Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Samsung 960 EVO NVMe SSD Benchmarks On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Samsung 960 EVO NVMe SSD Benchmarks On Linux

    Phoronix: Samsung 960 EVO NVMe SSD Benchmarks On Linux

    As of this week the Samsung 960 EVO NVMe M.2 SSDs have begun shipping for those interested in high-performance solid-state storage. For our benchmarking fun today I am looking at the Samsung 960 EVO 250GB NVM Express M.2 SSD (MZ-V6E25) with tests under Ubuntu 16.04 while using the Linux 4.9 kernel.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=23870

  • #2
    Just for clarity, this drive uses Samsung V-NAND TLC memory. All Samsung SSDs have been converted to V-NAND, but the difference between EVO and Pro is TLC vs MLC. Pros should have better endurance, lower power draw and some faster access time you'll never notice (outside of benchmarks). EVOs are, obviously, cheaper.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by bug77 View Post
      Just for clarity, this drive uses Samsung V-NAND TLC memory. All Samsung SSDs have been converted to V-NAND, but the difference between EVO and Pro is TLC vs MLC. Pros should have better endurance, lower power draw and some faster access time you'll never notice (outside of benchmarks). EVOs are, obviously, cheaper.
      not ALL of them, 750 evo is planar

      Comment


      • #4
        Wouldn't it more readable if the charts were sorted from high to low not low to high?

        Comment


        • #5
          Michael Did you align the partitions correctly? Since it is (Samsung) TLC I think you should align to 1536 KiB or just to be on the safe side to 6144 KiB (6 MiB). I did this to my 840 EVO and it got much faster (from 310 MB/s to 510 MB/s on sequential buffered reads (I think, whatever hdparm -t does anyway, so a very poor benchmark!), but of course some of that could be explained by the fact that all data were re-written and that SSD is known to slow down when data has been laying on disk. So, it could be that this doesn't change anything, but it might.
          http://www.tech-g.com/2015/10/03/ali...-disk-problem/
          Last edited by Tomin; 12-15-2016, 11:38 AM. Reason: still wrong... but hopefully not anymore

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by davidbepo View Post

            not ALL of them, 750 evo is planar
            Well, yeah. Products released before Samsung introduced before Samsung started making V-NAND are planar.

            Comment


            • #7
              These speeds are insane! I will not upgrade because the only applications I have that require drive speed are games and virtual machines. Both games and VMs requires too much capacity and it's just not practical to put it on SSD at this stage. I also don't have M.2 on my motherboard. My Crucial MX200 keeps me happy for now.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jabberwocky View Post
                These speeds are insane! I will not upgrade because the only applications I have that require drive speed are games and virtual machines. Both games and VMs requires too much capacity and it's just not practical to put it on SSD at this stage. I also don't have M.2 on my motherboard. My Crucial MX200 keeps me happy for now.
                Don't worry, sequential speeds are mostly irrelevant at home. It's the fast access time (and thus IOPS) that makes the difference between SSDs and HDDs.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What are the current plans to improve the performance here? Clearly this is a kernel issue, because these Samsung NVMe drives don't lose benchmarks to the 850 series in Windows.... that's surprising to see in Linux to me. In Windows, sometimes Samsung's AHCI drives have beaten their NVMe counterparts*, but the high-end drives never get outperformed by the significantly lower-end drives.

                  *Edit to note: Not all of Sammy's NVMe drives have had AHCI equivalents but some like the XP941 have.
                  Last edited by Holograph; 12-15-2016, 01:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I've been waiting for a NVMe discussion so I can share my first-hand experience. Samsung 950Pro 512G. Kernels from 4.8 to 4.8.4 (inclusive) showed some impressive gains over 4.7 and previous kernels (20% to 25%). For some reason 4.8.5 lost that speed boost. I am now running 4.9 and it's still slower than 4.8-4.8.4. I've been meaning to do some serious benchmarking so I can substantiate my findings when I approach the LKML gurus.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X