2TB SSD: Samsung 850 Evo or 850 Pro?

[Dave3000]

I want to replace my 512GB SSD and 1TB HDD with one 2TB SSD. I'm leaning towards the Samsung 850 Evo because of the price/performance ratio but will consider the 850 Pro if it's worth the extra money. I need something reliable as well and can maintain it's performance over time.

 

[sinisterDei]

Either would be fine. Unless you're running some intensive shit, the difference between the Pro and EVO is super minor.

By intensive shit, I mean constant 24x7 writes to the drive with no downtime.

 

[mikeymikec]

IMO if I had the money and reason to buy a 2TB SSD (and the price of the Pro was within my means), I would be considering it as a long-term investment both in reliability and performance terms, so I would go for the Pro.

However I would ask myself the question of whether such a large capacity drive needs to be an SSD though. I make do with my 256GB SSD by backing up unused games from Steam and dropping them on my (secondary) 1TB HDD. Another argument could be drive noise I guess, though the day that I drop >£500 purely in the name of reducing system noise is a day that I probably need to re-examine my finances and my priorities

However, It seems to me that the OP has money to burn if they're going from (presumably) a more sensible scenario of having throughput-sensitive data on an SSD and non-throughput-sensitive data on a HDD to putting everything on an SSD, so maybe my style of wanting to make long-term value investments is not applicable here.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think that the "need" for "huge" (greater than 1TB) SSDs, in a consumer setting, is complex. Most people don't have that qty of data or programs that "need" the performance of an SSD. Most likely, it's a combination of convenience, computer lust, and some computer OCD. ("My OS is on SSD, why not my data too!")

That said, if you can afford it, then go for it.

 

[sinisterDei]

I definitely do it for convenience. I run a RAID0 of 1TB SSDs, not for performance, but because I got a good deal on the SSDs and it was the best way to get a single big volume. I still have a mechanical drive, but I spend about 99% less time thinking about my storage solution than when I had a 250 GB drive and the mechanical drive.

 

[KentState]

I think that the "need" for "huge" (greater than 1TB) SSDs, in a consumer setting, is complex. Most people don't have that qty of data or programs that "need" the performance of an SSD. Most likely, it's a combination of convenience, computer lust, and some computer OCD. ("My OS is on SSD, why not my data too!")

That said, if you can afford it, then go for it.

Even in a corporate environment, a company will put the 10-20% of highly accessed data on SSD and the rest on mechanical drives.

At home I paired it down to an NVMe for OS/Apps, 500GB SSD for games and then a 2TB HDD for unused games and data that I want local. Even with a dozen or so games on the SSD I still have plenty of room left.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I think that the "need" for "huge" (greater than 1TB) SSDs, in a consumer setting, is complex. Most people don't have that qty of data or programs that "need" the performance of an SSD. Most likely, it's a combination of convenience, computer lust, and some computer OCD. ("My OS is on SSD, why not my data too!")

That said, if you can afford it, then go for it.

I think you and Mikeymikec nail it, and sinisterDei adds more.

I've had a different idea for the last couple years. This is all in context about things like "overinvestment," size and life-span. If you can get storage cheap as HDDs, for instance $40-$50 for a 1TB HDD, you can integrate the three storage tiers of M.2 NVMe, SATA SSD and HDD.

In my approach-in-progress, the objective (with 255GB EVO M.2 arriving today!) is to use PrimoCache to cache SATA devices to the M.2, perhaps adding a sliver of RAM-caching to that.

If I have a dual-boot OS configuration (and I do), I split the M.2 cache, a single SATA SSD, and a 2.5" Barracuda 2TB HDD between the OSes. A second 2TB drives will be shared between the OSes as a single volume without caching for media files -- pictures, videos, movies or DVR recordings. The caching configurations requires volumes exclusive to each OS. You would obviously want your "MS Office" or other files available to both OSes, so they would go on the uncached HDD. Of course, you can "do what you want."

