samsung pro vs samsung evo SSDs

Samsung pro ssds seem to be selling for about an 80-60 dollar premium over their evo counterparts. Are they worth it? I'm specifically looking at the 850 series.

 

The difference between them is TLC vs MLC NAND. MLC (Pro series) is more durable therefore a higher pricetag.
Pro also has double the warranty length of Evo.

I personally believe the extra money is worth it.

 

TLC=Total Load of Crap.

Saving even $80 on these SSD's is like being given a smaller than a 480/500/512GB SSD in 2016...

Toy-like performance at enterprise price points.

 

Agreed...

Also I would suggest the Sandisk Extreme Pro... The prices are on record low prices! Performance wise, they blow the 850 pro away...

960GB Sandisk Extreme Pro: Amazon UK £250
Samsung 850 Pro 1TB: Amazon UK £314

 

Samsung's 850 series of SSDs use NAND with larger node sizes, which makes the physical NAND more resilient and last more write cycles. The 850 EVO using TLC (triple level cell, or 3 bits per cell) is likely to have a similar number of program/erase cycles compared to MLC planar small-node NAND found in most other SSDs, and the 850 Pro uses MLC (multi level cell, or 2 bits per cell) which lasts longer.

Comparing the same drive, MLC will always be more reliable & long-lasting than TLC. However, both drives have very similar performance. So your choice between them is really based on which is more important to you: price or increased reliability. As I mentioned before, both drives should be reliable, but the 850 Pro is innately going to be more reliable.

Another option is the SanDisk Extreme Pro, as mentioned above. It's not quite as fast as the 850 Pro or EVO in most consumer workloads and it has higher idle power consumption, but it's faster than either of the Samsung 850 drives in heavy, sustained workloads, it's MLC, and it's roughly the same price as the 850 EVO.

 

ditto

 

I'm absolutely sure my 850 EVO will outlast useful life of my laptop (give or take 5 yrs) and by then SSD will be cheaper, faster and hold more data, so I won't even want to use this one anymore.
And as far as 840 EVO issues, I read hundreds of posts complaining about it, not one mentioned loss of data and the slow down fix was as simple as running data refresh, to bring everything back to normal. You may disagree with me all you want, but after complete HDD failures in the past, broken graphics cards after only couple yrs due to faulty solder joints etc etc, I only wish all computer related issues I had were as bad as 840 EVO. I have 2 SSD, one rated almost twice as fast as the other and in normal use I can't tell the freaking difference, even boot up time is within couple seconds. Unless OP has specific needs requiring very high performance, I doubt he will see difference regardless which SSD he will get.

 

It also depends on what type of connector you want to put a SSD in, if you want to have M.2 or mSATA SSDs, you are left with the EVOs (except the 950 Pro, M.2 only).

If you intend to use it more than 5 years (or intensive SSD write applications), I would say go for the PRO, if not, save a bit of money with the EVOs.

 

This would seem to suggest otherwise: http://us.hardware.info/reviews/417...0-250gb-tlc-ssd-updated-with-final-conclusion

Sorry, but I'm not seeing a downside to a TLC-equipped drive, besides a theoretical one, and I think this is just bad advice. If you have any data to support that position and dispute the above I'd love to see it.

I've been using a TLC-equipped evo on a laptop operating as a remote server myself, and after 32TiB of writes all is fine. The above test would suggest I have nothing to worry about concerning the longevity of TLC drives, besides a catchy anacronym.

 

Who's talking about longevity? Yawn...

I'm talking about sustained performance over time. And having a component achieve it's spec's for mere seconds at a time is not what I call a mere theoretical disadvantage.

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/toshiba-tlc-mlc-micron-mlc-phison-s10,4190.html

You can find many more examples of the above statements with regards to TLC vs. MLC nand with a few minutes searching google. Longevity means nothing to me without a significant performance improvement over a previous gen's tech (in this case HDD's). With 100MB/s (and I've seen reviews where this falls to less than 20MB/s...) sustained, even this low standard is surpassed by modern HDD's (reaching almost 200MB/s... mechanically - but granted, not in a mobile friendly format).

The advice I offer is almost always for performance (the poster can decide if the cost is worth it for them afterwards...) and best bang for the dollar.

In addition to the fact that spending a little more (over the expected 3-8 year lifespan of the component) is usually worth it when getting 4x the performance or more from it every single time it is used...

 

The paragraph immediately before the quoted paragraph in Tiller's link:

In other words, for consistently heavy workloads, MLC NAND of similar node size is a better choice than TLC NAND. But for most users, TLC NAND is perfectly acceptable. It just depends on one's workload and priorities.

 

We can interpret biased reviews till the cows come home (online sites need to stay on good terms with manufacturers... - I don't).

I'm speaking from personal experience (multiple 1TB 840 EVO's w/33% OP...) that the slow down doesn't need 'heavy workloads (consistently or otherwise) to rear it's ugly head.

Even if the drive is used for only 3 years and is $100 more expensive to get the much better MLC options, the user will have experienced a much faster system for less than $0.10 a day...