Samsung 840 Series TLC 250GB SSD Review @ [H]

It would be great to see how performs Plextor PX-256M5S as it has almost the same price as Samsung 840.
 
polive said:
I think my 840 Pro will last me til the next version of SATA comes out :D
Click to expand...
You got that right. By the time the 840 SSD dies for most users, they'll have some new interface that's even faster and puts SATA3 to shame.
 
Impulse said:
10 years? Seriously? I don't think I've used any regular HDD for even 5 years before replacing them for something faster/larger. Sure, I've got a 6.4GB drive still spinning and other oddities, but I don't see why you would exaggerate the necessary/useful lifespan of an OS drive so much.
...
Demanding users should obviously know their needs and do their research and opt for higher end MLC drives but this view of the 840 like it's some sort of evil consumer trap seems very misguided, if anything it's gonna help everyone as it further pushes NAND pricing down.
...
Wait wait wait, the hassle of backups? So you're actually banking on the reliability of a ten year old drive to keep your data safe because backups are hard? That may be the funniest thing I've read all week. Anything that you aren't backing up is simply infinitely more at risk regardless of what kind of drive it's sitting on. All drives fail, it's not a matter of if but when. If you haven't had several drives fail you then you're simply beating the odds, and highly at risk.

If we're simply talking about reliability in terms compatibility or uptime, Samsung's controllers have proven their worth regarding the former and flash health isn't hard to track thru SMART attributes... If the drive's gonna fail due to eroded flash it's still gonna be far more predictable and salvageable than a mechanical drive which may fail catastrophically at any given time, moving parts tend to do that.
Click to expand...

I will grant that 5 years would be a decent minimum standard that would address most people's storage needs, I'm just saying not everyone likes to jump on the next latest or greatest, and if the current product I'm using lasts ten years then I'd be hopeful the replacement will be similar in reliability, plus we're talking a luxury product, not a commodity yet imho, next year or the one after maybe that changes, who knows.

I wouldn't call the 840 a "consumer trap" as you put it, but rather an unproven new technology that I'd rather let early adopters test out. I'm optimistic that Samsung did its homework properly because they have a good track record, but I'm in no hurry to jump on this, especially not while 830 is making it look bad.

I'm not sure where the "banking on the reliability of a ten year old drive" came from, it's an interesting way to interpret my statement. I do indeed have everything backed up, I'm just saying I'd rather not have to resort to restoring this drive or its future replacement that's all. I hate it when drives die, big pet peeve of mine.

And you're right about the graceful degradation of SSDs, that's probably the most important feature in my book, almost enough to justify paying the cost premium of a good Intel/Samsung drive, I do have plans to pick one up next year if I see a slick deal.
 
Last edited:
Updated firmware on this drive and benchmarks are looking good. I have faith that Samsung released this drive after proving out the technology in a lab under multiple stress and aging tests. It sounds like TLC NAND may be the future if this holds true and the technology will get cheaper and better like it always does.

Anyways so far I'm enjoying the drive with no issues and can't tell from a casual consumer that write speeds are a little slow? Coming from a vertex 3 max iops this drive feels a bit faster when loading big games like bf3 and the secret world.
 
Wierdo said:
I will grant that 5 years would be a decent minimum standard that would address most people's storage needs, I'm just saying not everyone likes to jump on the next latest or greatest, and if the current product I'm using lasts ten years then I'd be hopeful the replacement will be similar in reliability, plus we're talking a luxury product, not a commodity yet imho, next year or the one after maybe that changes, who knows.

I wouldn't call the 840 a "consumer trap" as you put it, but rather an unproven new technology that I'd rather let early adopters test out. I'm optimistic that Samsung did its homework properly because they have a good track record, but I'm in no hurry to jump on this, especially not while 830 is making it look bad.

I'm not sure where the "banking on the reliability of a ten year old drive" came from, it's an interesting way to interpret my statement. I do indeed have everything backed up, I'm just saying I'd rather not have to resort to restoring this drive or its future replacement that's all. I hate it when drives die, big pet peeve of mine.

And you're right about the graceful degradation of SSDs, that's probably the most important feature in my book, almost enough to justify paying the cost premium of a good Intel/Samsung drive, I do have plans to pick on up next year if I see a slick deal.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I was just getting that completely oblivious/anti-TLC vibe from you that I've seen other posters spouting, I agree it's somewhat unproven... As any recently released SSD/controller would be really, they're all a bit of a gamble the first few months to market, tho even HDD have had firmware woes the last few years.