Right now, waiting for the EVO M.2, it all works fine for caching the first HDD to a 100GB SATA SSD volume. It is currently using maybe 4 or 5GB of RAM for the total of two caching tasks. I expect that the need or desire to use any RAM caching will simply "go away" once I introduce the small EVO in the mix and retire the current SATA caching SSD.

If you want your OS to run "native" to an M.2 drive, you can spend the $630 on a Sammy 960 Pro 500 GB or 1TB. But you could still extend the "Program Files" directories to a cached SATA SSD or HDD.

Sure, it would be nice to put all your files on a 2TB SSD, but it doesn't even make sense for the larger media files. I could spend the money and try to use the SSD for its full lifetime. But think about it: all the eggs are in one basket. I'd rather have cheap massive storage even if it's slow but not consequent to performance, in addition to lightning NVMe speed or SSD power savings.

Maybe I'll revisit this aspect when HDDs are truly "obsolete." But you can still use "obsolete" storage if you have the hardware for it.

"DEVIL IN THE DETAILS:" Forgot how to resolve the matter of the uncached media drive. You can change a RAM cache on the fly to at least avoid caching a 5GB DVR. But even if you don't, there should be no "wear and tear" on RAM from exclusively caching an HDD to it. It really doesn't take much RAM to make the benchies show HDD "performance" close to SATA SSD. What more would you want?

 

[sinisterDei]

I think you have good points for the most part, but miss out on one simple thing.

Firstly, the bits I agree on- I obviously don't advocate buying a huge SSD just to store your music and movies on. That's dumb, and mechanical drives are cheaper for mass storage. I have 8x 3TB drives in my "server" PC just for this very purpose.

And in theory, I like the idea of the tiered storage. Super fast for OS and commonly used applications and games. Pretty quick for the rest of your games. Slow and cheap for mass storage.

The part that's missed out is that there is value in simplicity. The tiered storage described above takes thought and occasional effort to manage. One big disk does not.

Back when I had a 250 GB SSD for my OS and favorite games and a 3 TB disk for older games to get archived to, every so often I'd begin filling up the 250 GB drive and have to move stuff over to the 3 TB to make room. Every time I did a game install, I had to make the decision - where do I put it? As time went on, these decisions became more frequent; Doom was damn near 60 GB - well shit, that's a *huge* chunk of my SSD. Bioshock Infinite is near 50 GB. WoW is near 40 GB. They've gotta fit in there next to Dota and CSGO, which add up to 30 between them. I was no longer installing games that took up 4-7 GB of space where I could cram a bunch of them into the SSD and still have room for the OS and a healthy amount of unused disk space. So the management itself began to take a bit of time.

Sure, I could have moved to a three tier system - NVME for OS, SSD for games, HDD for archived games/other stuff. But that's even more management.

So I spent the cash on the biggest SSDs I could - 1 TB ones - and built the biggest SSD volume I could afford. I bought good, but inexpensive SSDs (850 EVO) and didn't bother with trying for bleeding edge performance; I valued capacity. And I still get all the wonders of a system that takes five seconds to go from the UEFI screen to a desktop, despite going with the "lower performance" SATA SSDs.

Maybe it's not the approach for everyone, but it works for me.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well, that's what I'd say about my own setup. I'm totally immersed in this techno-stuff, trying to squeeze blood out of stones. Once everything is working properly, any "routines" are familiar and the maintenance is minimal.

I do understand the "everything-on-one-drive" preference. Of course, you can link folders to drives or do any number of things -- also adding complexity when maintenance is required.

I, too, value capacity no less than speed. It's part of the old model: faster storage of lower capacity at the top of a pyramid; slowest storage with largest capacity at the bottom. I really don't want to run 2, 3 or 5 disks in RAID. If I build a configuration with at most two or three storage devices, it makes the most sense to integrate items with that model in mind.

Anyway, for using an NVMe drive as an SSD-cache, we're going to find out. I'm sure I won't be able to resist posting my benchmark screenies. [Waiting on the FedEx truck for the EVO and a PCI-E M.2 card. I can't even sit still.]

Actually, I think my dual-boot OS makes it look more complicated than it is. Think of it as a "duplicated" caching regime. The persistent caches have to be exclusive to each OS, and you can't change cached HDDs by adding or changing files in one OS for access by the second OS: it makes the source disk inconsistent with the cache. With RAM-caching, as long as it isn't saved to disk at shutdown or restart, it's volatile memory and therefore no problem caching the same device under different OSes to "the same RAM." That sort of cache isn't persistent, as opposed to a caching-SSD of one or more HDDs.

What I have in mind here would only seem to be a profligate waste of storage, but the criticism only applies for the dual-boot configuration. In that scenario, you have to install your MS Office and other programs twice -- once for each OS.

The fact that I can make this all work so well and so flawlessly on multiple dual-boot systems is comforting.

 

[mikeymikec]

Re: "One drive for everything" = simplicity

Of course it has the opposite effect if you want/need to replace it. Considering that the OP has already apparently gone through a 512GB SSD, going through a 2TB barrier is not a great stretch of the imagination.

 

[sinisterDei]

Bonzai, what are you doing to do the SSD caching ?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Bonzai, what are you doing to do the SSD caching ?

I started putting together a diagram with Corel Photo-Paint. I was planning to post it if my NVMe "caching SSD" proved to be a rave success. Everybody will just have to wait until the sensitive artiste has completed his picture.

I used ISRT with a 60GB Patriot caching drive for about 3 years on my first Sandy System. When the cached VelociRaptor went south to the RMA depot, I bought my Sammy 840 Pro. But I could see how caching could help in some situations. For instance, I'd just acquired an old laptop, and swapped in a 500GB MX100, knowing full well that the controller was only SATA-II. I was able to upgrade the RAM to 2x4 8GB, and used between 2 or 3GB to cache the SSD. Scores on a 2008 laptop drive in excess of 1,200 MB/s sequential read.

Somebody tipped me to PrimoCache. I was also able to find SuperSpeed's SuperCache, which is like a steak knife compared to Primo's Swiss Army versatility. This is an ironic analogy, because some years back China had been producing counterfeit Swiss Army "tool-knives" using cheap steel, and Romex Software is HQ'd in Shanghai:

Romex Software and PrimoCache

I was cautious with it, and only had an immediate need to try it on the laptop. In 2014, the trial license ran for 90 days. By the time I'd made my evaluation, I decided to purchase the 3-PC license and try it on a desktop. I eventually broke down and bought a separate 1-PC license, so it's running on four of the household systems now.

All the other well-known options excluding SuperCache are proprietary: ISRT requires an Intel controller; RAPID requires a Samsung SSD; Hyper-Duo requires a Marvell controller. Worse -- for ISRT, you need to configure BIOS storage mode to RAID; for RAPID, it must be set to AHCI.

Primo is drive-mode and controller "agnostic." You can cache a RAID0 and an AHCI disk under the same caching task, and you can use multiple controllers of varied source -- Intel, Marvell, etc.

So you can allocate maybe 2GB of RAM for a RAM cache, use an SSD 60 to 100GB caching volume to accelerate an HDD all cached to that RAM. Primo distinguishes between "L1" and "L2" cache -- L2 designating the SSD-caching.

The worst problems I've had with it are no different than the troubles you could have with ISRT in "Enhanced' or "Maximum" mode with the deferred-writes feature enabled. Without the deferred writes enabled, nothing bad will happen. Since you can enable that feature on the fly, you can avoid any troubles arising from hardware failures with BSODs, freezes and resets. Even in those cases, a problem with a cache will likely trigger a CHKDSK on next boot. ISRT does its own little thing when there are errors on one of the drives in the configuration.

