Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD Review

Review: Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD Reviewed by: Wendy Robertson Provided by: Samsung Model: MZ-750500BW Firmware version: MATO1B6Q

The Samsung 750 EVO is aimed at the budget end of the
consumer SSD market, and sits below the popular 850 EVO series of SSDs. The 750
EVO uses the same fully fledged MGX SSD controller found in the 850 EVO, but instead
uses Samsung TLC planar NAND, rather than the more expensive and higher
performing 3D V-NAND found in the Samsung 850 series SSDs.

The Samsung 750 EVO is available in capacities of 120GB,
250GB, and 500GB. The version I am looking at today is the 500GB version.

Samsung company information

Those of you that would like to find out more about Samsung,
can do so at their website.

The Samsung 750 EVO SSD

Now it’s time to take a look at the drive itself and what it
came shipped with.

Being a budget SSD, you get a bare drive and installation
manual.

Samsung 750 EVO

Box front

Box rear

Drive maintenance features

For Windows 7 and Windows 8 users, and some distributions of
Linux, the Samsung 750 EVO series SSD supports ATA TRIM to keep the NAND clean.
The Samsung 750 EVO series also has advanced garbage collection to clean the
NAND during drive idle periods.

Samsung SSD Magician

The SSD Magician software allows the user to maintain the
SSD, and has the following features.

• Disk drive: Brings up useful information about the
  SSD, including its health status and how much data has been written to the
  SSD.
• System info: Allows the user to see system and
  drive properties.
• Performance Benchmark: Performs a very basic
  benchmark on the SSD.
• Performance optimization: Performs a manual TRIM of
  the SSD.
• OS Optimization: Allows operating system features
  that can affect SSD performance, to be switched on or off.
• Firmware Update: Allows the firmware to be updated.
• Secure Erase: Sends a Secure Erase command to the
  SSD, clearing all NAND and returning the SSD back to its default factory
  state.
• Over Provisioning: Allows the user to set aside a
  given amount of NAND as a manual over provisioning area.
• SSD authenticity test: Checks to make sure
  that the SSD is a genuine Samsung SSD.
• Enable Rapid mode: Enables the 'Rapid mode' cache
  feature.

Data migration software is also available as a download from
Samsung, which allows you to easily migrate your existing system installation
over to your new SSD.

Let’s head to the next page where we take a look at our
testing methods and the review PC....

 

Test machine

For this review I will be using a computer with the
following configuration:

Hardware:

·       Motherboard: Asus Z170 Deluxe (Intel
Z170 chipset)

·       Processor: Intel 6th generation
Core i7 6700K

·       CPU cooler: BeQuiet Dark Rock Pro 2

·       RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance
LPX 2666MHz DDR4 (dual channel)

·       GFX: MSI GTX 950 Gaming 2G

·       Sound: Onboard Realtek ALC1050
HD audio controller

·       Hard disk OS: OCZ Vector 256GB
SSD.

·       Case: Antec Performance One
P280

·       PSU: Antec True Power modular
550W

·       Display: Dell P2715Q 27” 4K widescreen
IPS LCD (HDCP compliant)

·       Operating System: Windows 10 Professional
64bit

·       Power consumption testing
equipment: Quarch Technology QTL1824-03 XLC Programmable Power Module

AHCI mode was also selected for all drives in the UEFI of
our test PC, and all tests were carried out in this mode. The SATA 6Gbps drivers
used on our review PC were the Intel Rapid Storage Technology (RST) Version
14.6.0.1029.

CPU power saving states were disabled for consistency, and
all the SSDs in this article were tested with all CPU power saving states
disabled.

Test applications

To test the performance of the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD, I
will be using the following test applications in this review.

• HD-Tune Pro
• ATTO
• Iometer
• AS SSD
  Benchmark
• CrystalDiskMark
• MyCE Reality Suite
• Anvil’s
  Storage Utilities
• PC
  Mark 8
• Quarch Technology Test
  Monkey 2

Test procedures

I will start off our testing procedures explanation by stating
that I did not run many synthetic benchmarks on the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD.
You may ask why I have run so few synthetic benchmarks?

SSD technology has moved so fast in the last couple of years,
that basic synthetic benchmarks alone are now of very limited use, as they don't
really tell us much about performance and how the drive will behave in the real
world. I have therefore decided to show some basic benchmarks of the Samsung
750 EVO 500GB SSD, and will complement this with advanced benchmarks using
IOMeter and AS SSD benchmark. I will also show how the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD
performs in the real world with our Myce Reality Suite test.

