Samsung 850 500GB SSD via Amazon.com

Just got one of these for my intermediary storage. It's bloody quick!
 
pliskin679 said:
isnt the only difference the warranty?
Click to expand...

$100 is pretty steep for some extra warranty, IMO. I know in the past, the Pro drives had things like drive encryption and the drive speed "boost" feature (which was some form of OS/RAM extension tie-in onto the SSD, seemed a bit inflated in worth).

For anyone's reference, a numbers comparison between the Evo and Pro versions:

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Pro-512GB-vs-Samsung-850-Evo-500GB/m13381vsm19728

Motley said:
Why in the world is it cheaper if you use the mobile app? Whats the reason?
Click to expand...

Probably trying to incentivize people to buy via mobile phones, which people surely do less often than on desktops. I'd assume they're trying to change buying patterns and get people to start purchasing anywhere/everywhere rather than only when at home on a desktop.
 
pliskin679 said:
isnt the only difference the warranty?
Click to expand...

Lots of differences besides warranty. The pro is mlc, the evo is tlc, pro will last longer. So far samsungs first tlc drives have slow down issues with old data that haven't been fully resolved, unknown at this point if the 850 evo suffers from the same issue.

Pro has a faster controller as well. If the first tlc drives from samsung didn't have issues I would say this is a hot deal, but I'd stay away.
 
I'm running a 250GB 850 Pro for my OS drive and just grabbed a 500GB 850 EVO for hot storage.

After running IO on both of them, the 850 EVO is just a hair quicker installing big stuff like MS Word/Project/VS. Both load equally as quickly when i pull up my IDE environments etc.
 
atp1916 said:
I'm running a 250GB 850 Pro for my OS drive and just grabbed a 500GB 850 EVO for hot storage.

After running IO on both of them, the 850 EVO is just a hair quicker installing big stuff like MS Word/Project/VS. Both load equally as quickly when i pull up my IDE environments etc.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think that newer drives tend to be faster than ones that have been in use.

Regardless, I don't think most of us are going to be using a 500GB drive forever. I still use some 750GB drives (7200 rpm as I recall), and I'll keep them for now, but I've got a couple of 1-1.5 TB drives that I pulled from my server (I thought they were going bad...turned out a different drive was bad) but I never stuck them back in. I may do it, but I'm tempted to just stick a 4TB drive in and keep those for external back up (they are 7 or 8 years old). I've got to believe than in 5 years 2TB drives will be common (maybe larger than that). I've got all kinds of tiny drives from the 90's sitting around here that I'll likely never use...though I have a SCSI card laying around just in case.
 
munkle said:
Lots of differences besides warranty. The pro is mlc, the evo is tlc, pro will last longer. So far samsungs first tlc drives have slow down issues with old data that haven't been fully resolved, unknown at this point if the 850 evo suffers from the same issue.

Pro has a faster controller as well. If the first tlc drives from samsung didn't have issues I would say this is a hot deal, but I'd stay away.
Click to expand...

It's not unknown at all. Did you bother checking or are you just handing out random negative advice to people? The newer drives use vertical NAND and are not impacted by the problem that plagues the 840 EVO drives.
 
InternationalHat said:
It's not unknown at all. Did you bother checking or are you just handing out random negative advice to people? The newer drives use vertical NAND and are not impacted by the problem that plagues the 840 EVO drives.
Click to expand...

they haven't been out long enough to know they're "not impacted"

took a while for the 840 Evo's problem to manifest itself too.

I'm not willing to gamble when MLC is just a hair more.
 
DPI said:
they haven't been out long enough to know they're "not impacted"

took a while for the 840 Evo's problem to manifest itself too.

I'm not willing to gamble when MLC is just a hair more.
Click to expand...

Different controller and different NAND. It's like oil consumption with certain engines of cars - you're extrapolating the qualities of one engine due to the behavior of another by the same brand. It doesn't work that way.

Maybe you think Samsung will mess this up too, but it's not likely that the problem carried over.
 