With RAM caching such as RAPID (or Primo), the default choice is to make it totally volatile, so some unforeseen system instability or blackout is not going to matter. A new cache is established at boot-time. For a Primo SSD cache, you can limit it to "Read only," but I've never had any trouble with the "Read and Write" option. The deferred writes feature is probably the biggest risk, just as with ISRT.

My 960 EVO 250GB arrived today with the Lycom PCI-E x4 expansion card. I can hardly wait! It just seems obvious that replacing an SATA SSD cache with an NVMe cache -- increasing the caching volume's performance by 5 times will mean that only small amounts of RAM would be needed -- if any is needed at all. But if I'd been using 2GB of RAM to cache an SSD-accelerated HDD, what sort of bench scores would I get by increasing the SSD-cache speed from ~500 to ~ 3,000 MB/s? Or what would the scores be if I decreased the RAM allocation to 1GB with the NVMe cache?

Once it's all set up, you don't bother fiddling with the caching SSD, and you don't assign a drive label to it.

I'm getting ready to install the EVO and the Samsung driver for it. I'd just as well use the Sammy driver, as opposed to the downloadable Microsoft "native" driver with its afterthought patch to make your system stable again after installing that driver.

Just an afterthought. I got the 250GB EVO just to get my feet wet with M.2 NVMe. I'm not ready to shell out $620 for a 960 Pro 1TB. But I'm quite sure one could put the OS on a large NVMe, create another volume of 100GB on that NVMe, and then cache slower devices to it. For now, I'm leaving my OS on an ADATA SP550.

 

[Dave3000]

Today I purchased the Samsung 850 Evo 2TB SSD. I'm replacing my 512 GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD with it. I also have a 1TB WD Black HDD installed but I not sure if I want to uninstall the 1TB HDD from my PC as well. In my opinion, it seems silly have a HDD that is smaller than a SSD that is installed in the same system. Should I keep the 1TB HDD installed in my system for my office documents, downloaded program installers, driver installers, and pictures even if I have the room to also store all those on the 2TB SSD and just leave the OS and games installed on the SSD?

 

[sinisterDei]

You could do it either way.

If it was me, I would keep the drive in the system, or in a USB enclosure, but keep all the stuff on the SSD. Then I would set up a script to take a backup of my user profile weekly or so and copy it over to the 1TB drive. If you got a larger drive, you could just take full disk backups using something like Veeam Endpoint Backup, which is free.

I like backups. Backups are good. Everyone should have them!

 

[Dave3000]

I right now have my 2TB SSD partition the following way:

60GB Windows 10 OS/Apps
1940GB Data (including games)

I was thinking about removing the 120GB Samsung 750 Evo SSD from my Intel NUC (used as a HTPC at this time) and transferring it to this PC and using it as purely an OS/Apps drive and just leave the whole 2TB SSD for games/data and transferring my 512GB Samsung 840 Pro to my NUC and partitioning it with a 60GB OS partition and the rest for data. I also own an XBox One and have an external 2.5" USB 3.0 enclosure and I can my old 512GB SSD as an external drive for my games on my XBox One. I can also leave it in my spare parts bin for a future PC build from old PC parts. Should I just sell my 512GB SSD?

 

[sinisterDei]

That sounds like a lot of shuffling around. If you're happy with your setups now (the PC and the HTPC) then I'd leave well enough alone. Only you can decide whether you want to use the SSD on your Xbox or not. If it was me, I'd probably sell it. Well, in honesty, if it was me it'd find some other home in my hand-me-down ladder - likely my wife or brother's PC. But not everyone has 5+ PCs in the hand-me-down list.

 

[DaveSimmons]

My gaming PC has a 256 GB SSD boot drive, 750 GB SSD Steam / games drive, and an old 1 TB platter drive I use as a backup drive for game saves and such. If you're 20 hours into an RPG and you've turned off Steam cloud sync because it's braindead and wants to re-upload 100 saves, having them all copied to the platter drive is reassuring.

It's also nice even if Steam cloud is enabled for a game since there have been games where the cloud save can get corrupted.