The reality of SSD performance

Whilst I can easily show you which SSD is technically the
faster, when you use one of these modern SSDs as an operating system drive it
becomes very difficult to tell them apart as far as performance is concerned.

A typical use of a small capacity SSD at the moment is to
have your operating system and applications installed onto the SSD. The
performance difference compared to a traditional HDD is enormous, however when
you start to compare SSD to SSD the difference becomes almost impossible to
detect.

Let’s look at why this is the case.

Drive A can boot to the desktop in 8.11 seconds, and drive B
can boot to the desktop in 8.12 seconds, the difference in time is
milliseconds, and can one really tell the difference?

The fact is, all modern SSDs are only ticking over when they
are only running the OS and launching applications, it’s only when you get to
some of the larger capacity SSDs, with enough free space to be able to hold the
actual data that you’re going to be working with, be that video, audio or
pictures, for example, that you actually get a tangible difference in
performance. This is where the SSDs with the better sequential performance start
to pull well ahead of the SSDs which have lower sequential read/write
performance.

Small file random IOPS vs sequential performance

IOPS

This is a fairly complex subject, but I will do my best to
explain things in a manner that is easy to understand.

The term IOPS is the amount of input or output transactions
that can take place in a one second interval, so for example, if an SSD is
quoted as being able to cope with 20,000 4K random write IOPS, then the SSD
should be able to cope with 20,000 input transactions in a period of one
second. If the same SSD is said to be able to produce 20,000 4K random read
IOPS, then the same SSD should be able to produce 20,000 4K random read output
transactions in a one second interval.

Ok, now we have some figures to work with, the next question
is how many IOPS are actually required?

This will depend on your usage pattern. If you are a typical
desktop user who browses the internet, does some word processing or perhaps
some audio or video editing, and perhaps plays a few games, then in actual
fact, you don’t need to have massive 4K random read/write performance. The
actual amount of 4K random performance that is required for a fast and smooth
running system for a desktop user with a usage pattern similar to the above
will be well under 1,000 4K IOPS.

On the other hand, if the SSD is being used for running a
large and complex database server, then 4K random performance is the absolute
measurement of how fast that server will run, as this type of application does
most of its input and output transactions in the 4K domain.

So why would I need an SSD with 80,000 4K IOPS for a
desktop?

In fact you don’t need this type of performance for a
desktop, but an SSD which is capable of coping with 80,000 4K IOPS will be
faster than an SSD which can only cope with 20,000 4K IOPS.

OK, I just said if under 1,000 4K IOPS are actually required
for typical desktop usage, why is an SSD with 80,000 4K IOPS faster than an SSD
with only 20,000 4K IOPS, confused?

You may ask, if I only require 1,000 4K IOPS surely the rest
is wasted?

While you may never need 80,000 4K IOPS, IOPS is all about
latency. The reason that an SSD can cope with as much as 80,000 4K IOPS is
because latency in this domain is very low. With 4K files, even if you require
to process 500 of them at the same time, you are not talking about a huge
amount of data, it has far more to do with how long it takes the SSD to process
a single file, and the amount of time required to process a single 4K is all
about how long it takes for the SSD to access or store that data before it can
move on to the next transaction.

In other words an SSD with 80,000 4K IOPS performance will
handle those 500 files faster than the SSD with 20,000 IOPS.

So how will a desktop user even notice this faster speed if
so little 4K random IOPS and data are actually used?

Multitasking is a good example. The more tasks you run at
the same time, you more you will notice the speed difference.

Sequential performance

I have always maintained that sequential performance was
every bit as important as small random file performance for a desktop SSD. To
me this was always so obvious for a desktop user. For example, let’s say you
want to launch an application or game. Both have some fairly large files to
load, and also a great many small files, but the point is, even the smaller
files are sequential in nature. Now let’s say you’re into audio or video
editing. Video files tend to be huge, and the files are written or read
sequentially. Isn’t this how many users are using their PCs these days?

Summary

So how does this shape up in the real world? Which is
better, massive 4K IOPS or massive sequential performance?

In an ideal world you want both, as an SSD with massive random
4K IOPS and sequential performance will always be faster than an SSD that has
high sequential performance and moderate 4K random IOPS performance, and the
same applies to an SSD that has massive 4K random performance and moderate
sequential performance. The SSD which has high performance in both patterns
will always be the faster SSD.

However, you can still have an SSD that is very fast for
desktop use that has moderate random 4K performance and massive sequential
performance, the same can be said about a drive having massive random 4K
performance and moderate sequential performance, as it is about getting the
balance right if you have to compromise on one or the other.

