Samsung 840 Pro SSD – Revisited

We’ve just posted the following review: Samsung 840 Pro SSD – Revisited[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2014/02/drive-tiny.jpg[/newsimage]

It was roughly one year ago that I covered the Samsung 840
Pro SSD, and I found it a very impressive performer. Quite a lot has changed
with the 840 Pro over that year. It has new firmware, and it now supports
‘Rapid mode’ via the Samsung Magician software.

So what is the Samsung 840 Pro SSD like now?
Let’s find out in this review.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/review/samsung-840-pro-ssd-revisited-70633](http://www.myce.com/review/samsung-840-pro-ssd-revisited-70633)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

Great idea and fantastic review, I still have my 840 Pro installed in one of my rigs as the OS drive and I still love it. It however is in the top 5 best SSDs made today in the $400 price range for a 512gb SSD, ( 480gb and 512gb) I would buy it again, but I am happy I have it now.:flower:

Awesome. Glad I bought one as my system disk last year. Gonna have to look into updating it, never touched the FW etc. since 1st installation.
thanks for the great update

Have you reviewed the Sandisk Extreme II yet, I’ve read dozens of reviews (often ones that include the 840 Pro) & it compares very favourably to this, in fact, a majority seem to argue that it has a slight edge.

Thanks for the comments, and I’m happy to hear you all found the review update useful.

A lot of review sites don’t bother with follow up articles when something new comes along for an SSD. We think it’s worth a follow up article when something changes quite a lot with an SSD, such as ‘Rapid mode’ being supported.

Regarding the SanDisk Extreme 2, we’re actively trying to get hold a review sample, which is not altogether easy in the UK. :slight_smile:

Excellent review,

I own a 256GB model and i am very satisfied.

I have a question, though.

Is the test system stock CPU-clocked, or OC’d ?

Thanx

For normal use the review PC is clocked to 4.5GHz and RAM to 1866MHz, with EIST and CPU power saving states enabled.

I load a ‘review profile’ into the UEFI for reviews, which is set as CPU 3.5GHz (default), RAM 1600MHz with timings 9.9.9.18, with EIST and all CPU power saving states disabled.
EIST and CPU power saving states are disabled for consistency, otherwise you can get very strange and inconsistent results in the tests.

:slight_smile:

So that 4k Read result in AS-SSD is with “only” 3.5G cpu…impressive…

Only 23% CPU utilization when running AS SSD in Rapid mode (4K 64Thrd) so I don’t think CPU frequency or speed is the limiting factor, RAM speed is much more important, and that Samsung 30nm Green RAM is exceptional, but quite hard to get hold of these days.

In rapid mode, there are indeed other factors that contribute also.

In normal mode, where there is no such cache-ing to ram,i believe that for cpu speed raised, 4K increases too.
Not meaning that the cpu is a bottleneck and it should be oc’d to give more headroom to AS-SSD, just that the I/O’s are affected by CPU also.
23% shows only a percentage of the power capacity. 23% of 3.5GHz CPU is not the same power with 23% of 4.5GHz CPU, is it ?

If you do some further runs, you can doublecheck it yourself, e.g between 3.5 and 4.5, unless the bottleneck is the SSD ( i think this is the highest 4K result i’ve seen in all the Pro reviews, don’t know if it can go higher)
I have discussed it over at oc.net with Doorules, while he was having the M3 Pro’s in his X79 system. Non-ignorable differences at 4K read/write betweeen stock and OC’d cpu. Over the years, i’ve used from Vertex Turbo’s to 840 Pro’s ( even Renice E7 IDE :bigsmile:) and same SSD’s with different CPU’s or same CPU’s different clocks, behaved differently.

That is also the way some other review sites mess up with SSD review results. C states enabled on some reviews , Disabled on others, and the end result is to have numerous SSD benchmarks non-comparable to each other over the internet.

Of course, i cannot demand from all reviewers to communicate each other and use the same test machines and same settings, but there are some things that strongly affect results.

Testing is a serious procedure and it should be conducted in way to minimize error and output a repeatable and linked-to-reality result ( that is what you have done in your review and should be respected).

I hope that my above opinion is simply taken in a friendly way, not attempting to spoil the review or play smartass, i was just asking for detail about cpu. :flower:

I hear what your saying. I’ve never given any thought to testing while the system is overclocked.
The 840 Pro is out of the review PC at the moment as I’m reviewing another SSD.
If I get a chance later, I’ll do some testing @4.5GHz

I decided I wouldn’t wait to put the 840 Pro back in the system, but would check what overclocking does for speed on an OCZ Vector. It should show the same trend, right?

OK, the Vector has been in my system as the system drive for around 18 months, It has not been secure erased in that time, so this Vector is not in a ‘clean state’ like it was when I tested it 18 months ago.

Picture 1 is the original test from the OCZ Vector 256GB review.
Picture 2 is the OCZ Vector now at stock 3.5GHz CPU speed.
Picture 3 is the OCZ Vector now with the CPU clocked to 4.5GHz.

4K random writes get a boost, but other than that, I don’t see a huge increase in speeds, certainly not much of an increase in 4K random read.

In any case. I 'll stick to testing for reviews at stock CPU and RAM speeds.




And this was the Original Vector, not the Vector 150, very impressive. I have both of these SSDs and find the Vector 150 to be a bit faster and I almost never overclock my systems, only when gaming.:wink: