1/3 more per GB makes them the storage leaders that they been marketed to be (even way back when, when they weren't leaders in anything except benchmarks).

 

the reason for OP is so that you have consistent performance. If you do a lot of read and writes in a short time period performance drops. anandtech has several articles on OP and how a 25% OP stops nearly all performance drops from endurance issues. It also makes performance more consistent as well. they provide very good graphs of the issue just do a simple google for it.

Er tiller posted the same thing...should have read second page first

 

I plan on migrating my SSDs to other computers when the ones they are installed in die or are replaced. If they last ten years, awesome! More SSDs to deploy (and possibly re-gift to friends in need) - I would rather wring all the life and usefulness I can from them before spending more money.

Sure, there will be new formats and standards, but I think SATA-based platforms will be around for a while (I know enough IT people that I can get my hands on old boxes for free pretty easily - my media server and client cost me $0, for example).

 

great thing about the 850 pro series: high consistency even with the factory-op, so no need for extra op besides, one rarely if ever gets into the situation where ud need high iops numbers with low file sizes for longer periods of time (more than several minutes!), since thats exactly the part anandtech analyzed in their op-related articles.

 

One of the good things about Anandtech's SSD testing is they show the worst case scenario - a completely full drive getting a ton of random writes. If your workload is likely to do that, then overprovisioning is necessary to prevent massive temporary performance hits, or in the case of Sandforce-based drives, permanent performance hits.

For a more average or typical user, overprovisioning acts more as an idiot-proof way to make sure the user doesn't completely fill the drive and thus have performance slowdowns as described. However, by ensuring there is sufficient unused capacity available on the SSD and enough idle time to run TRIM, overprovisioning is not strictly necessary in a more average or typical use situation.

 

djembe, well put.

The problem of course, is that different people will have different levels of what is sufficient unused capacity and what is enough idle time for a given/changing workflow.

Especially for notebook users which, if like myself, would normally just turn on a system, use it and abuse it, then turn it off. I know others don't use their systems like I do - but that is why I leave the system on and completely idle as often as I can each week.

 

Since I have lots of SSD Space, I OPed my RAID 0 array consisting of two 850 PRO 256GB SSDs by a whopping 50%

 

On my desktop workstations, 50% is the minimum I OP for the SSD's I use as Scratch disks for PS CS6 and my other RAW image converters.


At around 60 to 65%, I don't notice any increased (incremental) productivity with my workflows - but I do notice the increase in $$$/GB.

 

haha u guys are insaaaane lucky me i only use 43% of my ssd space and i doubt itll ever reach 50 aside from that, i use my private laptop for work as well and it gets tons of idle time there sitting on my desk while im busy hustling through the lab

 

With all the SSD optimisation you do, do you even leave any time to play games Ferrirs? I've been consistently seeing you messing around with SSD's for 2-3 months now lol ...

 

tweaking hardware IS playing games, just of a different sort....but sometimes even more fun! :-D

 

Personally it's only worthwhile for me if it y8elds tangible benefits*, although I understand tweaking hardware for the hell of can be enjoyable for some people.

*and this is why I stopped messing with my 4930K once I got all 6 cores up to 4.5GHz. I could probably get it to stabilize at 4.6GHz given enough tweaking but cost/benefit ratio, time, effort and all that