Samsung SSD 960 PRO 2TB - MZ-V6P2T0BW costs 329 USD (63 cents per GB) Samsung SSD 960 PRO 1TB - MZ-V6P1T0BW costs 629 USD (61 cents per GB) Samsung SSD 960 PRO 512GB - MZ-V6P512BW costs 1299 USD (64 cents per GB) I think you've got the sizes/models mismatched with the prices there, chief! 8D

Ah indeed! Fixed thanks.

Samsung SSD 960 PRO 2TB - MZ-V6P2T0BW costs 329 USD (63 cents per GB) Samsung SSD 960 PRO 1TB - MZ-V6P1T0BW costs 629 USD (61 cents per GB) Samsung SSD 960 PRO 512GB - MZ-V6P512BW costs 1299 USD (64 cents per GB) I think you've got the sizes/models mismatched with the prices there, chief! 8D

Or Samsung burning to rip people off at the wrong end... AGAIN!

Interesting thermal image and info, wonder if sticking some heat-sink type device on the controller might help along with some paste or pad for it, I don't really have any knowledge about cooling a SSD though but I assume it's similar to RAM cooling in principle? (IE heat sink or fan to get the heat / hot air off the memory chips and in this case also the controller chip.) ~70 degrees seems pretty hot to me after all so there's probably some room for improvement though how that's best done I wouldn't know. (SSD water cooling? Overkill??) (Five core controller chip though so that probably explains some of the heat, five cores seem a bit odd but I assume there's a reason for that too.)

Thing is, for us, casual users, all these make no sense. Yeah I do have nvme drive with 2.5g/s speed, I do have another with 500, and they are all the same in real world usage. Unless you are doing some big data crunching (sequential, mind you) like movie processing, all you care is 4k random read performance. Which in this drive is 38mb/s, pretty much the same on all current ssds on the market, give or take few mbs. Yeah, massive amount of parallel flash drives, fast controller, huge cache, predictions, etc, all great in benchmarks indeed, but when you load the game/program it tries to randomly read small bits of data here and there and the greatest, expensive ssd comes down to the cheapest one out there. Unless we get a completely different technology - non-volatile ram, the ssds won't benefit us more even if they can read/write terabytes per second.

Thing is, for us, casual users, all these make no sense. Yeah I do have nvme drive with 2.5g/s speed, I do have another with 500, and they are all the same in real world usage. Unless you are doing some big data crunching (sequential, mind you) like movie processing, all you care is 4k random read performance. Which in this drive is 38mb/s, pretty much the same on all current ssds on the market, give or take few mbs. Yeah, massive amount of parallel flash drives, fast controller, huge cache, predictions, etc, all great in benchmarks indeed, but when you load the game/program it tries to randomly read small bits of data here and there and the greatest, expensive ssd comes down to the cheapest one out there. Unless we get a completely different technology - non-volatile ram, the ssds won't benefit us more even if they can read/write terabytes per second.

Yes, so much this. These m2 drives look amazing in benchmarking apps, BUT not so much in real world use of general consumer. You can find on the net comparisons of OS and most popular game load times in 950Pro vs 850EVO and other SATA3 SSDs and there is almost no difference at all. I suspect it will be the same with 960Pro as well, next to no difference in real world performance. I'm not blaming m2 drives or anything, just saying that the way common consumer applications are programmed m2 SSD doesn't give any tangible benefits over traditional and much cheaper SATA3 SSD.

That's in the conclusion page

the results with the Samsung 990 PRO is very good

Thanks Hilbert for yet another great review. Keep up the good work bro!

Thanks for the review. Have you tried attaching some heat-sinks onto it to see if there is a noticeable throttling issue?

Solid performance but, the operating temp is disconcerting. I wonder why they don't use a heatsink to prevent throttling?