Test drives

• Intel 520 series 240GB
• Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB SSD
• OCZ Vector 256GB SSD
• Seagate 600 series 500GB SSD
• OCZ Vector 150 240GB SSD
• Toshiba HG6 256GB SSD
• Samsung 850 Pro 1TB SSD
• OCZ ARC 100 240GB SSD
• Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD
• Samsung 850 Pro 512GB SSD
• ZOTAC ZTSSD A5P Premium 240GB
  SSD
• OCZ Trion 150 480B SSD
• Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD

Drive preparation for running the tests

All the SSDs used in this article were in a clean and fresh
state when the testing period started. From then on, each drive had to rely on
its own NAND cleaning effectiveness for the remainder of the tests.

For the sake of clarity, I now only include SATA 6Gbps SSDs
in these tests, and all were connected to the native Intel SATA 6Gbps (port 0)
of my motherboard for these tests.

• All SSDs used in this article had their partitions aligned
  to the Windows 8.1 x64 defaults.

Where I use graphs in this article to display results, I
will use the following colours to make it easier, for our readers to see which drive
we are reviewing.

 Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD

 Comparison SSD

Now let's head to the next page, where I look at some
basic benchmarks...

Synthetic Benchmarks

---

HD Tune Pro

In this benchmark I am checking sequential reading speed
with a 4MB block size.

With an average sequential reading speed of 529.2 MB/s the Samsung
750 EVO 500GB SSD gives an excellent turn of speed. Also worth noting are the
incredibly fast access times.

Let's see how this compares to other recently tested SSDs in
the table below.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has done extremely well in the
HD Tune Pro 5 sequential reading test, and whilst there isn't a large margin
between the top SSDs, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB is the second fastest in this
test.

ATTO disk benchmark

ATTO has become a standard tool for measuring the data
throughput of HDDs and SSDs. It measures the reading and writing performance,
using different file sizes and block sizes.

The reading speed results for the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD are
impressive, topping out at over 552 MB/s, and writing speed is equally impressive
topping out at over 530 MB/s.

Let's find out how this compares with other recently tested
SSDs.

ATTO Reading performance

ATTO - Reading
performance at various block sizes

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is one of the fastest SSDs, when
reading data.

ATTO Writing performance

ATTO - Writing
performance at various block sizes

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD shows excellent writing performance.

CrystalDiskMark 3.0

Crystal Disk Mark is quite a handy benchmarking application,
as it focuses on the file sizes that can cause a problem on a system drive.

As we can see from the above screenshot, sequential reading and
writing speeds are both very impressive, also random writing performance at low
and high queue depths is very good.

AS SSD Benchmark

AS SSD benchmark is a benchmarking tool specifically
designed to test SSDs. The application tests sequential reading and writing
performance, 4K random reading and writing performance.

AS SSD benchmark also tests 4K threaded performance. This is
very exciting, as this test is the first available test that I am aware of,
that simulates how a PC operating system actually works. A modern PC and OS,
such as Windows 10 does not just run a single thread at a time, it runs many
threads. The AS SSD benchmark "4K 64Thrd" tests run 64 threads simultaneously
throughout the test. If this result is good, then you can be pretty sure the
drive will perform extremely well as a system drive.

After the tests complete, AS SSD benchmark derives a total
score for the drive being tested. This is based on all aspects of the test
results, and gives an indication of how the drive is performing overall.

Now let’s look at the result from the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD in the form of a screenshot. All our other comparison drives’ results are
presented in the form of a graph.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD

As we can see from the AS SSD test run, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD is performing extremely well in this test.

Summary:

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has performed well in the
basic synthetic benchmarks. Random reading performance is outstanding and random
writing performance is excellent. Sequential reading and writing performance is
excellent.

Let's head to the next page for our IOMeter test
results.....

I/O Performance

There is little point of having an SSD drive that has
blazing sustained reading and writing speeds, if the drive can't handle reading
and writing of small random files. If you intend to use your new SSD drive to
store and run your operating system, then the drive must be able to cope with
the many small random files that Windows will write to the drive continually.
So I feel it is very important to test how many of these random files that a
drive can handle in one second. I believe that anything over 1,000 I/O’s per
second would be enough for most users running a consumer grade mainstream PC,
and should provide a smooth running system. But obviously, the more I/O's that
a drive can handle, the faster the drive will feel and leave more headroom for
those huge multitasking sessions that users sometimes engage in.

IOMeter is probably the most versatile of all the synthetic
benchmarks. Its ability to be configured to generate a multitude of different
I/O traffic is unmatched. Another great feature of IOMeter, is the capability
to test any storage metric that you can think of, providing you know how to
configure the assignments. The reviewer also has complete control over things
like queue depth, block size, whether the traffic is random, sequential, or
even a mixture of both.

Partition alignment and sector boundaries

Windows 10, Windows 8.1, Windows 7, and Windows Vista will
automatically align a partition to 4k boundaries during partition creation,
Windows XP won’t. It is imperative that an SSD’s partition is aligned. Windows
XP is also restricted to sector boundaries, while Windows 7 and 8 will use 4k boundaries
if they can. The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is 4k boundary aware, and will use
these boundaries if possible. Of course it will also remap LBAs for compatibility
with the sector boundaries so that the drive can be used with Windows XP.

IOMeter allows us to set the sector boundaries for
conducting the tests, and I have therefore set the sector boundaries at 4K,
which means the IOMeter tests are valid for Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows
Vista users. XP users will not be able to obtain such results.

I will provide a screenshot of the tests on the review drive
for those of you who like to see the actual test result. All the comparison
drive results are represented in the form of graphs.

If any of you would like to see a screenshot from any
IOMeter test on a particular drive, please feel free to request one, and I’ll
post the screenshot in the forum thread.

All the IOMeter tests create a 10GB data set on the target
drive, and each test is run for a duration of 3 minutes.

IOMeter 4K random write test with repeating data.

The first test involves creating continual 4KB random files
on the target drive with IOMeter. I use a 4KB file size, as it is believed that
Windows will create and modify many of this size of file constantly in the
background during a typical Windows session. It is said that most 4K random
writes take place at a queue depth of only one, and I have been requested to
include this test in my reviews.

Queue depth 1

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD – 4K random write (QD 1)

At 148.03 MB/s the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD's result is
very good, and it finishes this test in seventh place.

Our next test involves creating continual 4KB random files
on the target drive with IOMeter. I use a 4KB file size, as it is believed that
Windows will create and modify many of this size of file constantly in the
background during a typical Windows session. I will use queue depths of 4 and
32 for these tests.

Queue depth 4

Samsung
750 EVO 500GB SSD (QD 4)

At a queue depth of 4, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is
excellent, and finishes this test in sixth place.

Queue depth 32

Samsung
750 EVO 500GB SSD (QD 32)

At 351.5 MB/s, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is very good, and
finishes this test in tenth place.

IOMeter 4K random write test with fully random data.

This test is exactly the same as the test above except that
the test data is fully random and is therefore much more difficult to compress.
This test was requested as SandForce based SSDs gain a lot of performance by
being able to compress data on the fly. While the above test shows the
SandForce based SSDs in a best case scenario, the following test will show the
SandForce based SSDs in a much more realistic scenario.

Queue depth 4 with fully random data

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD – 4K random write (QD 4 with fully random data)

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD pays no penalty when writing
data which is incompressible, and at 346.54 MB/s it finishes this test in fourth
place.

4K random write queue depth profile

For this test I used various queue depths from 1 – 32 to
give you an idea how this SSD performs at different queue depths. For a normal
desktop user, with lightweight multitasking, the queue depth will rarely rise
above 2. For heavy multitasking, the queue depth is unlikely to rise above a
value of 8.

The results are shown below.

As we can see, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has excellent
performance at low queue depths but, after it reaches a queue depth of 5,
performance doesn't really increase with higher queue depths.

Below I present a table of the results in more detail.

IOMeter 4K random read test.

If there are many 4k files created, then that must also mean
that many 4k files need to be read. This test measures 4k reading performance.

It is said that most 4K random reads take place at a queue
depth of only one, and readers have requested that I include this test in my
reviews.

Queue depth 1

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD - 4K random read (QD 1)

In this test the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has outstanding performance,
and finishes in second place.

Queue depth 4

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD - 4K random read (QD 4)

At a queue depth of four, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB performs
excellently, and is the third fastest SSD in this test.

Queue depth 32

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD - 4K random read (QD 32)

At a queue depth of 32, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD gives excellent
performance, and is the fourth fastest SSD in this test.

4K random read queue depth profile.

This test shows how the review drive scales with increasing
queue depths.

Below I present a table of the results in greater detail.

When we look at the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD 4K random read
performance in detail, at low queue depths the performance is outstanding, with
the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB scaling well, all the way up to a queue depth of 32.

IOMeter 512KB sequential write test with repeating data.

Sequential writing performance is also very important; in
this test sequential writing performance is measured.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD - 512K Sequential write with repeating data

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD delivers an excellent turn of
speed, finishing this test in seventh place.

512K sequential write - Queue depth profile

While most sequential writes will rarely rise above a queue
depth of two, it has been noted from SATA analyzer traces that with more
demanding tasks, queue depths can rise very close to a queue depth of four.
This is why I now include queue depth profiles for sequential read and write.

Please note that in the following graph, I do not have the
lowest possible score set at zero. This is purely to allow the graphs to be
easier to read, but starting with a lowest possible score other than zero,
gives the impression that there are large differences between competing SSDs with
regard to performance, so please keep this in mind.

512K sequential write
- Queue depth profile

Below I present a table of the results in more detail.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD series reaches peak performance
at a queue depth of four, where it manages an impressive 527.6 MB/s.

IOMeter 512KB sequential write test with fully random data.

This test is almost exactly the same as the test above
except that the test data is fully random in nature. This test was requested as
SandForce based SSDs gain a lot of performance by being able to compress data
on the fly. While the above test shows the SandForce based SSDs in a best case
scenario, the following test will show the SandForce based SSDs in a more
realistic light. In the real world, the data is neither 100% incompressible nor
100% compressible, it is somewhere in between. So please keep this in mind.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD – 512K sequential write with fully random data

With data that is not so easy to compress, the SandForce SF-2281
based SSDs take a big performance hit, whilst the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD
returns a very impressive 527.33 MB/s, and finishes this test in second place.

IOMeter 512KB sequential read test QD1.

This test measures 512k sequential reading performance at
very low queue depths.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD – 512K sequential reading test (QD 1)

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has excellent sequential
reading performance at very low queue depths, finishing in seventh place.

IOMeter 512KB sequential read test (dual threaded).

This test measures 512k sequential reading performance QD2.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD – 512K sequential reading test (QD 2)

At a more realistic queue depth the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB is
still showing excellent sequential reading performance for an SATA SSD, and finishes
this test in eleventh place.

512K sequential read - Queue depth profile

While most sequential reads will rarely rise above a queue
depth of two, it has been noted from SATA analyzer traces that with more
demanding tasks, queue depths can rise very close to a queue depth of four.
This is why I now include queue depth profiles for sequential read and write.

Please note that in the following graph, I do not have the
lowest possible score set at zero. This is purely to allow the graphs to be
easier to read, but starting with a lowest possible score other than zero,
gives the impression that there are large differences between competing SSDs with
regard to performance, so please keep this in mind.

512K sequential read - Queue depth profile

Below I present a table of the results in greater detail.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD reaches maximum sequential
reading performance at a queue depth of three, where it achieves an excellent 547.73
MB/s.

IOMeter Workstation simulation (outstanding I/Os = 64).

When running applications you will find that there is a
mixture of small random files and larger sequential files, being created and
read. Not only that, it isn’t just one file at a time. In this test I measure a
simulated workstation pattern, with a queue depth of 64 (threaded).

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD – Workstation simulation

The 'workstation' simulation sorts the men out from the
boys, with its mixed reads and writes. This test shows how an SSD could behave with
a heavy workload, in a graphics, or video workstation environment. The Samsung
750 EVO 500GB SSD has very good mixed read/write performance, and finishes the
test in fifth place.

Summary

All in all, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has performed well
in our IOMeter tests. It has excellent reading performance, and sequential writing
performance is also excellent. The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB also has outstanding 4K
random reading performance at very low queue depths, which is a key factor for a
consumer SSD.

 

Now let’s head to the next page where we will look at how
the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD performs using a new benchmarking application....

 

Anvil’s Storage Utilities

As well as performing SSD endurance tests. Anvil’s Storage
Utilities has a very nice SSD benchmarking application. The SSD benchmark tests
many different aspects of SSD performance, including 4K random at different
queue depths, and also sequential performance, but more importantly than this,
all using real test data.

Another very nice feature of Anvil’s SSD benchmark is the
fact that you can change the compression levels of the test data. The
compression levels of the datasets used for the tests can be varied from 0%
compression right up to 100% compressed data, and there are even a few data
profiles already included, such as database (8%) compression, and also an
application profile (46%) compression, which is designed to simulate real
application data being read and written to the SSD.

I will include a screenshot of the review drive, and all
comparison results will be presented in the form of graphs. If you would like
to see screenshots of the test results obtained on the other SSDs in this
article, you can do so by following the link here.

I will also be testing three different compression profiles,
which are as follows.

• 0 fill (100% compressible data)
• Application simulation profile (46% compressed)
• 100% (incompressible data)

 So let’s begin the tests.

0 fill

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD (0 fill)

In the 0 fill test, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has
performed extremely well and is the sixth fastest SSD in this test.

Application profile

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD (application profile)

The application test pattern is much more realistic in terms
of the type of data that real users will employ, and this time the Samsung 750
EVO 500GB SSD is the fourth fastest SSD.

100% incompressible

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD (100% incompressible)

With test data that can't be compressed at all, the Samsung
750 EVO 500GB SSD is still performing excellently, and finishes the test in
third place.

Summary

One should keep in mind that although Anvil’s Storage
Utilities SSD benchmark is a very good benchmark, and tests many aspects of SSD
performance, ultimately it is demonstrating which SSD is technically the
fastest when reading data, and this may not be showing (for example) which
drive will be fastest in the real world with a home user's work pattern.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has however performed very
well in Anvil's SSD benchmark tests.

Now let's head to the next page for some real world tests....

It has become clear that simply conducting endless
benchmarks on SSD drives is pointless. Real users may run a few benchmarks when
they first fit their SSD drive, but most users just want a drive that performs
well in the real world. They want their drive to work "out of the
box" and run fast and smoothly.

Most of the latest SSD drives can deliver very fast
sustained reading and writing speeds, but these alone tell you very little
about how the drive will perform in the real world.

If you intend to use your SSD as your primary system drive,
with an operating system and applications installed and running from the drive,
real world performance becomes much more important than just fast sequential
read and write speeds.

Real world copy
tests

I will now conduct a few real world copy tests. These tests
simulate what real people do with their drives. I will be conducting writing
tests, using a large single file, and I will then round off the tests by
copying a folder of MP3 audio files, and also a folder of JPG pictures.

In past reviews I simply used Windows copy and paste to copy
the files from one drive to the target drive, and then I measured the time
taken to complete the test with a stop watch. This method was flawed in a
couple of ways. Windows employs a cache, so even when the files had been
copied, some of the data was still in the Windows cache and hadn't yet been
written to the SSD. The other flaw was that a stop watch is not a very accurate
way of measuring the time taken to complete the test.

I had also noticed that copying the small file set had
become pointless, as most modern SSDs have a rather large cache, in fact large
enough to be able to take the complete file set in this cache without having to
commit that data to NAND before the test had completed. I could have increased
the amount of data in the test, but I felt this was moving away from the real
world. For example, who would copy 2GB of data containing only very small
files?

I concluded it was perhaps better just to drop this test
completely, and just focus on the large 8GB ISO file, the folder of MP3 audio
files, and the folder of JPG picture files. I also have taken the opportunity
to increase the amount of data to be copied in the MP3 and JPG tests, to make
sure the SSD's memory cache doesn't obtain an unfair advantage.

The other change is that I now use an application to copy
the data, which also times how long it takes to complete the test. This
application also supports "cache write-through". What this basically
means is, there is now no caching of the files, and instead the data being
copied must be committed to the target SSD as it's being copied.

Obviously making such changes to the methods of testing is
not taken lightly. To make changes means a lot of extra work, as all the
comparison drives have to be re-tested with the new method. However, here at
Myce.wiki, we believe we should always try to improve our reviews, and if that
means updating the testing methods and some initial extra work, then that benefits
the Myce community as a whole.

For the reading drive, I have made the switch to a RAMDisk.
With SATA Express SSDs just around the corner, the OCZ REVODrive X2 would no
longer be fast enough to supply data to an NVMe PCIe3 SSD. Because RAM has
lower latency and higher transfer speeds when compared to an SSD, this has
meant having to rerun the tests on a selection of other SSDs to make sure the
results are up to date. Please note, that some SSDs which were on loan during
the review period, has meant that these SSDs still use the old results, simply
because I can't retest them.

For the tests themselves, I will show a screenshot of the
copy test for the SSD that I'm reviewing. All other results will be presented
in the form of a graph, so you can easily compare the results.

Single large file writing test (8144.6MB)

For this test I used a single DVD9 ISO file which had been
copied to the RAMDisk. The file was then copied to the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD and our comparison drives.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD

The Samsung 750 EVO has performed well in this test, copying
the large ISO file in 18.6 seconds, and finishing the test in tenth place.

Write a folder of JPG picture files.

For this test I copied a folder of JPG picture files from
the RAMDisk to the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB series 512GB SSD, and our other
comparison drives. The folder contained 7861 JPG pictures, with a total
capacity of 8410.3MB.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD

Once again the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB is performing well
taking 19.7 seconds to copy the large folder of JPG pictures, and finishes in
ninth place.

Write a folder of MP3 audio files.

For this test I copied a folder of MP3 audio files from our RAMDisk
to the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD series SSD and our other comparison drives.
The folder contained 1691 MP3 audio files, with a total capacity of 9176.5MB.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD

Yet again the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is performing well,
taking 21.8 seconds to copy the large folder of MP3 music files, and finishes this
test in tenth spot.

Single drive copy tests

These tests are to simulate a single drive in a PC or
laptop. In other words, I will copy a series of files from one folder on the
tested drive to another folder on the same drive. This means the drive is simultaneously
reading and writing during the tests. I also want to make this a realistic test,
so I have used a folder of MP3 music files, and then repeated the test with a
folder of JPG picture files.

Single drive copy tests – 1,691 MP3 song files (9176.5MB total)

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD

Again the Samsung 750 EVO is performing well, and finishes
the test in tenth place.

Single drive copy tests – 7,861 JPEG picture files (8410.3MB total)

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD

Once again, the Samsung 750 EVO has done well, and finishes
this test in tenth place.

Summary

Whilst the Samsung 750 EVO can’t quite keep pace with the
Samsung 850 series of SSDs, considering the 750 EVO is a budget SSD, it has
proven to be a very good performer.

Installing applications

---

Installing applications is possibly something you don't do
that often. But should you replace your system disk, then you will most likely
have to re-install your applications. Most of the SSD drives I have tested up
until now are quite slow at installing applications, most likely because their
I/O performance was quite limited.

For these tests, we picked some popular applications and
copied the entire contents of the CD or DVD media to a RAMDisk. We did this to
make sure that the reading speed of our CD/DVD reader would not hamper the
performance of the target drive.

We then installed these applications onto our comparison drives,
which were all running mirror image installations of our Windows 8 Professional
64-bit installation, and timed the amount of time taken to install the
application with a stopwatch on each of the drives.

MS Office 2007 Professional (full install)

MS Office is one of those applications that make you cringe
at the thought of re-installing it.

Let's find out how our drives coped with the MS Office 2007
full install.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD gave a good turn of speed when
installing this large office suite, and finished the test in seventh place.

Adobe Fireworks CS3

Adobe Fireworks CS3 is another popular package. Let's find
out how our drives coped with installing this application.

There isn’t a huge margin in the amount of time taken to
install this application on our modern SSDs. However the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD finishes this test in seventh place.

Summary

Our real world tests, though not scientific in nature, I
feel are more realistic than simply running benchmarks. What is clear from these
tests is that the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has good performance in the real
world.

Let’s check out application and game loading performance
on the next page of this article.....

These are quite simple tests, but very important to some
users of SSD drives.

We simply started an application or game, and measured the
time taken for the application or game to fully load and start.

Application loading times

---

Adobe Fireworks CS3

There is very little difference in tangible performance between
the modern SSDs. However, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD loads this large
application in 3.38 seconds, and finishes this test in fourth place.

Corel PaintShop Pro 12

Again, I doubt anyone could tell difference from the fastest
to the slowest modern SATA 6Gbps SSD, as they are all very close.

Games loading times

---

FAR CRY 2

Once again the results are all very close, and I highly
doubt anyone could tell the difference between the fastest and slowest SSDs in
this test.

F.E.A.R. 2

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has performed very well.

Summary

The Samsung 750 EVO performed very well in the copy tests,
and has again proven to be fast in the application installation, application
loading, and game loading, where it performed admirably.

Now let's head to the next page where we will see how the
Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD performs in PC Mark 8.....

 

PC Mark 8 - Storage Suite

Here at Myce.wiki, we only recently introduced PCMark Vantage
into our SSD testing. PCMark Vantage is a good test, but is now somewhat
outdated in the applications that it tests, even to the extent of including a
test trace on how Windows Vista booted. We could of course have opted for the
newer PCMark 7, but I personally had issues with the way it ran the HDD tests.

We have built quite a close relationship with FutureMark
software, the authors of the PCMark PC benchmarking software that we use in our
tests. I decided I would use PCMark Vantage as stopgap measure until the more
up-to-date PCMark 8 benchmarking suite became available. I'm pleased to say
that PCMark 8 is now available, and it gives me great pleasure to introduce you
all to the results obtained by this new 'real world' benchmarking suite.

I will describe the basic way that each test is carried out,
above the graph for each test.

