The Samsung 750 EVO (120GB & 250GB) SSD Review: A Return To Planar NAND
by Billy Tallis on April 22, 2016 8:00 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
The sequential read test requests 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
The 250GB 750 EVO comes in right behind the 850 EVO and Pro for sequential read speed, and the 120GB 750 EVO surprises by coming in fourth, significantly ahead of both the 120GB 850 EVO and 128GB 850 Pro.
Power consumption for the 750 EVO is a little high but nothing concerning. Only a few MLC drives distinguish themselves with particularly high efficiency during sequential reads.
 |
|||||||||
The high performance score of the 750 EVOs is due primarily to their unusually good QD1 speeds, which are quite close to the limit reached at higher queue depths.
Sequential Write Performance
The sequential write test writes 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
Sequential write speeds of the 750 EVO are significantly lower than the 850 EVO and not competitive with MLC drives, but are in the lead among planar TLC drives.
Power consumption for the 750 EVO is significantly higher than the 850 EVO, but it is still more efficient than the planar TLC competitors.
 |
|||||||||
Most drives show no scaling with queue depth in this test, and the 750 EVO follows suit.
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.