will a Samsung 750 Evo 500GB suffice for an i7-6700?

[swapjim]

I'm running an i7-6700 on an Asus H170-Pro with 16GB of RAM and a Radeon R9 380.

Out of pure sloth I've been running this PC for a year with a platter 1TB WD Black disk.

The computer feels sluggish and I want to add a Samsung 750 Evo 500GB SSD, which costs 167 USD on my local market (I don't buy online).

I picked this drive because of it's size and because it received nice reviews, but I'm open to more suggestions aroung the 500GB mark.

Right now, the OS, the software, one game I'm playing, and all projects I work on, amount to 200GB. So that leaves me another 300GB for more stuff, which I think will keep me going on for at least 3 more years.

Does it sound good? I think this drive is fast enough and big enough to keep me going for at least 3 to 5 years.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If you already have 200GB worth of stuff, then I would think strongly about getting a 1TB, either a Samsung EVO 850 (NOT 750), a 1TB Mushkin Reactor (planar MLC), or a 1TB Crucial MX300 (IMFT 3D TLC). Maybe an Adata SU800 or SU900 1TB too, if it's cheaper than the Crucial or Mushkin.

Dont get a Samsung 750, those are planar TLC, the worst kind of NAND. The sad part is, they aren't even significantly cheaper than the 850.

Edit: Samsung EVO 750 is planar TLC, EVO 850 is 3D TLC NAND.

Edit: In more detail: Planar NAND has degredation and read-speed slowdowns. The EVO 750, is essentially the same drive as the EVO 840, which had planar NAND, and read slow-downs, but had a firmware update, that essentially constantly re-writes old data cells, keeping read speeds up, but consuming the lifespan of the SSD at an accelerated rate.

The 850 EVO, being 3D NAND (but still TLC), has virtually none of those issues. At least, none that anyone has found yet.

 

[swapjim]

1TB SSD drives cost far more than what I want to spend for a drive right now.

The Samsung 850 EVO 500GB costs 200 USD. That's 20% more. One review I read places the EVO 750 at 100TBW, which sounds acceptable to me. Does this TBW take into account the re-writes necessary?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm just saying... I wouldn't touch a Samsung EVO 750 (or 840) with a pole. Either get a 3D NAND SSD, or an MLC SSD, avoid TLC, and especially the 840 / 750, as those were actually known for read slow-downs.

 

[FFFF]

Don't listen to VirtualLarry, him and a few others are part of a circlejerk that are automatically discrediting planar TLC NAND. I, myself have a planar TLC-based 840 EVO going on 3 years almost and it's still at 93% life remaining with over 20TB written so given its' similarities to the 750 EVO I'd say you're pretty safe buying it.

Also performance is almost equal between the 750 EVO and 840 EVO, the latter of which I can vouch for.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Edit: In more detail: Planar NAND has degredation and read-speed slowdowns. The EVO 750, is essentially the same drive as the EVO 840, which had planar NAND, and read slow-downs, but had a firmware update, that essentially constantly re-writes old data cells, keeping read speeds up, but consuming the lifespan of the SSD at an accelerated rate.

The 850 EVO, being 3D NAND (but still TLC), has virtually none of those issues. At least, none that anyone has found yet.

Have I said anything that wasn't factual?

I never said that the 840 EVO doesn't work as an SSD. Only that it has read-speed slowdowns (documented!), and required a firmware fix for said slowdowns (documented!), and thus is consuming what little P/E cycles planar TLC NAND has, at an accellerated rate, due to background re-writing (I don't know if that has been absolutely proven, but it's the prevailing theory on how the firmware fix works.)

I mean, the 840 EVO / 750 Samsung drives, are the "Ford Pinto" of cars.

I never said that it wasn't a drivable car, just that... you would be better off in the long run, choosing a different one. Even if there are some Ford Pinto owners in the audience, that haven't had theirs blow up yet.