InternationalHat said:
Maybe you think Samsung will mess this up too, but it's not likely that the problem carried over.
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't think one way or another about Samsung messing it up, because I'm removing the element of having to speculate by skipping the line altogether. I've been a big fan of their Pro drives and continue to buy them, Samsung makes good products. I guess I look at it like comparable MLC drives within the price/performance ballpark of the 850 Evo are just a tad more so why even bother with TLC.
 
Last edited:
The 1TB 850 EVO has the triple-core controller (MEX) used in the Pro line, and its service time scores (anandtech), specifically, reflect that (very close to the 1TB pro score, and slightly better than the scores of the lower capacity pro drives, I think). The lower capacity 850 EVO drives use a newer dual-core controller (MGX).

I don't think the 850 Evo will suffer the same defect as the 840 Evo simply due to the different nand used, but time will tell if there are any (other) issues.
 
Wait a few months (after products are released using Intel/Micron and Toshiba 3D NAND) and I expect to see some sub $300 1TB drives on sale.
 
Last edited:
InternationalHat said:
It's not unknown at all. Did you bother checking or are you just handing out random negative advice to people? The newer drives use vertical NAND and are not impacted by the problem that plagues the 840 EVO drives.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me for a fact these don't have the same problem? If you are then you are a liar as the original issue took a long time to show up as it deals with stale old data, if you aren't then it is unknown, it can't be both ways, it either does or doesn't have the problem, and guess what it is currently UNKNOWN if it does or doesn't. It may be vertical nand but it's still tlc and that's where the issues came from before. It's simple logic to use even in your engine example, if engine A uses part X and part X is faulty and engine B uses part X revision B, that revision B may or may not have completely fixed the problem.

Further research for you. 840 with TLC nand released roughly july 2013.

First issues reported with slowdown were around sep 2014, so over 1 year later.

850 with TLC nand was released roughly december 2014.

So you are telling us that a drive that has been out less than 6 months for sure does not have an issue that takes more than a year to show itself? I stand by my statement that you are lying if you tell us it does not have the issue.

You can educate yourself on the issue with TLC here.
 
Last edited:
munkle said:
So you are telling me for a fact these don't have the same problem? If you are then you are a liar as the original issue took a long time to show up as it deals with stale old data, if you aren't then it is unknown, it can't be both ways, it either does or doesn't have the problem, and guess what it is currently UNKNOWN if it does or doesn't. It may be vertical nand but it's still tlc and that's where the issues came from before. It's simple logic to use even in your engine example, if engine A uses part X and part X is faulty and engine B uses part X revision B, that revision B may or may not have completely fixed the problem.

Further research for you. 840 with TLC nand released roughly july 2013.

First issues reported with slowdown were around sep 2014, so over 1 year later.

850 with TLC nand was released roughly december 2014.

So you are telling us that a drive that has been out less than 6 months for sure does not have an issue that takes more than a year to show itself? I stand by my statement that you are lying if you tell us it does not have the issue.

You can educate yourself on the issue with TLC here.
Click to expand...

It is a different controller and different nand. I'm not sure what you're not understanding. A somewhat similar problem might eventually occur - it's physically unlikely but it could. By its nature since these are different parts it would be a different problem.

16nm planar nand != XXnm 3d v-nand. They have different physical properties. The latter isn't even really TLC, it's just programmed to work like it, storing more charges per cell but due to the larger cell space they aren't as "close together." Engine A and B do NOT share part X in any way here. Engine A and Engine B both have a "water pump" but you're acting like "water pumps" are always flawed - maybe at 16nm they are.

Additionally, there's an logical problem with your description. The 840 EVO problem was first NOTICED prior to Sept 2014, but we know the issue is present in data that's been left alone for weeks to months. It does not take more than a year to show. You don't know the specifics of the problem you're describing. There's a test on overclock.net showing data written in 10/2014 performing badly by 1/2015. At this point, people know what to look for and the 850 EVO has been out for over 3 months.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1539602/will-the-850-evo-suffer-from-the-same-840evo-slow-down-issues

People are looking for it in review samples. The "same" problem is not present. Whether something similar occurs - cell charge decay - at a much later date is still a possibility, but since it's XXnm 3d nand vs 16nm planar nand it won't manifest itself in the exact same behavior or timeframe.

The sky isn't falling. You're welcome to avoid these if you don't trust any kind of TLC to maintain a cell charge, but it won't be the same problem with the same timeframe because the parts are not the same and do not share the same physical properties.

edit: 850 EVO uses 19nm 3d v-nand, just wanted to verify
 
Last edited:
I'm with munkle on this. I think those of us who have been burned by the 840 / 840 EVO issues have every right to be wary of jumping on another Samsung TLC product so soon after release, regardless of changes in the design. I'm sure if you got fucked on several hundred dollars worth of equipment you would be a bit hesitant to blindly trust the same company again.
 
I have stated this before, but I really don't understand why people are jumping on new experimental technology drives. Just having an SSD in general is enough to speed up your computer considerably. That extra 50 or even 300MB/s isn't going to make or break your experience. Just go with a trusted, older MLC technology. It's cheaper, it's more reliable, and it will last longer.

Like it just baffles me. "Oooh, it's super duper special vertical nand now!" Who cares? It's an SSD. Period. I didn't jump on the Samsung 840 Evo and I wouldn't jump on this today. Playing with the first gen of anything is simply for suckers. Unless it's a huge improvement to what you have right now and you just have to have it (my RoG Swift is an excellent example I suppose), there's absolutely no reason to leap on it. For SSD's there's no excuse. There are alternatives out there, and they're actually cheaper.
 
i got 2 @ 169 for a 500Gb drive who cares if it goes bad in a few years, who keeps there equipment that long?..lol.... is there another 500GB drive available for that price? From what im reading its not even the same Technology, so why would you assume its gonna have an issue just beacause its the Same Company? for the $$$ is it really an issue?
 
Ins0mnyteq said:
i got 2 @ 169 for a 500Gb drive who cares if it goes bad in a few years, who keeps there equipment that long?..lol.... is there another 500GB drive available for that price? From what im reading its not even the same Technology, so why would you assume its gonna have an issue just beacause its the Same Company? for the $$$ is it really an issue?
Click to expand...

If you're really hardcore you'd light your PC on fire after 1 month of owning it. Post the video. :rolleyes:
 
Ins0mnyteq said:
i got 2 @ 169 for a 500Gb drive who cares if it goes bad in a few years, who keeps there equipment that long?..lol.... is there another 500GB drive available for that price? From what im reading its not even the same Technology, so why would you assume its gonna have an issue just beacause its the Same Company? for the $$$ is it really an issue?
Click to expand...

You said you got two of them, right? I'm not sure where you got them for 169 each as they are 189 in this thread. Either way, let's assume ~170 each.
340 for two of them.

Or...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BQ8RGL6/?tag=pcpapi-20
A 960GB drive which you can just partition in half for 300$. It's MLC, based on proven reliable technology

Also, (corrected for the many spelling errors) "Who keeps their equipment that long?" Really? I was using the same DDR3 RAM sticks for like 6+ years (probably more now if you count the fact that they're in my other computer now). If they work, don't replace them. What you're asking is like saying, "Who doesn't like to waste money?" Also, if it goes bad you lose anything you don't back up. Losing a system drive is kind of major, you know? Also of all things to replace, why an SSD main drive? You're saying you don't see yourself keeping yours for several years? This just baffles my mind.

Third, it's situationally similar:
- Samsung releases budget SSD with newer technology (840 EVO)
- Major bugs.
Now:
- Samsung releases budget SSD with newer technology (850 EVO)
- ???
No one is saying it will happen to this drive with a crystal ball, but why risk it happening? There are very price competitive competing models based on MLC technology. Why in the heck go for this VNAND crap? Again there doesn't seem to be much incentive to me for people to even be risking this.

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/internal-hard-drive/#sort=a7&page=1&t=0
Plenty of things to choose from on this list.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I remember people claiming the M500 was "slow" not too long ago. Are the M550 and MX200 based on similar technology to the M500?

Thinking of getting a new SSD in the coming months but I am not sure what to get. I like the M500 240GB; just wondering if the new Crucial SSDs are of equal reliability.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
You said you got two of them, right? I'm not sure where you got them for 169 each as they are 189 in this thread. Either way, let's assume ~170 each.
340 for two of them.

