Samsung 840 EVO 120GB SSD
Phoronix: Samsung 840 EVO 120GB SSD
After this week already sharing Linux disk performance results of the Kingston SSDNow V300 SSD and Western Digital WD10EZEX, the latest disk testing done from Ubuntu is with the popular Samsung 840 EVO solid-state drive. If you are curious how this lower-priced SSD compares to various other disks under Ubuntu Linux, here's a number of results within this latest Phoronix hardware comparison.
The Samsung 840 EVO 1 TB is ranked as the #1 ssd on ssdboss.
I don't know if the 128 GB variant is slower though.
Honestly, you bought the wrong drive. The 128GB is slower than its siblings as not all NAND channels are populated. Step up to the 256GB or the 512GB (I own the latter) and it's a super speedy drive that's much cheaper than its direct competitors.
Did you update to the latest firmware? http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...downloads.html
I am surprised by these benchmarks, I was going to swap out my current vertex 3 for an evo (mostly because I am running out of storage) but now I am doubting that decision..
lol You bought the worst version of the line of the EVO's, the 128GB version isn't for performance its for people who can't afford much/anything else while still having a high-quality firmware. The 128GB version only has 1 channel similar to the lowest RAM frequency benches you've been doing so... at least this is the 1st benchmark I've ever seen with the 128GB version so I guess this bench isn't for nothing, it's just no where near representative of what the real EVO's (512GB+) are capable of.
Yes is slower. performance has generally been capping around 240 or 480 GB lately
Originally Posted by uid313
also notable is power consumption at idle, which is 0.64W for the V300 and 0.045W for the EVO. Less good for performance, better for laptop battery life. Kingston offers better consumer level PM with the KC300 (.08 W at idle) which is running $110 for 120G at amazon
It would be better to have real usage benchmarks (booting, shutting down, resuming from suspend, real file/directory copying).
840 has slower write speed probably because it doesn't use compression as Sandforce-based SSDs
I got stuck with a Samsung 830. Apparently they're even crappier than rotating disc-a-mathings. After seeing people with these rotor things load games faster on shittier spec'd systems that I, I tend to agree.
200GB of SSD that still loads 70% of tasks faster than any rotunda-drive can offer is good enough for me. Just not for the price premium SSD demands =D Lucky I got it on spesh!
Good luck with that, considering Samsung dosen't provide any means to update their firmware through Linux.
Originally Posted by devonwarren
I know Sandforce models do, though. Their update utilities are even in the AUR.