# 750 EVO is enough or is better a 850 EVO?



## RodoGodo19 (Oct 1, 2016)

750 EVO 250GB *$69.99*
850 EVO 250GB *$99.99*

I will use it for gaming and daily use, web browsing and stuff. A little of coding and Adobe suite, nothing else.

The 750 EVO is cheap, is it good enough for a PC 24/7 turned on?.


----------



## Recon-UK (Oct 1, 2016)

No it is only good for 1 minute use per day.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 1, 2016)

3 year v's 5 year warranty, speed differences if any probably will not be noticed.  I cannot speak for the 750 but i do own 2 850 which have given no problems what so ever and if the 750's are as good i don't see why not.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 1, 2016)

I just bought a 750 the other week and its in my itx Linux build and its f@^king fast for a good price.  I think its 520R, 520W? (120GB Version)


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 1, 2016)

You will not notice any difference between any SATA based SSD on the market at this point.  We have pretty much maxed out what the current SATA interface can do.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 1, 2016)

AsRock said:


> 3 year v's 5 year warranty, speed differences if any probably will not be noticed.  I cannot speak for the 750 but i do own 2 850 which have given no problems what so ever and if the 750's are as good i don't see why not.



Starting to wonder after having owned several SSD as an early adopter, and a model more recently released in 2014, if there is much real world difference to be had.
One could argue that new controllers mean less hitching or weird behavior, however that aside, I don't see why anyone would fork out for the top of the line SSD if they don't do any file transfer type work.



newtekie1 said:


> You will not notice any difference between any SATA based SSD on the market at this point.  We have pretty much maxed out what the current SATA interface can do.



What's the step forward now m2 connectors built into the motherboards?


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 1, 2016)

newconroer said:


> What's the step forward now m2 connectors built into the motherboards?



We're already moving forward with M.2 connectors.  SATA-Express was shot at moving SATA forward, but no one adopted it, and it didn't use SATA anyway it was just a way to get a PCI-Express link through SATA ports.  Everything that is faster now is using PCI-Express.

IMO, that isn't necessary to get improved storage performance.  The limiting factor for SATA right now is the AHCI protocol that SATA uses.  It isn't necessary the PCI-Express interface that makes these PCI-E based storage devices feel so fast.  Sure it allows for super fast sustained read/write speeds, but that isn't what makes a drive fell fast.  It is the random read/write that makes a drive fell fast. It is actually the NVMe protocol they are using that makes things fell faster.  It greatly improves random read/write.

So for SATA to survive, it is going to have to implement NVMHCI, and I think that is what they will do with the next revision.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 1, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> No it is only good for 1 minute use per day.




Lmao


On another note on a 840 Pro here, samsung really has the ssd dna down, so a 750 would be a good upgrade over any HDD at this point.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 1, 2016)

RGT said:


> 750 EVO 250GB *$69.99*
> 850 EVO 250GB *$99.99*
> 
> I will use it for gaming and daily use, web browsing and stuff. A little of coding and Adobe suite, nothing else.
> ...



Check out reviews for other opinions. The 850 has a fairly long history of reliability so far.  However, many on here will also tell you almost any SSD now will outlast an HDD.

Likewise, in real world speed, you will notice little difference between the two.  I would just get the cheaper one and make sure you keep your OS or at least your data backed up.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 1, 2016)

newconroer said:


> Starting to wonder after having owned several SSD as an early adopter, and a model more recently released in 2014, if there is much real world difference to be had.
> One could argue that new controllers mean less hitching or weird behavior, however that aside, I don't see why anyone would fork out for the top of the line SSD if they don't do any file transfer type work.
> 
> 
> ...




I still use 2 Intel SATA 2 SSD's and they are just as fast, i am sure if you had a real heavy tranfure you would notice other wise you don't notice.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 1, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> You will not notice any difference between any SATA based SSD on the market at this point.  We have pretty much maxed out what the current SATA interface can do.



That's not exactly true. Cheap drives tend to drop performance significantly (and faster) after large number of writes, they recover a lot slower, garbage collection is often a lot more primitive etc.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 1, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> That's not exactly true. Cheap drives tend to drop performance significantly (and faster) after large number of writes, they recover a lot slower, garbage collection is often a lot more primitive etc.



That affects almost no one, unless you are routinely filling up the drive.  And the garbage collection on cheap drives is just fine.  They all support trim anyway, so the built in garbage collection doesn't really come into play unless you're putting them in RAID on a controller that doesn't pass TRIM through to the host OS.

If you're using the drive as an OS/Programs/Games drive, you will not notice the difference between a cheap SATA drive and an expensive SATA drive in use.  Even when you are doing things like several GB software installs on the drive, the difference is virtually non-existent.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 1, 2016)

Not filling up the drive, if you'll download a game from Steam that's few GB in size it'll make the drive perform like crap.


----------



## R00kie (Oct 1, 2016)

Is this what you're trying to downgrade to? Is 1TB too much for your needs?


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 1, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Not filling up the drive, if you'll download a game from Steam that's few GB in size it'll make the drive perform like crap.



No, it won't.

1.) The limiting factor will be your internet connection.  If you've got an internet connection that is faster than the write speeds of even the cheapest SATA SSD, I want to move where ever you live.
2.) I already said, even doing several GB software installs, and several GB file transfers, doesn't show the slow down that you are claiming.  Don't believe me? Ok, just go look at the latest SSD review here: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/OCZ/VX500/6.html

Just look at the Office install graph.  That's a couple GB install, and remember the test is repeated 12 times, so that multiple GB of writes to the drive over and over again.  In all the modern drives, the difference is practically nothing.  In fact, if you look at the OCZ Trion, which no one will deny is a "cheap" drive, and the MX300 which performed the best in the office install test, the difference is 3 seconds.  That's not even a 5% difference in performance after easily 24GB written to the drive.  And you'll see that trend repeat with pretty much every software installation test in the review.  Even in the file copy test, which writes over 50GB to the drive, you only just barely start to see some of the drives "struggle" if you can even call it that.  The cheap drives still hang in there pretty well with the more expensive drives.  The difference between the best and worst SATA drive is like 5 seconds.  Not what I would call a noticeable difference.  If it was 20s, sure I'd say that would be noticeable, but not 5s.  In fact, the drive that really starts to show that it is struggling is the Samsung 840, and it makes sense because it is old tech and it is was first generation TLC.  Those drives did have the issues you talk about, but that was 4 years ago, and even the cheap controllers have improved to the point that those issues are pretty much gone.


----------



## RodoGodo19 (Oct 1, 2016)

I got it, well, let's see what I can do for a few box more then.


----------



## Schmuckley (Oct 1, 2016)

Heck yeah good enough.It's a fast ssd and 250GB.What more do you need?


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 2, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> No, it won't.
> 
> 1.) The limiting factor will be your internet connection.  If you've got an internet connection that is faster than the write speeds of even the cheapest SATA SSD, I want to move where ever you live.
> 2.) I already said, even doing several GB software installs, and several GB file transfers, doesn't show the slow down that you are claiming.  Don't believe me? Ok, just go look at the latest SSD review here: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/OCZ/VX500/6.html
> ...



Well, if the controllers have really improved in that regard, then fine. I just know in the past cheap SSD's were crap which is why I didn't want to take any chances and just went for 850 Pro despite the costs. When you plan on having something for extended period of time, going cheap on it is a stupid thing to do. Which kinda falls in line even for OP. It's $30 difference. If you plan on replacing it in 2 years, then yeah, go with cheaper. But if you plan on far longer use, then just buy the better one. $30 is nothing if it'll serve you with excellence for 5+ years.


----------



## Misaki (Oct 2, 2016)

I've bought 750 Evo 250GB few days ago. It's an old computer (2012), but drive hids SATA3 upper limit so I think it's enough.


----------



## Schmuckley (Oct 5, 2016)

I've had 2 840 Pros crap out on me.
Keep that in mind when using Samsung drives.
SSD failure really sucks, too.
There's no warning,it's just gone.


----------



## d265f2785 (Oct 17, 2016)

And I got lucky and got a 840 evo 500gb without the slow old file read bug. It was completely disconnected from power for a few months (which is a worst case scenario since the controller can't rewrite old files while idle)  and everything read off it at normal speed.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 18, 2016)

Its the budget Samsung SSD should be fine for years but I wouldn't keep  anything on it you need or dont have a back up


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 18, 2016)

Jetster said:


> Its the budget Samsung SSD should be fine for years but I wouldn't keep  anything on it you need or dont have a back up



I wouldn't keep anything on any drive I need without a backup.  I've seen plenty of expensive SSDs fail.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 18, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> I wouldn't keep anything on any drive I need without a backup.  I've seen plenty of expensive SSDs fail.



But you know how many people do


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 18, 2016)

Jetster said:


> But you know how many people do



Oh, all too well...


----------



## cdawall (Oct 18, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Well, if the controllers have really improved in that regard, then fine. I just know in the past cheap SSD's were crap which is why I didn't want to take any chances and just went for 850 Pro despite the costs. When you plan on having something for extended period of time, going cheap on it is a stupid thing to do. Which kinda falls in line even for OP. It's $30 difference. If you plan on replacing it in 2 years, then yeah, go with cheaper. But if you plan on far longer use, then just buy the better one. $30 is nothing if it'll serve you with excellence for 5+ years.



Well it isn't 2010 anymore. Even some of the cheap drives have 5 year warranties.

Stop passing outdated incorrect info.

Also on another note $99.99 will buy you a 256GB PM951 nvme.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 18, 2016)

If you want replacing a drive every year of those 5 years, then go ahead. Oh, right, you people just have Windows installed in these drives and you don't care if you lose everything every time...


----------



## cdawall (Oct 18, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> If you want replacing a drive every year of those 5 years, then go ahead. Oh, right, you people just have Windows installed in these drives and you don't care if you lose everything every time...



Do you know what drives I see failed most often? It isn't the cheap one it's 840/850 Pros.


----------



## Nokiron (Oct 18, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Do you know what drives I see failed most often? It isn't the cheap one it's 840/850 Pros.


I'd say its pretty even. We run quite the mixture at work of more than 200 drives. Mostly Samsung and Intel, both consumer (with and without TLC) and enterprise.


----------



## Countryside (Oct 18, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> No it is only good for 1 minute use per day.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 18, 2016)

Nokiron said:


> I'd say its pretty even. We run quite the mixture at work of more than 200 drives. Mostly Samsung and Intel, both consumer (with and without TLC) and enterprise.



It is all consumer level machines I see. If it isn't a dead line on its a dead Samsung, maybe an older ocz every once in a blue moon. I have a literal stack of 840/850 Pros that are dead on my desk.


----------



## Nokiron (Oct 18, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It is all consumer level machines I see. If it isn't a dead line on its a dead Samsung, maybe an older ocz every once in a blue moon. I have a literal stack of 840/850 Pros that are dead on my desk.


Well, we use them for everything, mostly servers since our users have ultrabooks.

Sometimes a bit to risky with it  Pretty much every drive has been through the scenarios. Databases, compute, filestorage, virtualization you name it.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 20, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It is all consumer level machines I see. If it isn't a dead line on its a dead Samsung, maybe an older ocz every once in a blue moon. I have a literal stack of 840/850 Pros that are dead on my desk.



If they'd be breaking down so badly, don't you think people would be commenting on that a lot more? Yet I haven't heard anything about 850 Pro being especially or specifically problematic drives.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 20, 2016)

I've checked a bit and the only fault was a broken firmware back in February 2015. Other than that I didn't really see any other significant issues.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 20, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> If they'd be breaking down so badly, don't you think people would be commenting on that a lot more? Yet I haven't heard anything about 850 Pro being especially or specifically problematic drives.



Did I say they were breaking down badly? I said I have a stack of them. In quantity that isn't exactly a large amount considering they sell thousands upon thousands of those drives per day. My point was they all fail and I have seen more samsung "pro" tier than anyone else. In a city of 6-9 million people I would say the 10 drives I have isn't exactly a notable percentage. 

While you are doing research mind finding me all of these failing cheap drives you were talking about? The ones you have to replace once a year specifically.


----------



## alucasa (Oct 20, 2016)

I bought these SSDs a long time ago. 7 years? Maybe more.

I bought 3 of them at that time. One failed few years ago. These two still work and I still use them on rigs where I install unix.

My point? Get the cheapest SSD and just use it.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 20, 2016)

alucasa said:


> I bought these SSDs a long time ago. 7 years? Maybe more.
> 
> I bought 3 of them at that time. One failed few years ago. These two still work and I still use them on rigs where I install unix.
> 
> ...



I still have a pair of 32GB Supertalent SSD's that are up and running from 2008/2009?


----------



## alucasa (Oct 20, 2016)

Yeah, the write limit for cells has been overblown by the media.

I honestly cannot tell any speed difference between my ancient SSD and my Samsung 850 Evo when installing OSes and daily usages.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 20, 2016)

alucasa said:


> Yeah, the write limit for cells has been overblown by the media.
> 
> I honestly cannot tell any speed difference between my ancient SSD and my Samsung 850 Evo when installing OSes and daily usages.



Most drives are long since outdated before you touch the read write limit.


----------



## Slizzo (Oct 20, 2016)

I have an old OCZ Vertex 2 60gb that is still kicking.


----------



## Ebo (Oct 20, 2016)

The only SSD that Ive lost is an old Mushkin 60GB SATA II drive. My old Samsung 830 works, my Crucial MX100 512GB still working fine, and my Samsung 850 pro 256GB also is fine.


----------