Or...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BQ8RGL6/?tag=pcpapi-20
A 960GB drive which you can just partition in half for 300$. It's MLC, based on proven reliable technology

Also, (corrected for the many spelling errors) "Who keeps their equipment that long?" Really? I was using the same DDR3 RAM sticks for like 6+ years. If they work, don't replace them. What you're asking is like saying, "Who doesn't like to waste money?" Also, if it goes bad you lose anything you don't back up. Losing a system drive is kind of major, you know? Also of all things to replace, why an SSD main drive? You're saying you don't see yourself keeping yours for several years? This just baffles my mind.

Third, it's situationally similar:
- Samsung releases SSD with new technology (840 EVO)
- Major bugs.
No one is saying it will happen to this drive with a crystal ball, but why risk it happening? There are very price competitive competing models based on MLC technology. Why in the heck go for this VNAND crap? Again there doesn't seem to be much incentive to me for people to even be risking this.

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/internal-hard-drive/#sort=a7&page=1&t=0
Plenty of things to choose from on this list.
Click to expand...

i supposed i may be an outlier, but i replace my SSDs quite often. I tend to rebuild my system from scratch about every 6-8 months if not sooner if i get bored. I also backup with redundancy so i will never loose data. maybe my aloofness comes from that, likely if i can find a decent deal on some m.2 drives i will sell these soon and get those. :D

As for the the deal, it was $169 from the mobile app i dont pay tax on certain things. i didn't pay from rush or 3 days shipping so was $171 per drive. 1 960Gb drive wouldn't help me personally, but i see your point. and i realize that alot of people use older equipment for a long time. so my bad for getting a little silly there guys.


My point which obviously i didnt make very well is that its not relevant to even post about it because we dont know yet if it will have problems, and since its different tech, the possibility it will have the same issues is unlikely imo, not that i wont have some other issue, however.

And why not go for VNAD Crap? any reason not to other than it will possibly fail later on?

doesn't seem such a large risk to me.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Flogger23m said:
I remember people claiming the M500 was "slow" not too long ago. Are the M550 and MX200 based on similar technology to the M500?

Thinking of getting a new SSD in the coming months but I am not sure what to get. I like the M500 240GB; just wondering if the new Crucial SSDs are of equal reliability.
Click to expand...

Ive never had a Crucial Drive fail on me ever since we started using the M4s even with the firmware BS, however the Samsung have been my favorite and ive never had an issue with one. including the 840 evo's ive had. in that vien i currently have an Mx100 256Gb for sale =)
 
Flogger23m said:
I remember people claiming the M500 was "slow" not too long ago. Are the M550 and MX200 based on similar technology to the M500?

Thinking of getting a new SSD in the coming months but I am not sure what to get. I like the M500 240GB; just wondering if the new Crucial SSDs are of equal reliability.
Click to expand...

Well the M500 in particular was an interesting drive. IIRC, the 240GB and below models were for some reason much slower than the higher capacity models.

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-M500-240GB-vs-Crucial-M500-480GB/1551vsm2643

Hence a 240 850 evo is much faster than an m500.

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-M500-240GB-vs-Samsung-850-Evo-250GB/1551vs2977

Granted the same holds true for a higher capacity model, just less so:

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-M500-960GB-vs-Samsung-850-Evo-250GB/m2379vs2977

I was mainly pointing out that an SSD is an SSD. The reason they were so awesome when they came out is that they were multitudes faster than HDD. But as you can see, even an 850 Evo is only 1.5x (or ~1.2-1.3x for higher capacity) the speed of a years and years old m500. How much does that actually transfer into tangible user experience? You can stare at benchmarks all day, but how much is that actually doing for you in the end? Personally I think it's going to be less than worth it to go to a newer technology and risk your boot drive's reliability in exchange for simple benchmark numbers. I mean if you do notice the speed increase (statistically it is major), then all the more power to you. To me, I would rather have something tried and proven over extensive end user usage, while being slower.

Ins0mnyteq said:
And why not go for VNAD Crap? any reason not to other than it will possibly fail later on?

doesn't seem such a large risk to me.
Click to expand...

