M2: 256GB sm961 or 250GB 960 evo?

MadAd

Senior member
Oct 1, 2000
429
1
81
Im putting together a Z270 build, In my current machine I have already a 512 2.5" 850 EVO but was thinking of putting a small M2 in the new build as a boot/programs drive (with my existing evo as fast storage).

My primary focus is fast booting/program loads, write performance isnt that important as with OS/programs theyre mostly 'write once load many' however I have read at least 6-8 reviews and see conflicting information about the 256GB versions.

The EVOs SLC cache causes a fallback to poor 300mbs writes very quickly, the SM throttles sooner, the 250 Evo is old VNAND anyway, the SM has better sustained writes, the EVO has faster QD1 reads but quickly falls behind the SM at QD2...and on...ive used many hours of researching just this item and still am unsure.

Im leading towards the SM but is there anyone with hands on experience of these that can suggest why? And if in real world performance will I see loads faster than my existing 850? Is it even worth going M2 at this stage? 3Gbs reads sound attractive!

Also I understand QD is about the number of threads working on a drive but can someone explain why ill never hit QD2 in a desktop situation? Isnt copying two things at once from a drive QD2? What about watching a movie and copying a file? is that QD2?

I dont have the budget for the 500GB M2 tier so its either choose one of the 250 M2s or stick with my existing EVO till later, just seeing people having trouble cloning to M2 as well as knowing my own lazy self if I dont do M2 from the start ill likely put off an upgrade for years, thanks in advance for any help!
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
May 4, 2000
16,068
7,383
146
And if in real world performance will I see loads faster than my existing 850?

Not really for typical desktop use. The last comparison video I watched between a NVMe, SATA SSD, and HDD netted 3 seconds gained between the NVME and SSD at boot.

Loading most programs were also slightly faster, but not enough to justify the cost. Backups were quicker by a fair amount.

Plus, if you do want to upgrade to a NVMe drive, your best bet is to save your money and get a 500GB unit. The 250GB variety perform worse, and are that much closer to a SATA SSD in 'real world' performance.

When I have time and not on mobile, I'll link the comparison video here.

EDIT

I found the previous thread, post #48 has the video:

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-on-your-desktop.2496539/page-2#post-38671102
 
Last edited:

MadAd

Senior member
Oct 1, 2000
429
1
81
Great video, ty! I should definitely get one, so its just a case of which one, and the QD issue.
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
May 4, 2000
16,068
7,383
146
Well, if you are set buying a 250 GB version, it's a pretty easy decision: SM961. When the 250GB 960 EVO gets mentioned in the same sentence describing the performance of the Intel 600p, you know it probably isn't the best choice.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-960-evo-nvme-ssd-review,4802-3.html

The 960 EVO 250GB at $129 is a wash. The drive is not competitive against the MyDigitalSSD BPX that costs less. The fact that we had to put the Intel 600p and Samsung 960 EVO in the same sentence during comparative analysis should be embarrassing.

If it was the 500 GB+ versions of the 960 EVO, it would be a very easy decision. Those things rock.
 
Last edited: