Samsung 960 Pro 2TB NVMe M.2 PCIe SSD Review

[Apoptosis]

The performance embargo has just been lifted on Samsung’s new 960 PRO and EVO NVMe M.2 SSDs! The Samsung 960 PRO is for prosumer, enthusiasts and high-end users that want the best performance and endurance, while the 960 EVO offers slightly lower performance for the broader consumer market. The drive that we'll be looking at today in-depth is the Samsung SSD 960 PRO 2TB NVMe M.2 PCIe model....




Article Title: Samsung 960 Pro 2TB NVMe M.2 PCIe SSD Review
Article URL: http://www.legitreviews.com/samsung-960 ... iew_186910

[sbohdan]

This drive just isn't worth it. There is nothing realy you can copy to or copy from at that speed, so the most you can use it for is as a faster boot drive with your OS and apps. There are no pendrives or even SATAIII SSD-s, not to mention HDD, that can benefit from transfering from or on to this one. As for $1300 for the 2TB drive... that's just pure BS

[Apoptosis]

This drive just isn't worth it. There is nothing realy you can copy to or copy from at that speed, so the most you can use it for is as a faster boot drive with your OS and apps. There are no pendrives or even SATAIII SSD-s, not to mention HDD, that can benefit from transfering from or on to this one. As for $1300 for the 2TB drive... that's just pure BS

Correct, this is ideally a boot drive and isn't meant for a secondary mass storage drive.

Oh, the said could have been said when SATA III came out... We had USB II ports and SATA was stupid fast at up to 550 MB/s. Drives back then were only 30 MB/s read and many couldn't get over 14 MB/s write. USB 3.1 Gen II drives are super fast and the speed will come.

$0.65 per GB is BS for the fastest SSD on the market? I remember paying $1050 for 240GB enterprise drives for the LR server just 4 years ago. When SSDs first came out for consumers they were way over $10 per GB. For a flagship drive $0.65 is more than justified. I'd love to hear your inner most thoughts on the new NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan X at $1,200.

The 960 EVO is priced $249 for 500GB and they are faster than the 950 PRO. That drive has 3,200 MB/s read and 1,800 MB/s write speeds. That is priced at $0.49 per GB and a bit more reasonable. - http://www.legitreviews.com/samsung-ssd ... ast_186368

[sbohdan]

A titan X at $1200 is also BS. As far as I'm concerned, these are Small circuit boards, have couple of chips on them. This SSD probably doesn't cost more to make, than any other RAM stick, same goes for graphics cards. These prices are insane and just show how greedy these companies are. Of course they can do it because there are always enough idiots to pay whatever they ask. You compare prices and say it's OK because other makes have a similar price. I say those are also way overpriced. Just think about it: there are laptops that sell for $400 or less with OK performance, are made of many complex parts and those who make them still make a huge profit. So what about something that looks like a stick of RAM and is not a complete system like a laptop but just a part which is completely useless by itself. In few years they will cost a fracture of this price and guess what: These companies will still make a huge profit on them, although it will cost the same to make them! It's just greed and it is disquisting.

[KnightRid]

A titan X at $1200 is also BS. As far as I'm concerned, these are Small circuit boards, have couple of chips on them. This SSD probably doesn't cost more to make, than any other RAM stick, same goes for graphics cards. These prices are insane and just show how greedy these companies are. Of course they can do it because there are always enough idiots to pay whatever they ask. You compare prices and say it's OK because other makes have a similar price. I say those are also way overpriced. Just think about it: there are laptops that sell for $400 or less with OK performance, are made of many complex parts and those who make them still make a huge profit. So what about something that looks like a stick of RAM and is not a complete system like a laptop but just a part which is completely useless by itself. In few years they will cost a fracture of this price and guess what: These companies will still make a huge profit on them, although it will cost the same to make them! It's just greed and it is disquisting.

The way of the world my friend. Look at how stupid expensive cell phones are when you can buy tablets, laptops, desktops, etc for cheaper that are more powerful and last a lot longer. Companies will say the high cost is due to R&D (Apple people try that one ALL the time) but it never adds up since they are employees anyway, there are no added costs except a bit of material for prototyping and testing.

I can see some data hungry companies jumping at these for a server RAID system (if they can be used that way...???) to use across hundreds of dummy desktops and not have performance slow. I wonder how many computers could access one of these and not have it slow down....

For home users...only the rich would buy it at these prices.

[sbohdan]

Yeah, I understand this is the way it's been all around but still angers me. As for server RAID, I think the 400TB of lifespan at these speeds and temperatures(!) would not work. These expensive sticks would just burn down under heavy usage and even if the servers cooling would be set up like an enthusiast's rig (which they won't), even than 400TB is not that much and after they reach it would come the data loss? Eh...

[Apoptosis]

Yeah, I understand this is the way it's been all around but still angers me. As for server RAID, I think the 400TB of lifespan at these speeds and temperatures(!) would not work. These expensive sticks would just burn down under heavy usage and even if the servers cooling would be set up like an enthusiast's rig (which they won't), even than 400TB is not that much and after they reach it would come the data loss? Eh...

Servers usually have excellent cooling and it really depends on the workload on the server. The LR server has run on SSDs since 2009 and while the bandwidth of the site can reach over 1TB a month, the overall disk use isn't that high due to caching. I actually had a couple drives fail on a RAID array that I built in 2012. Those drives had over 4 years of use on them and only 10TBW on each. So, really just depends on how they are used.

server-drive.png (41.85 KiB) Viewed 6613 times