Poll: SSD - performance versus warranty/reliability

This is my first attempt at a poll so please, bear with me!

I have been researching different options to consider for a new build. I'm aware that there are other makes and models but I've selected these two as a comparison.

Samsung 850 PRO (512 GB)
Samsung 960 EVO (500 GB)

In Sweden, these two drives are priced within 5% (850 PRO the more expensive).

An attempt to get an "average" of differences in performance ended with the 960 EVO as the winner by a factor of 3.2 (times higher performance).

The 850 PRO has 3.3 times longer warranty (years) or 1.5 times more writes (TBW) and 1.3 times better reliability (MTBF).

If you've got the time, feel free to expand on your choice!

 

The Samsung 850 EVO (500 GB) is the "base" for my thoughts. If I were to shell out the extra 40% it would cost to get either the 850 PRO or the 960 EVO, which would I choose? Performance or warranty/reliability?

 

When I built my current desktop almost 3 years ago to the day I opted for the best SSD available at the time, based on reviews, namely the 256GB 850 Pro SATA 6GB/s 2.5" Solid State Drive. This was intended for Windows and programs only - hence only 256 GB of which 134GB is unused and was coupled originally with 2x 2TB WD Black HD's for data and internal backup - a 3rd WD Blue 2TB drive was added recently. The Samsung has not disappointed or caused any issues.

I would go for the latter, based on my PC usage which is mainly image processing in Photoshop and no requirement for video editing. The performance of SSD's far outweigh that of HD's whatever their specs.

 

Interesting solution. My current HDD is partitioned in three, Win XP, Win 7 and Data. This is to enable imaging of the system partition(s) only and backing up data using other programs. Using two drives (HDD) to accomplish that has in the past been more expensive, at least where I live. Today, I checked the prices:

256 GB 850 PRO + 250 GB 850 EVO = SEK 2369 (USD 283) compared to 512 GB 850 PRO = SEK 2469 (USD 295). With that small difference in price, I would probably go for the single 512 GB 850 PRO. The drives have (approximately) the same performance but I would get better warranty with the PRO drive. However, in the case of drive failure (5-10 years from now when the drives are out of warranty) replacing any of the two small drives would be less expensive.

 

Hi Christer. IMO I would just go with the 850 Pro as it comes with a 10 year warranty as opposed to the 5 year warranty on the SATA EVO model. Plus since the pro model uses the SATA interface, you can easily move it over to another PC if needed as opposed to the M.2 interface that the 960 SSD uses.

I have a 1 TB 850 EVO SSD in my custom system and its plenty fast for gaming, video streaming and multitasking. If you are curious here are performance benchmarks comparing the 850 EVO and 850 Pro models and there is not very much of a performance difference between the drives, SSD 850 EVO vs. 850 Pro.

 

Hi Evan,

The warranty for the 960 is different from the 850. The 960 EVO comes with 3 years (5 for the 850 EVO) and the 960 PRO comes with 5 years (10 for the 850 PRO).

Since I'm discussing the bootdrive with the operating system, it's not likely to be moved to another computer, at least not without difficulty. If it would actually happen, the "receiving system" probably also has a M.2 interface, don't you think?

Yes, I've found out that the differences are negligible and what you get from the 850 PRO is longer warranty and life expectancy.

Maybe my comparison is weird in the sense that it involves two drives with different form factors and different interfaces. There's a significant difference in performance ... ... but will it be noticeable in real life usage? Im sure it will be noticeable under "heavy load circumstances" but for the "average load", maybe not. Possibly better to go with longer warranty.

 

Well, in this "limping" comparison, there's a significant difference in performance between the 850 and the 960 and that has been proven in benchmarks but do you actually know that it's "milliseconds between friends" in real world usage?

I have upgraded two systems for friends from SATA HDD to SATA SSD and I don't get overwhelmed by the imrovement in performance. It's noticeable but nothing to run around in circles about.

I do however have certain expectations with the new interface M.2 (PCIE 3.0 x4/x2) but you have to watch out to get a processor that is "up to it". In terms of AMD socket AM4, if you get a Ryzen, the M.2 slot will run at 32 GB/sec (x4) but if you get an A-series processor, it will run at 16 GB/sec (x2).

And to all, don't forget to cast your votes!

 

Then I really have got to get a camera and start storing high resolution pictures ... ... !

 

I'd rather have a longer warranty but it honestly depends on what you will be using the computer for. If its just for gaming, office work, streaming etc. then the SATA based SSD will be fast enough for your needs but if you want one of the best drives based on performance benchmarks for your budget then go with the 960 EVO.

Yes that's true but the 3 year warranty on the M.2 960 SSD is a drawback in case the device fails after the warranty expires.

As long as you won't be upgrading to a higher capacity SSD in a few years and you don't run low on disk space being used up by all those Windows temporary files.