The comments about backing up etc I simply misinterpreted. I've just gotten used to drives dying tbh, so it doesn't phase me at all anymore, I think I've had worse than average luck with that. No dead SSD yet but plenty of HDD and enclosures over the last couple of years, I'm sure it won't be long before I kill some flash. :p
 
Impulse said:
Fair enough, I was just getting that completely oblivious/anti-TLC vibe from you that I've seen other posters spouting
Click to expand...
I agree totally with you that there are no solid proof to mistrust these 840 TLC drives, but then on the other hand its a Nr's game, and the Nr's are not in the favor of TLC.

To quote my earlier post:
player-x said:
This standard 840 with TLC, I just do not trust it in the long term, specially for heavy use.

The m4 is a good alternative.
The 840 Pro is still too expensive, and hardly any faster than the m4 in practice.

NAND cell's function as capacitors the more electrons you for a certain value in a cell stops the more reliable it is.

1 bit SLC has two statuses on or off
2 bit MLC has four statuses on, two intermediate positions or off
4 bit TLC has eight statuses on six between positions or off

A SLC cell has 100 electrons for 1 bit.
Ware MLC you have 25 electrons for 2 bits
But whit TLC you only have 12.5 electrons for 4 bits

TLC for me is something I for one have no confidence in, for the long term, and with one or two process that shrinks the number of electrons decrease even more, TLC is something that might not even be reliable / possible to use.
Read here LSI talks about future flash and its problems.

Maybe the problem is in practice not so bad, especially for a HTPC or other light use, your properly save, as long as he does not get used for things like Torrent downloads, but I would not risk it, and i just buy a m4 instead!
Click to expand...
I for one will at least don't take the risk of using TLC on anything else the machines with a light HD loads.
 
NeonFlak said:
Feeling kind of owned here, based off other reviews I bought a bunch of these. Now contemplating trying to return all of them........
Click to expand...

I'm primarily a gamer, since the only downfall of this SSD is write speed, should I get this or the Samsung 840 Pro?
 
Again, as other people have stated... the only thing that the 840 suffers from is slower write speed. Most users do far more reading than they do writing. And as far as endurance is concerned, I fully believe that there will be some new SATA standard that blows SATA3 away well before this SSD dies for most users.

For those who bought this SSD, I don't understand why you are regretting the purchase. Put it in your machine and enjoy the speeds. I've said in some prior posts in this thread that the majority of users who buy an SSD simply want something that's faster than an HDD, which this SSD is. Just about anything is going to be faster than a traditional HDD.
 
If you took an m4, 840 pro, and 840 non-pro, I bet most people couldn't tell you which drive was in which machine without a benchmark tool (and without peeking of course duh). They are all great drives! (I do have at least one of each.)
 
Is the Pro Version really worth that much more compared to the TLC version? $180 is a big difference in price.
 
I just purchased the 840 256 GB from Amazon, primarily so that my Windows & apps run faster. It will be used in my desktop as a Windows 7 and apps drive and to host a few Linux VMs. All my other data is held separately on a couple of 1.5Tb Samsung HDD. My usage is just general Windows usage, creating test Linux VMs, which I do quite often and downloading to Samsung HDD. I probably only need a 150GB SSD for my needs.


In terms of endurance I'm not too worried, if I got about 3-5 years life I'd be happy. What concerns me are the relatively 'poor' write speeds. However my Gigabyte H55M-UD2H motherboard has only SATA2 ports. I think I read that only the expensive SATA3 cards give decent performance, so no point upgrading to SATA3. (http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1733366).

Are the slow write speeds a moot point seeing that I'm using SATA2? Once installed I don’t imagine Windows 7 will write much, probably more read. However I create a fair amount of 20/30GB VMs for testing/development. Should I return my SSD for a faster one, or will the difference be negligible ?
 
player-x said:
I agree totally with you that there are no solid proof to mistrust these 840 TLC drives, but then on the other hand its a Nr's game, and the Nr's are not in the favor of TLC.

To quote my earlier post:

I for one will at least don't take the risk of using TLC on anything else the machines with a light HD loads.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much about MLC vs TLC. If you are that concerned then maybe you should stick to SLC drives. Actually, where I work we do in flight data recording which does require SLC industrial temp nand.

However, for the normal user cheaper TLC nand is amazing and I will tell you why. For all the hubbub about decreased performance, decreased lifespan the most important thing here is PRICE. 5 or 6 years ago a SSD under 25GB was like $600 and the price came down mainly through the change from SLC > MLC. Now we will see another leap forward in SSD availability for the TLC drives. The average person should not be concerned at all by the decreased reliability and I expect most drives will simply overprovision to make up for this weakness. I don't know a single non business user that has exhausted a SSD.

Even at 20+ GB per day write this drive will last beyond the lifespan of a normal computer configuration. I don't think I have a single component in my system that is older than 5 years much less 10!

Honestly if you are a power user torrent fiend you should be using a HDD and not SSD anyways simply due to cost of storage space (500 GB doesn't hold many B-ray movies). This is a great drive for steam games and OS space and at a great price point. Now people who want a large speedy SSD don't have to make the decision between cheaper drive with much lower performance but more capacity or a more expensive drive with better performance and lower capacity. TLC is the best of both worlds. Would I buy this drive over a Vertex 4 or an 830 on sale? Probably not if they are at similar price points. Going forward I expect to see this drive drop in price as manufacturing ramps up though and then it will be a fantastic deal.
 
Last edited:
Whats the main difference between the Vertex 4 830 and 840, seems the 830 is cheaper at microcenter.
 
dpoverlord said:
Whats the main difference between the Vertex 4 830 and 840, seems the 830 is cheaper at microcenter.
Click to expand...

830 and 840 pro are great drives (mlc). 840 non-pro (tlc) isn't as fast in the write dept and isn't a great choice for high usage scenarios (data center, 24/7 writing, etc). Not sure about Vertex 4 -- it has a high idle power draw so that's a no-go for laptops, and read performance isn't so great comparatively, but I'm sure the average desktop user would find it perfectly fine. I would rock any of them in my desktop, and any of the 830/840 in my laptop.
 
xorbe said:
Not sure about Vertex 4
Click to expand...
Actually the Vertex 4 is great under sustained load and has a great garbage system.

I would recommend on the moment first the m4 but the Vertex 4 is a good alternative
 
Sorry to come back this, but would I be better off returning my 840 (non-pro) for a SSD with faster write speeds or should I just keep the 840 ?

tft_newbie said:
I just purchased the 840 256 GB from Amazon, primarily so that my Windows & apps run faster. It will be used in my desktop as a Windows 7 and apps drive and to host a few Linux VMs. All my other data is held separately on a couple of 1.5Tb Samsung HDD. My usage is just general Windows usage, creating test Linux VMs, which I do quite often and downloading to Samsung HDD. I probably only need a 150GB SSD for my needs.


In terms of endurance I'm not too worried, if I got about 3-5 years life I'd be happy. What concerns me are the relatively 'poor' write speeds. However my Gigabyte H55M-UD2H motherboard has only SATA2 ports. I think I read that only the expensive SATA3 cards give decent performance, so no point upgrading to SATA3. (http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1733366).

Are the slow write speeds a moot point seeing that I'm using SATA2? Once installed I don’t imagine Windows 7 will write much, probably more read. However I create a fair amount of 20/30GB VMs for testing/development. Should I return my SSD for a faster one, or will the difference be negligible ?
Click to expand...
 
tft_newbie said:
Sorry to come back this, but would I be better off returning my 840 (non-pro) for a SSD with faster write speeds or should I just keep the 840 ?
Click to expand...

I was in same situation as you, and I got the 256GB 840 Pro. So, I say yes to return and get the Pro. Others might say get the 830 for reliability as we do not know about TLC.

I have SATA II in my laptop. The primary drive is an 830 500GB for the OS and other stuff. I added a CD/DVD replacement tray for HD for the 840 Pro 256GB. After two months of using the 840 Pro the Samsung Magician reports the 840 Pro writes about 10-20% faster than 830. I updated to the latest 840 Pro firmware immediately.

I think your 840 250GB writes will be noticeably slower and you may not be happy. The main reason I have the 256GB drive is for VM only. It is a good size for holding a few VM and fast. I have no complaints about speed on either drive. I researched a used laptop upgrade, and found some have SATA III on primary but only SATA II on secondary for CD/DVD.

Summary, I think you can not go wrong with a 840 Pro 256GB.
 
Thanks for the info, so the 'poor' write speeds of the 840 (non-pro) will do not exceed the limitations of the SATA2 ?

Tbh if the write speeds performance increase between the 840 and 840 Pro is ~ 10% I might just stick with the 840 - The 840 250GB only cost me £109
 
The 830 500GB does not achieve 300MBps on SATA II, rather over 200MBps. I put an 830 256GB into a Mac mini SATA III with potential 600MBps, and it achieves approximately 500 MBps read and over 400 MBps write. The benefit of SATA III is big.

