Samsung 850 EVO ReadSpeedTester results (slowdowns yes/no)?

[aviator79]

Guys, I understand that all of you want to have your "issues" sorted out, but just running a tool and post the result is not going to prove anything.
Include your hardware Specs:
CPU:
Mainboard:
SATA-Connector used:
SATA driver:
Is SSD OS drive: j/n
Is antivirus (also Win10 builtin) disabled during test?
LPM active?
Energy Settings?

Also: Post a screen of:
Crystal Disk Info - expand the window so you can see ALL raw values
https://osdn.jp/projects/crystaldiskinfo/downloads/65980/CrystalDiskInfo7_0_0.zip/

AS SSD
http://www.alex-is.de/PHP/fusion/downloads.php?cat_id=4&file_id=9

Drivecontrollerinfo
http://download.orbmu2k.de/download.php?id=48

If you want to check somne more results, please use this tool (from a german forum, very good benchmark tool for performance degradation):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w3igrsamowdxic5/File Bench 007a.zip?dl=0

It looks like this: You can specify minimum file size, I recommend 250 MB.

Just posting one screen of Read Speed Teste is no reliable information and proves nothing.
Sorry, but this whole discussion is useless if you don't provide proper information.

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

Is that unpowered?

Yep.

This is one of the reasons why I started this thread - in theory people are saying 16nm MLC and 40nm TLC are the same (based on endurance). In practise they may not be for data retention (especially unpowered as a backup drive). In theory the charge trap tech of 40nm may be superior to 16nm floating gate in terms of "leakage". In practise, the MLC has more than double the overhead vs voltage drift (I think it works out 2.35x larger "gap" between each state). So many theories, so little hard data.

Well, the NAND used in the BX100 was rated at 2000P/E which is the same as for the 850 EVO.
But I think the MX100 and MX200 had NAND rated at 3000P/E.
Have heard though from someone about seeing SSDs using 16nm MLC NAND in endurance tests wearing out at about 1500P/E.

 

[relaxed83]

Results from my tests

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

Results from my tests

That looks a lot better than I'd expect from an 840 with files that old.
Does it run hot?
Because the 840 tends to like heat which is likely why read speeds improved in the second test.