The Samsung 750 EVO (120GB & 250GB) SSD Review: A Return To Planar NAND
by Billy Tallis on April 22, 2016 8:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here.
The average data rate scores of the 750 EVOs allow it to blend in to the crowd as a solid performer and the fastest planar TLC drive on the Light test.
The average service time of the 750 EVO again places it as one of the fastest planar TLC drives and a reasonable performer compared to the SATA market overall. The 120GB 750 EVO is also relatively close to the 250GB version, while other 120GB models are considerably slower than their larger counterparts.
The number of latency outliers experienced by the 750 EVO in the Light test is normal for TLC drives but considerably higher than most MLC drives.
Power usage over the course of the Light test separates the drives pretty cleanly into different categories. The 750 EVO clearly requires more power than the 850 EVO, and all the other TLC drives require more power than the 750 EVO. The MLC drives all require less energy than all the TLC drives, except that the 850 Pro sacrifices efficiency to deliver its high performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
lilmoe - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
Meh. I'll wait until it's half price.haukionkannel - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
Well, this is 10$ cheaper that 850evo, so this will be very popular among system builders and other with tight budget. Normal upgrade user will definitely go for 850. But this is good enought to most customers.Space Jam - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
$10 for considerably worse performance does not a winner make.I have a hard time swallowing the cheapo, terrible performance $60 TLC drives. If Sammy thinks anything more than $65 is a good price they have another thing coming.
$60 for a budget 120GB SSD is some audacity.
I and most others will stick to BX100s @ $70 and 850 EVOs @ $75 during the (frequent) sales.
jabber - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
And if it's upgrading a lot of the older machines desktops and laptops that still only run on SATA II...it doesn't matter. As long as it pushes 285MBps (ish) all day that's all it needs. A lot of kit out there is still SATA II.Alexvrb - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
Yeah it's got a sequential speed cap. Not all tasks are about peak speeds. I'm pretty sure in terms of IOPS a decent SSD will still beat the snot out of an OEM-grade penny-pinching budget model, even on old SATA 2. Which brings us back to the idea that this is for OEMs and builders - truly this is a "builder-grade" component. If you're upgrading or building for yourself, you'll likely pay a few extra bucks for an 850 Evo or similar unit.With that being said, any of the modern SSDs are better than a mechanical drive. Blech.
leexgx - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
this drive will likely be perfect for the older apple laptops that have that dodgy cable that does not support SATA 3 but the controller does (the cable fails if a high speed cable is used) i had to use a DVD HDD caddy on number of apple laptops due to that issue where it will not detect the SSD or HDDleexgx - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
high speed drive is used (not cable is used) edit be nice on here but that's unlikelyDeath666Angel - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
I'm guessing the marketing value for "Performance Samsung SSD inside" is considerably higher than comparable Sandisk or Crucial SSDs. And the 10 bucks off compared to the 850 means the margins remain. And if current 1TB laptop drives get replaced by these 250GB 750s, I think everyone is a winner. :DSamus - Monday, April 25, 2016 - link
It's funny you mention that because I would prefer a Sandisk or Crucial/Micron drive over a Samsung anyday.Have you ever tried warranting a Samsung drive? They are hell to deal with. And yes, I still have a sour metallic taste after the 840 Evo debacle that essentially was never fixed.
I also think Crucial/Sandisks Marvell drives, albeit slower, are more consistent, stable and deal with power loss substantially better than the MGX. The fact Samsung is making an SSD with 35TBW endurance in 2016 is pretty damning. I've seen 20GB racked up on old Intel X25-M's in a matter of years so 35GB in a 5 year period isn't out of the question. Just about any other SSD or hard disk for that matter will handle double that no problem at the rated capacity.
vladx - Monday, April 25, 2016 - link
" after the 840 Evo debacle that essentially was never fixed."Don't know what you mean, I also have a 840 EVO and can confirm the performances issues are gone after the 2nd fix.