Later today, when I get to my laptop, I will post the actual numbers from Samsung Magician for both 830 512GB primary and 840 Pro 256GB secondary in DVD-HD tray on SATA II. And, I can use another test tool if you suggest one.

You can compare my results with some of the reviews, maybe figure out the differences. Good luck.
 
The benefit of SATA III is big.
Click to expand...

Remember that you only achieve 500MB/s when doing large sequential reads and writes or have very high queue depth that you probably will not see on a single user desktop outside of benchmark software. You do not get anywhere near that for 4K reads and writes which tend to be the most important benchmark for a large portion of the applications you will typically use in a desktop system.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if its still applicable, I have a H55 Motherboard and looks like theres a known issue with SSD ? The max read/write is around 200MB/s and 155MB/s

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2106551

With my H55 Motherboard and SATA2 ports, can I reasonably only expect those type of speeds ? If thats the case, there no point in me returning my SSD840 for a better SSD with faster write speeds


raxstime said:
The 830 500GB does not achieve 300MBps on SATA II, rather over 200MBps. I put an 830 256GB into a Mac mini SATA III with potential 600MBps, and it achieves approximately 500 MBps read and over 400 MBps write. The benefit of SATA III is big.

Later today, when I get to my laptop, I will post the actual numbers from Samsung Magician for both 830 512GB primary and 840 Pro 256GB secondary in DVD-HD tray on SATA II. And, I can use another test tool if you suggest one.

You can compare my results with some of the reviews, maybe figure out the differences. Good luck.
Click to expand...
 
tft_newbie said:
Not sure if its still applicable, I have a H55 Motherboard and looks like theres a known issue with SSD ? The max read/write is around 200MB/s and 155MB/s

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2106551

With my H55 Motherboard and SATA2 ports, can I reasonably only expect those type of speeds ? If thats the case, there no point in me returning my SSD840 for a better SSD with faster write speeds
Click to expand...

Dude, you're not going to notice. The system performance boost isn't from max throughput, it's from zero seek latency.
 
I picked up one of these in the 250GB size, planning to use it as a games drive to compliment my 830 which was to be boot drive. But the 830 was having some really strange issues accepting an OS so I went ahead and put it on the 840. Not a good choice, my boot up times increased dramatically, especially once it gets to the desktop it is around the same speed as my 500GB Seagate HDD at loading all of my programs while with the 830 they were instantly there. This is my only beef with the drive as I could care less about maximum read/write speeds when I can get a 250GB SATA III SSD for $160.
 
LigTasm said:
I picked up one of these in the 250GB size, planning to use it as a games drive to compliment my 830 which was to be boot drive. But the 830 was having some really strange issues accepting an OS so I went ahead and put it on the 840. Not a good choice, my boot up times increased dramatically, especially once it gets to the desktop it is around the same speed as my 500GB Seagate HDD at loading all of my programs while with the 830 they were instantly there. This is my only beef with the drive as I could care less about maximum read/write speeds when I can get a 250GB SATA III SSD for $160.
Click to expand...

So ... your 830 has trouble installing an OS, and your 840 has trouble loading an OS quickly ... sounds like the problem is something other than your drives!
edit: Well I stand corrected ... 3 people with the same issue below.
 
Last edited:
xorbe said:
So ... your 830 has trouble installing an OS, and your 840 has trouble loading an OS quickly ... sounds like the problem is something other than your drives!
Click to expand...

The 830 works fine and was used for over 6 months prior, I should clarify it was the windows 8 installer was not thrilled about trying to install on it for some reason. It would not install on 3 out of 4 of the SSD's I own so I finally just settled on the 840 (I figured out why afterwards but wasn't keen on re-installing and having to call microsoft to get it activated AGAIN). It was more a windows 8 being a problem than a problem with the drive itself. The 840 is just slow to load, the benchmarks are good.
 
OK, took the plunge, setup 840 SSD to my MB SATA2 ports with a fresh copy of Windows 7, installed all Windows Updates. Installed Samsung Magician - updated Firmware, ran performance optimisation and OS optimisation, BIOS is set to ACHI.

The results seem poor, even for SATA 2. Windows 7 doesn't seem to boot much faster than a fresh install on a HDD - once the SSD kicks in, it takes about 25+ seconds to login screen. Only have Windows installed so far, the applications are faster, but nowhere as fast as I hoped/expected.

I've compared my ATTO benchmarks to the ones in the review. - From 8Mb test onwards they are what I expect - a max Write/Read of 260/280. However for 0.5-4 test files both write/read speeds are 2/3 times slower than in the review !

Please tell me I'm doing something wrong, or is it the limitation of my H55 motherboard/SATA2 ports ? My first SSD and I'm very disappointed !


Write Read
0.5 - 19024 24897
1.0 - 34133 52983
2.0 - 73252 109604
4.0 - 174740 189513

capturekcu.png
 
I also bought a 840 250 gig drive and am experiencing extremely slow boot up times for windows 8. Everything benches just fine, and apps start really quick. I'm on an Asus Z68 board with windows 8 installed. ACHI is on and I'm on the proper Sata 3 port. This just doesn't seem right. I've reloaded windows three times so far and still slow as heck. My other computer with a Vertex 3 max iops Z68 sata 3 loads windows 8 in just a few seconds while the 840 takes almost a minute.

This same computer with the 840 had a 40 gig Intel SSD with Windows 7 and loaded win 7 in 15 seconds. So it's obviously the drive itself.
 
hdgamer said:
I also bought a 840 250 gig drive and am experiencing extremely slow boot up times for windows 8. Everything benches just fine, and apps start really quick. I'm on an Asus Z68 board with windows 8 installed. ACHI is on and I'm on the proper Sata 3 port. This just doesn't seem right. I've reloaded windows three times so far and still slow as heck. My other computer with a Vertex 3 max iops Z68 sata 3 loads windows 8 in just a few seconds while the 840 takes almost a minute.

This same computer with the 840 had a 40 gig Intel SSD with Windows 7 and loaded win 7 in 15 seconds. So it's obviously the drive itself.
Click to expand...

Thats about what I experience, everything is fast besides startup. It gets to the desktop fast but takes forever (45 sec to 1 minute) to load my few programs (steam, logitech, corsair headset, afterburner). My 7200rpm spinner does it faster.
 
My problem is a bit different. It doesn't get to the desktop fast. It stays on the windows logo screen forever. Once the desktop shows up everything is instant. I think they need to update the firmware in that drive, otherwise this drive sucks and I wouldn't recommend it. LOL
 
@tft_newbie

My latest Magician run results with 830 on primary SATA II port, and 840 Pro on DVD/secondary SATA II port follow:
Drive Volume Seq Read Seq Write Ran Read Ran Write
830 500GB c: 221 201 38096 29711
840 Pro 256 d: 222 207 44044 37059

Both these drives are 80-90% full.

I can get Atto and run a test next.
 
tft_newbie said:
OK, took the plunge, setup 840 SSD to my MB SATA2 ports with a fresh copy of Windows 7, installed all Windows Updates. Installed Samsung Magician - updated Firmware, ran performance optimisation and OS optimisation, BIOS is set to ACHI.

The results seem poor, even for SATA 2. Windows 7 doesn't seem to boot much faster than a fresh install on a HDD - once the SSD kicks in, it takes about 25+ seconds to login screen. Only have Windows installed so far, the applications are faster, but nowhere as fast as I hoped/expected.

I've compared my ATTO benchmarks to the ones in the review. - From 8Mb test onwards they are what I expect - a max Write/Read of 260/280. However for 0.5-4 test files both write/read speeds are 2/3 times slower than in the review !

Please tell me I'm doing something wrong, or is it the limitation of my H55 motherboard/SATA2 ports ? My first SSD and I'm very disappointed !


Write Read
0.5 - 19024 24897
1.0 - 34133 52983
2.0 - 73252 109604
4.0 - 174740 189513

capturekcu.png
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a SATA II issue. When I put my 830 in a Mac Mini on SATA III the same drive read was 500 MBps and write over 400 MBps sequential. I was really surprised the same drive was so slow on SATA II, yet thrilled it was so fast on the Mac Mini.

Regarding your SATA II mobo, I read many reviews and people generally say the SATA III pci-e cards do not work. Nothing beats a good SATA III port on the motherboard. Good luck.
 
@tft_newbie

The first image is for 830 512GB on primary SATA II port.

830512gbatto.png



Second image is for 840 Pro 256GB on DVD/secondary SATA II port.

840pro256gbatto.png



I had to get the newest ATTO version. Mine old version looked different, it was version 2.02, so about 45 versions old (12 years). Funny.

