Monday, October 17th 2016

Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSDs Up for Pre-order

Cashing in on the popularity of its "EVO" brand extension in the client SSD space, Samsung this September announced the 960 EVO family of PCI-Express SSDs in the M.2 form-factor, supporting the NVMe protocol. The drives are up for pre-order on the company's US online store. The series is topped with the 1 TB variant, priced at USD $479.99, followed by the 500 GB variant priced at $249.99, and the 250 GB variant priced at $129.99.

All three variants target a price-per-GB value around the $0.50/GB mark, however, one has to note that these are PCI-Express drives. The cheapest 250 GB variant serves up sequential transfer speeds of up to 3200 MB/s reads, with up to 1500 MB/s writes; the 500 GB variant up to 1800 MB/s writes; and the 1 TB variant up to 1900 MB/s writes. All three drives feature 3D V-NAND flash memory by Samsung, while the controller takes advantage of PCI-Express gen 3.0 x4 interface over the M.2-2280 form-factor, taking advantage of the NVMe protocol.
Add your own comment

35 Comments on Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSDs Up for Pre-order

#26
Loosenut
Prima.VeraYou DO know that the storage is still THE SLOWEST component of any system? Those kind of questions are very immature.
He may have known but I didn't. Thank you for "maturing" me up
Posted on Reply
#27
Chaitanya
Dont like that samsung has dropped warranty period down to 3 years on this drive while 850Pro at similar peice point is getting 10years support. even outgoing 950 pro has 5 year support.
Posted on Reply
#28
lorraine walsh
Until this 1TB spec and size comes down to the price of a 256GB model I'll be sticking to what I have.
Posted on Reply
#29
Prima.Vera
LoosenutHe may have known but I didn't. Thank you for "maturing" me up
You're welcome. :) Immature or innocent, meaning that in the PC world there is never such thing as a component too fast, by that including RAM, CPU, GPU, various ports, and especially storage. :) ;)
Posted on Reply
#30
bug
Prima.VeraYou're welcome. :) Immature or innocent, meaning that in the PC world there is never such thing as a component too fast, by that including RAM, CPU, GPU, various ports, and especially storage. :) ;)
Technically, there is such a thing. If your storage is the limiting factor, at some point a better CPU or RAM or whatever will only bring miniscule performance increments.
Posted on Reply
#31
Prima.Vera
bugTechnically, there is such a thing. If your storage is the limiting factor, at some point a better CPU or RAM or whatever will only bring miniscule performance increments.
Exactly my point.
Posted on Reply
#32
BiggieShady
bugTechnically, there is such a thing. If your storage is the limiting factor, at some point a better CPU or RAM or whatever will only bring miniscule performance increments.
Just be careful not to generalize too much on that level since it's highly dependent on type of workload you do with your computer ... for a benchmark that fits in cpu cache better cpu always brings performance increments, for an application that heavily writes and reads from memory better ram with lower latency always brings performance increments, some apps use storage only to load their own executable, and the point is there are too many examples where any component can limit any other component depending on type of workload.
Posted on Reply
#33
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Prima.VeraYou DO know that the storage is still THE SLOWEST component of any system? Those kind of questions are very immature.
That doesn't mean it's the bottleneck. You can run system memory insanely fast with a ton of bandwidth but that almost never helps anyone because things like caching enable efficient usage of memory resources so the extra bandwidth actually gets you nothing. So yes, physical storage is slower but, that's only because of where you're at on the memory hierarchy. For external storage, it's actually very fast but, that doesn't do you any good if the data your accessing is already cached in memory. ;)

Two words: Diminishing returns.
Posted on Reply
#34
bug
BiggieShadyJust be careful not to generalize too much on that level since it's highly dependent on type of workload you do with your computer ... for a benchmark that fits in cpu cache better cpu always brings performance increments, for an application that heavily writes and reads from memory better ram with lower latency always brings performance increments, some apps use storage only to load their own executable, and the point is there are too many examples where any component can limit any other component depending on type of workload.
Well yes. Since I was talking about storage+CPU+RAM I thought generic usage was implied. Your addition is welcome, though, what I meant is not necessarily what reader will understand.
Posted on Reply
#35
xvi
romegI have two 950 pros @ 512GB that I'm very happy with. But I'm so curious about why you would consider swapping for 960 pros. Am I missing something?
I'm hoping they solved the issue with them throttling. I have two in my laptop where there's not much room for them to breathe.

I'm also hoping to see some increased speeds even though I think I'm oversaturating the busses feeding the M.2 slots. I'd really like to see how two of these do on a Z170 board compared to two 950 Pros.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 22nd, 2024 22:25 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts