Testing performance is easy enough, but measuring endurance is too time-consuming for a comparison like this one. In a moment, we’ll see if that dynamic holds up in the wide variety of benchmarks that make up our storage test suite. At least according to the manufacturers’ specifications, the 840 EVO is faster than the M500 not only in every category, but also across the multiple capacities we’ve tested.
Writes proceed directly to the TLC flash if the TurboWrite buffer is full, but that only drops the EVO’s sequential speed rating to 420MB/s-20MB/s higher than the M500’s peak write rate. Thanks to TurboWrite, the 840 EVO 1TB has a peak sequential write speed of 520MB/s. Cached data is held in the TurboWrite buffer until the EVO slips into an idle state, after which the data is passed along to main storage. This SLC zone totals 12GB and is reserved for TurboWrite, which caches incoming data to mitigate the slower write speeds associated with TLC flash. Although much of its flash has three bits per cell, a portion is addressed as server-style SLC NAND with only one bit per cell. However, the 840 EVO isn’t a typical TLC implementation.
HARD DISK SENTINEL PRO FAMILY BLACK FRIDAY VERIFICATION
MLC NAND only needs to worry about four values between 00 to 11.ĭue to the more involved verification process, TLC NAND typically has slower write speeds than its MLC counterpart. The verification process takes longer with TLC NAND, which must differentiate between eight possible values between 000 and 111. Because there’s some unavoidable variation in the nanoscale characteristics of each cell, all data is verified after it’s written. The 840 EVO is based on TLC flash that squeezes an extra bit into every memory cell.įlash cells represent data with a negative charge created by trapped electrons. Like most consumer-grade SSDs, the M500 features MLC NAND with two bits per cell. Today, we’ll highlight a few key differences and similarities before moving on to the results of our exhaustive performance testing.īy far the biggest difference between the M500 and the 840 EVO is the flash memory under the hood. I suggest reading those initial articles for a detailed look at each drive’s underlying architecture. Since we’ve already covered lower-capacity versions of the Crucial M500 and Samsung 840 EVO in earlier reviews, we won’t rehash all the details here. Join us as we crown the king of the terabyte titans. We’ve also included smaller variants from each lineup to provide a little extra flavor for folks with tighter budgets. The question, of course, is which of these flash giants makes the best SSD? We’ve pitted the M500 960GB against the 840 EVO 1TB to find out. Those divisions no doubt get a nice family discount, too. Both firms have cutting-edge NAND fabrication facilities, and their SSD divisions are first in line for the latest chips. Samsung is the largest producer of flash memory in the world, while Crucial is the consumer brand of memory giant Micron. And they have higher performance ratings, too.Ĭonsidering the manufacturers, we probably shouldn’t be surprised that these drives are such relative bargains. If you do the math, these terabyte flagships actually cost less per gigabyte than lower-capacity models with cheaper price tags. However, they also have loads of storage. Both drives sell for north of $500, which puts them firmly in high-end territory. I feel a little silly saying this, but the Crucial M500 960GB and Samsung 840 EVO 1TB are two of the best values in the SSD market.
0 kommentar(er)