Er... a boot drive or a drive in general failing isn't a huge risk to you? It kind of goes beyond "Hey I just wasted some money and time having to send it in for an RMA." It's kind of like "Unless I've got it backed up or in the cloud somewhere, some of my data just disappeared. Permanently." Considering we do a lot of stuff on computers, losing meaningful data is kind of one of my bigger fears. I don't know about you. Granted the 840 didn't fully fail. It just practically did because it was so slow.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Well the M500 in particular was an interesting drive. IIRC, the 240GB and below models were for some reason much slower than the higher capacity models.

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-M500-240GB-vs-Crucial-M500-480GB/1551vsm2643

Hence a 240 850 evo is much faster than an m500.

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-M500-240GB-vs-Samsung-850-Evo-250GB/1551vs2977

Granted the same holds true for a higher capacity model, just less so:

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-M500-960GB-vs-Samsung-850-Evo-250GB/m2379vs2977

I was mainly pointing out that an SSD is an SSD. The reason they were so awesome when they came out is that they were multitudes faster than HDD. But as you can see, even an 850 Evo is only 1.5x (or ~1.2-1.3x for higher capacity) the speed of a years and years old m500. How much does that actually transfer into tangible user experience? You can stare at benchmarks all day, but how much is that actually doing for you in the end? Personally I think it's going to be less than worth it to go to a newer technology and risk your boot drive's reliability in exchange for simple benchmark numbers. I mean if you do notice the speed increase (statistically it is major), then all the more power to you. To me, I would rather have something tried and proven over extensive end user usage, while being slower.



Er... a boot drive or a drive in general failing isn't a huge risk to you? It kind of goes beyond "Hey I just wasted some money and time having to send it in for an RMA." It's kind of like "Unless I've got it backed up or in the cloud somewhere, some of my data just disappeared. Permanently." Considering we do a lot of stuff on computers, losing meaningful data is kind of one of my bigger fears. I don't know about you. Granted the 840 didn't fully fail. It just practically did because it was so slow.
Click to expand...

like i said i backup meticulously, id be surprise to find people who don't in this day and age, specifically since like you said we do everything on computers. of course ti would be a hassle, and overall a pain in the ass, but your acting as if its a given that it will fail. Chances are it will not fail,ever. how many SSD have you seen fail? i have seen or touched thousands of PC;s with Ssd's installed and could count on 1 hand how many have failed, even during the OCZ days. and the ones that did had backup.

again this is my experience and i can understand the hesitation, but is it relevant enough to even mention in this type of thread when we have little info on it
 
I'm not saying it's a given that it will fail. I'm saying that Samsung has failed already with its last batch offering of this exact price tier, in a similar situation. It wasn't just one or two SSD's, it was practically, what, the entire model? So why bother going for something else that is released under similar circumstances (the same branding even: EVO) when you don't need to? I just don't see a good reason to. In case I didn't make it any more clear with my long paragraphs in this topic, that's all I was saying.

Furthermore, unless you backup constantly (or I guess run raid 1), you still risk losing some data and either way you risk losing any time you spend troubleshooting issues, updating firmware, sending the drive back, etc. My question is whether any trifling real world speedup you will get from going to the new SSD tech outweighs proven reliability of old tech, which performs competently anyway.

At that point it's simply a matter of opinion. My answer is "no".
 
Ins0mnyteq said:
like i said i backup meticulously, id be surprise to find people who don't in this day and age, specifically since like you said we do everything on computers. of course ti would be a hassle, and overall a pain in the ass, but your acting as if its a given that it will fail. Chances are it will not fail,ever. how many SSD have you seen fail? i have seen or touched thousands of PC;s with Ssd's installed and could count on 1 hand how many have failed, even during the OCZ days. and the ones that did had backup.

again this is my experience and i can understand the hesitation, but is it relevant enough to even mention in this type of thread when we have little info on it
Click to expand...

Thing is, we've had high profile failures from Intel, Crucial, of course OCZ, and many others over the years. And in these cases many people did experience data loss if they weren't prepared. At least the Samsung "failure" was performance related, so it spared these people.

I am another that doesn't see a huge risk. I'm more cautious when a new controller appears on the scene, but even then I don't give it a lot of thought. I have my backups, and I'm not afraid to try a new product or technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top