?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
10 July 2017 @ 02:44 am
Samsung SSD EVO vs Samsung SSD PRO  
About half a year ago Samsung released two pretty fast SSDs:
1) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LXS4TY6
Samsung 960 EVO
$479.99 for 1TB


2) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LYRCIPG
Samsung 960 PRO
$579.99 for 1TB


As you can see, PRO version is exactly $100 more expensive than EVO.

Does it worth?

According to specification:
960 EVO sequential read is up to 3.2GB/second.
960 PRO sequential read is up to 3.5GB/second.

However the reality is about 40% slower than advertising specification:
On my home server I got about 2GB/second sequential read for 960 EVO, and about 1.8 GB/second for 960 PRO.

To benchmark my SSDs I copied several files with ~80GB size into nul in Far Manager.

I used this motherboard (which is quite modern):
---
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MR0H84F
ASUS Motherboard, (PRIME Q270M-C/CSM)

---

Do you know what could be the reason why I cannot get promised 3.2 GB/second?
And why PRO has slower performance than cheaper EVO?

I even swapped PRO and EVO between NVMe slots on my motherboard, but the results were consistent: PRO was slower than EVO.

Update (thanks to mugunin):
Finally the benchmark that looks similar to what I measured (sequential read):
---
http://www.storagereview.com/samsung_960_evo_m2_nvme_ssd_review
In our 2MB sequential benchmark, the Samsung 960 EVO recorded the best results in read with 2,308.5MB/s—even beating out the 960 Pro. On writes, it came in second with 1,660.9MB/s, only losing to the Pro version.
---

Originally posted at: http://dennisgorelik.dreamwidth.org/135850.html
 
 
 
muguninmugunin on July 11th, 2017 01:22 am (UTC)
I do not know if one is measured these two. I thought you may try this and see real data on your real hardware. These days marketing wins over the common sense so it's better to check yourself.

Quick googling shows that people tested EVO vs PRO and EVO is a bit faster in some tests, and also PRO has longer warranty.

Dennis Gorelikdennisgorelik on July 11th, 2017 02:23 am (UTC)
Thanks! Finally the benchmark that looks similar to what I measured (sequential read):
---
In our 2MB sequential benchmark, the Samsung 960 EVO recorded the best results in read with 2,308.5MB/s—even beating out the 960 Pro. On writes, it came in second with 1,660.9MB/s, only losing to the Pro version.
---

But I do not understand why StorageReview still puts so much emphasis on "quoted" (AKA "fake") performance metrics?
For example:
===
The 960 EVO has some great quoted performance (3.2GB/s read and 1.9GB/s write with throughput over 350,000 IOPS for both read and write)
===

The only reason to mention these biased metrics in a serious investigative article should be to point out that these "quoted" metrics are fake.
muguninmugunin on July 11th, 2017 02:38 am (UTC)
"Quoted" does not mean "fake", it rather means what Samsung listed in their spec.
Dennis Gorelikdennisgorelik on July 11th, 2017 02:52 am (UTC)
If Samsung listed in their specs something that is not true - then it is fake, isn't it?
muguninmugunin on July 11th, 2017 03:57 am (UTC)
It might be true in some conditions and they also said "up to...".
Formally they are right -- they quoted peak performance and so regular performance is lower.
A fighter can reach 3 Mach but it does not fly at this speed all the time, but a fighter with 3 Mach top speed considered to be faster the one with 1.5 Mach, right?
Dennis Gorelikdennisgorelik on July 11th, 2017 04:07 am (UTC)
Fake claims by Samsung marketers
Had any third party benchmark ever reached 3.5 GB/second peak performance that Samsung marketers claimed for 960 PRO SSD?

Probably not, and by a wide margin. Therefore it was a fake claim by Samsung.

> A fighter can reach 3 Mach

Exactly. A fighter jet can reach that claimed speed, while Samsung SSD can not.
muguninmugunin on July 11th, 2017 05:44 am (UTC)
Re: Fake claims by Samsung marketers
I don't want to argue, for me max speed and "regular" speed are different. Marketers use tricks of course like "up to" some numbers, etc. I just read the spec and see "up to 3.5" and for me this up to speed is max speed, not what you get from test (you get "regular" speed).
If you want to consider this as fake -- you are right, they wanted you to think that this is regular speed, but they did not claim it.


Edited at 2017-07-11 05:45 am (UTC)
Dennis Gorelikdennisgorelik on July 11th, 2017 06:05 am (UTC)
Re: Fake claims by Samsung marketers
Fighter pilot can turn on an afterburner and reach max speed that way.
What is the way to reach max speed on Samsung 960 SSD?
muguninmugunin on July 11th, 2017 06:12 am (UTC)
Re: Fake claims by Samsung marketers
I have no idea, that you may want to ask Samsung's engineers or support.
Dennis Gorelikdennisgorelik on July 11th, 2017 06:16 am (UTC)
Re: Fake claims by Samsung marketers
> I have no idea,

Not only you, but pretty much nobody knows how to reach that claimed performance.
This is the sign of these Samsung marketers claims being fake.

My point here is that such marketing claims are NOT in the gray area. They are pretty dark-colored lies.

> you may want to ask Samsung's engineers or support.

How do I ask them?

Edited at 2017-07-11 06:18 am (UTC)
muguninmugunin on July 11th, 2017 06:25 am (UTC)
Re: Fake claims by Samsung marketers
again, try to understand the difference between max performance reachable in short moments (claimed) and regular performance (average based on total amount divided by time).
Dennis Gorelikdennisgorelik on July 11th, 2017 06:29 am (UTC)
Re: Fake claims by Samsung marketers
> max performance reachable in short moments (claimed)

I know that it is claimed.
But how do you know that this "max performance" is, actually, reachable?
You do not know that, because nobody was able to reproduce these "max performance" results.
Therefore that claim was a marketing lie.
muguninmugunin on July 11th, 2017 08:36 am (UTC)
Re: Fake claims by Samsung marketers
all marketing is lie )
Dennis Gorelikdennisgorelik on July 11th, 2017 10:54 am (UTC)
Re: Fake claims by Samsung marketers
That's not true.

Marketing can be honest and to the point.
In particular, Samsung marketers could claim that 960 EVO shows 2.3GB/second benchmarks on right motherboard, and that would both impressive and honest.