 

[FFFF]

VirtualLarry, I won't waste my time arguing with you. Yes 840 EVO had some issues but sure enough Samsung released a fix that returned performance to optimal levels and like I said even with all those additional drive cycles consumed by said fix my 840 EVO is still at 93% life remaining and it's got more than 20TB written on it.

But sure, keep on spreading senseless FUD like that and making pointless analogies to cars instead of enjoying a perfectly fine SATA SSD that is undeservedly bashed like the case here with my 840 EVO.

 

[escrow4]

Get a 500GB WD Blue:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820250079

I'm using a 240GB version and its more than sufficient. And cheap.Is $140 as of this post.

 

[FFFF]

Get a 500GB WD Blue:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820250079

I'm using a 240GB version and its more than sufficient. And cheap.Is $140 as of this post.

Not a bad suggestion, but it's half the size of the 500GB 750 EVO mentioned by the OP. Also, according to AnandTech's own bench, the 750 EVO apparently beats it in most tests:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1692?vs=1809

And that is with a 250GB vs 1TB comparison.

Edit: My bad, you were suggesting him buying the 500GB version. So yeah, if OP finds that drive cheaper than the 750 EVO it's a decent choice indeed.

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

Edit: In more detail: Planar NAND has degredation and read-speed slowdowns. The EVO 750, is essentially the same drive as the EVO 840, which had planar NAND, and read slow-downs, but had a firmware update, that essentially constantly re-writes old data cells, keeping read speeds up, but consuming the lifespan of the SSD at an accelerated rate.

Actually, the 750 EVO and the 840 EVO do not behave the same when it comes to voltage drift.

Voltage drift tends to be concentrated to a small number of files for the 750 EVO (but for those files read speeds may drop quite a bit) while the 840 EVO has drops that are a bit more evenly distributed.
Algorithms have been improved with the 750 EVO over the 840 EVO (even compared to a 840 EVO using the new firmware).
While the 750 EVO likely performs some rewrites it does not seem to do it as much as the 840 EVO does.
Writes for the 750 EVO tend to increase with an average of around 100MB after boot (with one month between tests) and then you should keep in mind that even the 840 EVO with the old firmware performs some writes after boot (around 30MB if I remember correctly).

Additionally even 2D TLC NAND can be quite free from noticeable voltage drift as long as it is paired with a controller able to keep it under control (well-written firmware may also help).

The Samsung 850 EVO 500GB costs 200 USD. That's 20% more. One review I read places the EVO 750 at 100TBW, which sounds acceptable to me. Does this TBW take into account the re-writes necessary?

Don't know if rewrites will really be a significant contributor to wear.

What I've seen personally (when it has been powered down between tests) is an increase of around 100MB after boot.
Even ten times that once per day every day for five years would be less than 2TB.

Of course it is possible that it may actually perform more rewrites when it is not powered down between tests but I don't really think rewrites will make it very likely for it to reach 100TB.
That is, unless you're also writing heavily to it yourself (which may increase rewrites too since electrons leak faster when the drive has seen a lot of wear).
Something it isn't really suited for because even though it has a fairly generous TBW it has pretty low endurance.

 

[swapjim]

Don't know if rewrites will really be a significant contributor to wear.

What I've seen personally (when it has been powered down between tests) is an increase of around 100MB after boot.
Even ten times that once per day every day for five years would be less than 2TB.

Of course it is possible that it may actually perform more rewrites when it is not powered down between tests but I don't really think rewrites will make it very likely for it to reach 100TB.
That is, unless you're also writing heavily to it yourself (which may increase rewrites too since electrons leak faster when the drive has seen a lot of wear).
Something it isn't really suited for because even though it has a fairly generous TBW it has pretty low endurance.

So... There is 100MB of rewrites if you write nearly nothing to the drive. And if I'm writing heavily to the drive, there will probably be a problem. The problem is not reaching TBW, but the drive having low endurance (I don't know what endurance means). Have I got this right?

 

[UsandThem]

Man Larry, first you were an "Intel fanboy" and now you also apparently take part in large scale "relations" over 3d Nand. :O

OP: If you want to save the $33 by buying the 750 EVO, go for it. It comes with a 3 year warranty or 100 TBW, compared to the 5 year or 150 TBW of the 850 EVO. Although most drives will go well past what they are rated for. In fact, you will likely replace it for being outdated/slow before bricking it with too many writes. NVMe is where it is at now and going forward for the foreseeable future.

Planar Nand is for budget drives. I do not fear it as some do on here (I use a couple of them in my systems for years now), but let's face the fact the 850 EVO is their midrange drive, and the 750 EVO is their budget drive.

As far as you not understanding what TBW really is/does, you should read Anandtech's review on the 750 EVO. It really explains the differences. That way you can decide what will work for your use.

I will also agree with Larry on the recommendation of a 850 EVO or Crucial MX300. There is no "right" answer, just a recommendation to make an educated purchase. Also, instead of installing everything onto the SSD, you might consider leaving the hard drive in and using it for games and data (or putting in an enclosure and using it for backups).

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

So... There is 100MB of rewrites if you write nearly nothing to the drive. And if I'm writing heavily to the drive, there will probably be a problem. The problem is not reaching TBW, but the drive having low endurance (I don't know what endurance means). Have I got this right?

It's a bit more complex than that.

First of all the 100MB is what I've seen with how I've used it and may be lower or higher if you don't use it in the same way.
And I don't think all of that is due to rewrites but may rather be background tasks, small optimizations drives do to maintain their performance like garbage collection.

Didn't mean that it will likely have issues if it's seen a lot of wear but that I think it more likely than if you use an SSD with higher endurance.
850 EVO for example is rated for 2000 P/E cycles while the 750 EVO is rated for 500 P/E cycles.
100TB would (with a write amplification of 1) represent 40% of its (750 EVO) rated P/E cycles.
For the 850 EVO 100TB would (also with a write amplification of 1) represent 10% of its (850 EVO) rated P/E cycles.
However unless you 're likely to write a great deal to your SSD I doubt you will reach 100TB any time soon.

And about TBW it is not so much related to endurance as to what the manufacturer would like to cover in the warranty.
Using 850 EVO as an example once again the 850 EVO at 500GB has a TBW of 150TB while the 750 EVO at the same capacity has a TBW of 100TB.
So the 850 EVO is rated at four times the P/E cycles of the 750 EVO but still has a TBW that is just 50% higher.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I'm running an i7-6700 on an Asus H170-Pro with 16GB of RAM and a Radeon R9 380.

Out of pure sloth I've been running this PC for a year with a platter 1TB WD Black disk.

The computer feels sluggish and I want to add a Samsung 750 Evo 500GB SSD, which costs 167 USD on my local market (I don't buy online).

I picked this drive because of it's size and because it received nice reviews, but I'm open to more suggestions aroung the 500GB mark.

Right now, the OS, the software, one game I'm playing, and all projects I work on, amount to 200GB. So that leaves me another 300GB for more stuff, which I think will keep me going on for at least 3 more years.

Does it sound good? I think this drive is fast enough and big enough to keep me going for at least 3 to 5 years.

You could also use the platter based HDD for storage next to the SSD.
That way , you keep more then enough space on your SSD for future stuff like games.
My storage drive is a normal HDD. It is more then fast enough for those purposes.
For games, programs and virtual machines, i install that on my SSD.

 

[VirtualLarry]

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ites-with-new-versions.2501594/#post-38800136

840 EVO Suddenly dying.

 

[FFFF]

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ites-with-new-versions.2501594/#post-38800136

840 EVO Suddenly dying.

Every product has a failure rate, you could probably find examples like that for most SSDs on the market. Also, "suddenly dying" could have external causes like PSU voltage spikes that can brick the firmware which happened in my case with not one but 2 SSDs. Anyways you probably know this, but in 99% of cases the part that fails is the controller not the NAND cells which can happen to any SSD whether it's a SLC, MLC or TLC one.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Anyways you probably know this, but in 99% of cases the part that fails is the controller not the NAND cells which can happen to any SSD whether it's a SLC, MLC or TLC one.

True.