Okay, so typically I do not reply to these threads as a personal opinion should not cast a cloud over an objective review, however allow me to add my two cents here. The problem is that you guys tend to look backwards and compare with "older" technology and deem that as 'fast enough'. And thus invalidate the product released / reviewed. In theory that is true, but with such insight you guys might as well stop purchasing new stuff and grab that old Pentium 3 PC, as hey nothing changed right ? That was a bitching fast PC in the floppy disk days, you could not imagine anything faster while gaming Airfix Dogfighter. Notice the contradiction right there ... ? Technology advances in small relative steps. For SSDs we started at 60~80 MB/sec sequential writes. Back then you could not imagine you'd need anything faster. Until we realized we needed caches for small file writes, and then needed more performance, and then moved to SATA 2 and then SATA3, and since two years NVMe. Technology keeps advancing while prices remain level or slowly go down. If right now you want an NVMe SSD would you really go with the early v1.0 protocol models that where tied to one PCIe lane ? No you'd pick the 960. And I agree obviously comparing back to the 950 EVO/Pro it is a relative and small step, but you guys could try and think more in generalized terms of technology evolution. Right now you can purchase a 960 for a price that is cheaper (not cheap) then last years product and one that is faster as well (regardless if you actually experience that). The 960 series is meant to be an upgrade from the 950 or perhaps even a fast SATA3 SSD. It is technology that is affordable on a consumer grade level that is evolving, getting bigger in volume sizes (1 and 2TB on four NAND chips!) and slowly getting cheaper as well. I am not trying to step on anyone's toes here ... but I tend to think in terms what my money can buy me at this moment, not what my money could buy last year and right now for less money you can purchase a faster product. Just sayin '... try and focus on the bigger picture every now and then.

On the other hand, what current game requires anything even approaching these read/write speeds? Not that faster isn't always better, all other things equal.

On the other hand, what current game requires anything even approaching these read/write speeds? Not that faster isn't always better, all other things equal.

Games load assets composed of very small sizes. Most games will use 4kb~. As of now, NAND technology has not improved significantly on very small files 4kb and less, that is why general performance will not be noticeably different comparing an old SATA2 SSD to this 960 Pro. That is why you see game loading benchmarks all within a few tenths of a second from top to bottom. Of course once you go beyond 4kb and high queue depths, 960 wrecks mostly everything on the consumer market.

Impressive little SSDs. Hopefully their availability will drive prices on slower parts down a bit as well. 🙂

Okay, so typically I do not reply to these threads as a personal opinion should not cast a cloud over an objective review, however allow me to add my two cents here. The problem is that you guys tend to look backwards and compare with "older" technology and deem that as 'fast enough'. And thus invalidate the product released / reviewed. In theory that is true, but with such insight you guys might as well stop purchasing new stuff and grab that old Pentium 3 PC, as hey nothing changed right ? That was a bitching fast PC in the floppy disk days, you could not imagine anything faster while gaming Airfix Dogfighter. Notice the contradiction right there ... ? Technology advances in small relative steps. For SSDs we started at 60~80 MB/sec sequential writes. Back then you could not imagine you'd need anything faster. Until we realized we needed caches for small file writes, and then needed more performance, and then moved to SATA 2 and then SATA3, and since two years NVMe. Technology keeps advancing while prices remain level or slowly go down. If right now you want an NVMe SSD would you really go with the early v1.0 protocol models that where tied to one PCIe lane ? No you'd pick the 960. And I agree obviously comparing back to the 950 EVO/Pro it is a relative and small step, but you guys could try and think more in generalized terms of technology evolution. Right now you can purchase a 960 for a price that is cheaper (not cheap) then last years product and one that is faster as well (regardless if you actually experience that). The 960 series is meant to be an upgrade from the 950 or perhaps even a fast SATA3 SSD. It is technology that is affordable on a consumer grade level that is evolving, getting bigger in volume sizes (1 and 2TB on four NAND chips!) and slowly getting cheaper as well. I am not trying to step on anyone's toes here ... but I tend to think in terms what my money can buy me at this moment, not what my money could buy last year and right now for less money you can purchase a faster product. Just sayin '... try and focus on the bigger picture every now and then.

Well thing is, from consumer point of view this ssd is - same performance, bigger price per gb. It is actually going backwards. It is the review that is making you think you got something better, and for a server usage that is hands down true, but for your home computer you actually got cheated. This is no faster than (insert random ssd here from the past 4 years), not cheaper than last year's SATA3 offerings, i.e. move along, nothing to see here. The problem: a flash page takes X time to read and Y to be written to and this has not changed at all. Various ideas were implemented that boosted the benchmarks and server usage without benefit for the average Joe: - parallel arrays of flash memory allowing for simultaneous access to lot of pages at once. thing is - when you launch your game the ssd can't know in advance what to read so ends up getting it page by page - big and fast memory caching - useful with writes, but we rarely do write something, my primary, 4 years old ssd is still on 99% of its life. - data predictions - combined with the cache and parallel access - great for sequential read/write and benchmarks as the ssd is able to access the data and have it ready before it is actually needed, useless for any real world scenario So in short - SSD reviews needs to be split for end users and server use. End users' one should contain only QD1, 4k random read graph and price per gb. Then we see the zero progress on the ssd front and why in blind test you can't distinguish between the newest and tastiest one and your old dusty ssd bought 4 years ago. That said, Intel, Micron and some others are experimenting with non-volatile ram and when that happens we will have a true leap in performance, a bigger step than going from hdd to ssd, so eagerly waiting. Till then - get some 1tb discounted sata3 ssd on black friday and skip ssd reviews for the time being 🙂