You can easily compare all three drives.
 
hdgamer said:
I also bought a 840 250 gig drive and am experiencing extremely slow boot up times for windows 8. Everything benches just fine, and apps start really quick. I'm on an Asus Z68 board with windows 8 installed. ACHI is on and I'm on the proper Sata 3 port. This just doesn't seem right. I've reloaded windows three times so far and still slow as heck. My other computer with a Vertex 3 max iops Z68 sata 3 loads windows 8 in just a few seconds while the 840 takes almost a minute.

This same computer with the 840 had a 40 gig Intel SSD with Windows 7 and loaded win 7 in 15 seconds. So it's obviously the drive itself.
Click to expand...

I had to revert to a Windows 7 system back up because my 840 performance was so bad. Even my M4 that was running Windows 8 was bad. I don't know what caused the dramatic issues. This is my 840 500GB before I restored Windows 7 on a M4.

bad_numbers.png


I knew instantly something was wrong. My problems didn't start with the 840 either. My M4 had lost some of it's performance over the last month, but the 840 didn't have an excuse. I restored from a Windows 7 back up to the M4, and re-benched the 840.

840_baseline.png


You can feel the difference in the random read and write numbers. I knew before benching that something was wrong. The random performance will probably be a little better. The "good" benchmark is using the "balanced" Windows power mode. Performance mode should be a better.
 
Last edited:
Very odd, I will try to recreate these issues. I know that there are some 'issues' with Windows 8 and how it handles I/O. It waits for actual command completion and will not allow the drives to move forward without the completion issuance. I will dig into this and see what pops up, sorry for the delay, been away on a trip :)
 
tft_newbie said:
OK, took the plunge, setup 840 SSD to my MB SATA2 ports with a fresh copy of Windows 7, installed all Windows Updates. Installed Samsung Magician - updated Firmware, ran performance optimisation and OS optimisation, BIOS is set to ACHI.

The results seem poor, even for SATA 2. Windows 7 doesn't seem to boot much faster than a fresh install on a HDD - once the SSD kicks in, it takes about 25+ seconds to login screen. Only have Windows installed so far, the applications are faster, but nowhere as fast as I hoped/expected.

I've compared my ATTO benchmarks to the ones in the review. - From 8Mb test onwards they are what I expect - a max Write/Read of 260/280. However for 0.5-4 test files both write/read speeds are 2/3 times slower than in the review !

Please tell me I'm doing something wrong, or is it the limitation of my H55 motherboard/SATA2 ports ? My first SSD and I'm very disappointed !


Write Read
0.5 - 19024 24897
1.0 - 34133 52983
2.0 - 73252 109604
4.0 - 174740 189513

capturekcu.png
Click to expand...

hdgamer said:
I also bought a 840 250 gig drive and am experiencing extremely slow boot up times for windows 8. Everything benches just fine, and apps start really quick. I'm on an Asus Z68 board with windows 8 installed. ACHI is on and I'm on the proper Sata 3 port. This just doesn't seem right. I've reloaded windows three times so far and still slow as heck. My other computer with a Vertex 3 max iops Z68 sata 3 loads windows 8 in just a few seconds while the 840 takes almost a minute.

This same computer with the 840 had a 40 gig Intel SSD with Windows 7 and loaded win 7 in 15 seconds. So it's obviously the drive itself.
Click to expand...

LigTasm said:
Thats about what I experience, everything is fast besides startup. It gets to the desktop fast but takes forever (45 sec to 1 minute) to load my few programs (steam, logitech, corsair headset, afterburner). My 7200rpm spinner does it faster.
Click to expand...




I just bought one of these the other day. I have a biostar z68 mb with sata 3 and its set to ahci mode. Plugged the ssd into the sata 3 port, and installed windows 8 pro on it, and installed intel chipset/intel rapid storage/samsung magician software/drivers, and updated the 840's firmware. I boot to the login screen in about 7 seconds flat, and it logs in pretty much instantly... I'd say a boot time of 25 seconds with any ssd is abnormal. My previous setup was windows 8, a 320gb wd black hdd, and an older ocz vertex 2 being used as a cache via intel smart response, and I still got way faster boot times then you guys are seeing (10-15 seconds). Honestly I really don't think its "obviously the drive" if everything else but the boot speed is very quick and benchmarks give good results... In any case I certainly haven't had any boot speed issues with windows 8 + this ssd, those boot speeds definitely don't seem "normal" for this ssd.

To add to the other comments discussing the liftetime of the SSD, I'm not particularly worried myself. Samsung's firmware is pretty solid, and I have the recommended 23 gb over-provisioning set. I'm sure it will still be quick for 3-4 years depending on workload, and by then I'd be upgrading anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top