Samsung adds 2TB capacity to its SSD 850 family

http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-adds-2tb-capacity-to-its-ssd-850-families/

Finally, we see 2TB SSDs become a reality.

 

Way too much for my taste, at least for now. Would be nice to have just one drive and an empty bay.

 

Its not that much of a premium if you compare it to 2x 1tb drives, or even 4x 500gb.

 

Agreed, the premium is low it is the overall cost is a bit high.

 

I just wish it weren't Samsung...hopefully Intel, Sandisk and OCZ/Toshiba will follow...

 

Hopefully the flood gates have been opened. Give us high capacity SSDs!

 

Agreed. Higher-capacity SSDs provide more of an incentive for more folks to switch away from hard drives, which in turn leads to greater SSD demand, then greater production, more competition, and lower prices. Good things for customers! I'd love a 2TB SSD in my system, although at the moment, they're still out of my price range.

 

Actually surprised by the relatively decent prices, even if this is a Samsung product.

Would be curious to see a proper review (HardOCP) comparing it to the 1TB versions. If done right, there should be a performance increase, if done the Samsung way - the 2TB SSD's will be like the lumbering 5400RPM drives that are delegated to near line storage duty... Hope to be proved 'right'.

 

two 2tb 850 pros in raid 0 in a 15 inch laptop

mmmmmm 4TB ssd full of blazing fast speeds. too bad i'm poor lol

 

Right you are!
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7239/samsung-850-evo-pro-2tb-ssds-review/index8.html

 

I don't see a lumbering 5400RPM drive at all there. Very interesting, and overall good performance.

 

I see a performance decrease. The 1TB Pro is competitive with the 240GB SanDisk Extreme Pro in steady state. Even The 512GB Pro beats it and that was the weakest performer in the Samsung Pro line. EVO outperforming Pro.

 

Yeah, I see that the 2TB models are better when compared to the 512GB/1TB models of the previous gen from Samsung.

But...

See:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7239/samsung-850-evo-pro-2tb-ssds-review/index8.html

The 240GB SanDisk Extreme Pro is still ~48% faster in steady state (yet that fact is not even mentioned...).

After 25 minutes of idle recovery time the 2TB 850 Pro doesn't recover. Wow. Talk about useless. This is Samsung limiting performance to ensure their crippled drives make it to 10 years... and reminds me directly of the SandForce 'Dura$#% technologies' that did the same thing. What is the point of a high performance storage subsystem that can't give you high performance? Sigh...

To further highlight this issue... consider the total data written during 470 minutes of the degradation testing (last graph on link).

The SanDisk Extreme Pro 240GB model wrote 1705GB of random data, while the 8x bigger 2TB Samsung 850 Pro wrote almost 35% less data in the same time period. Yeah, it is much better than the 870GB written by the Samsung 850 512GB model, but still can't catch, let alone surpass the over 1 year old SanDisk Extreme (and the low capacity version too).


In the end, I have to ask myself are the tradeoffs to having a 2TB SSD worth it over the proven performance of a 960GB SanDisk Extreme Pro?

They might be, depending on the expected workload of the system it will be put into.

But is the 2TB 850 Pro the best SSD I can buy for my workflows today? Not by a long shot.

No matter how much (from the bottom of the pile...) they have improved since.

 

Looks like that will be my next SSD. I have never had a problem with Samsung SSD's.

 

Seems like capacity is of high importance to you. This drive seems to be a good fit.

But, given the fact that the EVO outperforms the Pro fairly consistently, I would not reward a manufacturer for giving another half baked product up for sale. Not that I am recommending the EVO either; just showing that if only capacity in a single drive is the goal, then and only then should these drives be considered.

Btw, which Samsung SSD's have you had?

 

I'd love to see mSATA versions of those, and use them for storage... Say 512GB as an OS drive, and 2x2TB in RAID1 for sensitive data. Way too expensive as of now, though. Maybe someday...

 

Starlight5, they do have 500GB mSATA drives, but (see graphs linked on post 13) they are just the EVO drives as far as I know (but as the links show; they have the worst steady state performance of them all).

See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9023/the-samsung-ssd-850-evo-msata-m2-review

Multiple level backups (a backup of the backup, of the backup...) is superior to RAID1.

RAID1 is best for system uptime (not data backup).

 

I have had the 256GB 470, 830 512 GB, 2 64 GB SLC drives, 1 512 GB 840 pro, 1 500 GB 840 EVO, 2 1 TB 840 EVO, 1 TB 850 PRO, I have the external 1 TB Samsung SSD. They still are in use and they are fast for me. I don't benchmark my drives. I have had ssd's from Intel, Crucial.

The SSD that I have in my Thinkpad w550s is the m2 mydigital discount 256 GB as the boot drive and the 1 TB 850 Pro in the main drive bay for my games, programs, data. I guess I am one of the few that I haven't had any issues with Samsung drives.

Also my phone is a Note4. I guess you can say I like samsung products lol.

 

I too do not benchmark my drives (well; very, very rarely...). Synthetic scores are not what make a system faster for me. Directly comparing and beating my existing setups in my specific workflows make one drive better than another - if that is a 'benchmark' score, so be it.

I think the reason you state that you have had no issues with Samsung drives is because you think the way they work is the norm (to me; they are generally 'laggy' vs. other SSD's).

No problem.

I showed you in post#13 why I don't believe the 2TB models are a must have for anything other than capacity. And also showed that the EVO posts higher 'scores' than their flagship model the Pro does (thanks Samsung for continuing to screw with benchmarks and making 'scores' even less meaningful).

Your move.

Good luck.