Okay, so typically I do not reply to these threads as a personal opinion should not cast a cloud over an objective review, however allow me to add my two cents here. The problem is that you guys tend to look backwards and compare with "older" technology and deem that as 'fast enough'. And thus invalidate the product released / reviewed. In theory that is true, but with such insight you guys might as well stop purchasing new stuff and grab that old Pentium 3 PC, as hey nothing changed right ? That was a bitching fast PC in the floppy disk days, you could not imagine anything faster while gaming Airfix Dogfighter. Notice the contradiction right there ... ? Technology advances in small relative steps. For SSDs we started at 60~80 MB/sec sequential writes. Back then you could not imagine you'd need anything faster. Until we realized we needed caches for small file writes, and then needed more performance, and then moved to SATA 2 and then SATA3, and since two years NVMe. Technology keeps advancing while prices remain level or slowly go down. If right now you want an NVMe SSD would you really go with the early v1.0 protocol models that where tied to one PCIe lane ? No you'd pick the 960. And I agree obviously comparing back to the 950 EVO/Pro it is a relative and small step, but you guys could try and think more in generalized terms of technology evolution. Right now you can purchase a 960 for a price that is cheaper (not cheap) then last years product and one that is faster as well (regardless if you actually experience that). The 960 series is meant to be an upgrade from the 950 or perhaps even a fast SATA3 SSD. It is technology that is affordable on a consumer grade level that is evolving, getting bigger in volume sizes (1 and 2TB on four NAND chips!) and slowly getting cheaper as well. I am not trying to step on anyone's toes here ... but I tend to think in terms what my money can buy me at this moment, not what my money could buy last year and right now for less money you can purchase a faster product. Just sayin '... try and focus on the bigger picture every now and then.

This part confuses me. Waait, if i want a Plextor M8Pe i will get a NVMe tied to one PCIe lane, not all 4 offered to the NVMe protocol by the CPU/chipset/motherboard ?

This part confuses me. Waait, if i want a Plextor M8Pe i will get a NVMe tied to one PCIe lane, not all 4 offered to the NVMe protocol by the CPU/chipset/motherboard ?

And your question confuses me ? 🙂 Why would you assume that M8Pe is based on NVME 1.0 ? M8Pe is 1.2 and then backwards compatible. But I should have written that better, I meant in terms of older NVMe 1.0 (dates back from 2011) when PCIe Gen 3.0 and 4 lanes & multi-path I/O wasn't even in the protocol.

First of all, i thank you Hilbert for all you efforts and your dedication to this forum and your time. I should formulated better my question.My fault was assuming that Plextor P8Me uses Nvme 1.0. Sorry for the mistake, i know that you don't want to baby-feed us with tech info, you have already enough on your head. Thank you.

well thanks for the baby feed comment! I come here for advise because I don't know everything ! so we have to be experts to come to this site for advise ? hmm okie dokie ...

Well, no. This forum is what we make of it. I was saying that i was in the wrong for assuming.My part was to better inform myself, then ask the real question. Hilbert is kind enough to respond to all our questions. We all share knowledge here, everyone is welcomed. Sorry for the thread derail.

@DrunkenDonkey , Thanks for your post. yes 4k random reads are the main thing to look for, for us. All these years , i didnt realize. :P

@DrunkenDonkey , Thanks for your post. yes 4k random reads are the main thing to look for, for us. All these years , i didnt realize. :P

Not only 4k random reads, but QD=1 ones (stands for Queue Depth = 1). On higher QD (server usage) many drives including this one optimize performance by trying to execute simultaneous reads from different flash banks, so good controller, fast cache and the low latency of the NVME helps with that too, but for desktop usage we are on QD=1 (that is - read one thing after another) and there all SSDs gravitate towards ~40mb/sec.