PC Mark 8 storage suite results

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB

Now let’s look at the individual PC Mark 8 HDD suite scores,
in the form of tables and graphs.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: World of Warcraft

The first thing that is very noticeable is that all the
tested SSDs are remarkably close, performance wise, when loading this game.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Battlefield 3

Once again, the results are very close between all the
competing SSDs.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Adobe Photoshop light

Yet again the results are all very close together.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Adobe Photoshop heavy

Again, there isn't a large difference between any of the
competing SSDs.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Adobe InDesign

The SSDs with the higher writing performance head the table.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Adobe After Effects

There is virtually no difference between the tested SSDs.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Adobe Illustrator

Once again, there is hardly any difference between the
tested SSDs.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Microsoft Word

With only 0.3 seconds between the fastest and the slowest
SSD in this test, I would doubt anyone could tell the difference.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Microsoft Excel

There is only 0.2 seconds between the slowest and the
fastest SSDs in this test.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Microsoft PowerPoint

Once again, the results obtained from our test SSDs are
almost identical.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Storage bandwidth

Storage bandwidth displays the amount of bandwidth available
from the storage device, when it is faced with requests for simultaneous reads
and writes.

According to PC Mark 8, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB has 309.03
MB/s of bandwidth.

PC Mark 8 storage suite: Overall Score

PC Mark 8 sums all the individual times taken to run each
storage benchmark, and then comes up with an overall score for each of the
tested SSDs.

As we can see from the above graph, there isn't a large
difference between any of the tested SSDs, but the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD
takes third spot in these tests.

Summary

You may well ask, if the scores are so close between the
tested SSDs, then what is the point of running PC Mark 8 storage benchmark?

Basically, most of these individual tests are very low
demand as far as storage is concerned. More or less all the traces are
lightweight. But hang on a minute, this is how real applications work, and I
and many other reviewers have been saying for years that when we have
lightweight storage traces, it becomes almost impossible to tell SSDs apart
from a performance perspective. We now have a tool that can demonstrate this to
very good effect.

It's not until we start to push SSDs very hard that the
performance differences between SSDs start to become clearer, and for that we
need much heavier workloads, such as the tests run in the Myce Reality Suite.
PC Mark 8 is still very useful, as I'm quite sure that most of you will use at
least a couple of the applications used in these tests, and now you will be
able to compare one SSD to another.

Now let’s round off the performance tests with the Myce
Reality Suite on the next page.....

 

Myce Reality Suite revision 4.

NOTE: New in revision 4.

• Support for NVMe
• Support for SATA Express
• Support for PCIe
• Support for M.2.

So what is the Myce Reality storage test?

The Myce Reality Suite of tests is made from real everyday
applications and real data, there are no simulated tests, and everything is in
the real world. The only thing that's synthetic is that everything is automated
to make the tests fair, no matter which drive the tests are run on.

Recorded user sessions, by means of a script, are used to
launch the applications, load data, edit data, and then finally write that data
back to the target drive. The scripts do load the system much more than a human
could with these tests, as the scripts do not make mistakes, or pause to think
about what has to be done next.

Measurement system

The measuring system is part hardware and part software. The
hardware is a two part system comprising of a host PC and an external hardware
analyser which is proprietary, and runs a proprietary version of Linux with
special software.

The host PC is built around an Intel Core i7 2600 (Sandy
Bridge) CPU, and an Asrock Z68 Extreme 4 motherboard, with 8GB of 1600MHz DDR3
RAM. The interface between the host PC and the external measuring system uses a
proprietary PCIe2 x8 card, which is housed in the primary PCIe2 x16 slot on the
host PC. The analyser is calibrated before the start of the tests, and is
guaranteed to be accurate to within 0.03%.

Testing method.

Previously the test platform was Windows 7 Home Premium
64bit. The transition to Windows 8.1 Professional 64bit has now been made, and
at the same time a couple of new tests have been validated and introduced. This
has of course meant that I have had to retest a selected number of SSDs on the
new platform, and the results from SSDs that were old, or no longer available
in the test labs, have been discarded.

Building the tests and test image.

Once all the test data files and the scripts that run the
tests were complete, they were then copied to a single folder. I then fitted a
120GB SSD into the PC and did a clean install of Window 8.1 Professional x64.
The latest hardware drivers were installed and Windows update was run to
install any new updates that were available up to 24/11/2013. At this point the
applications that were to be used in the tests were installed and updated with
the latest patches.

The folder containing the application test data files and
scripts was then copied over to our fresh Windows 8.1 Professional 64bit SSD. A
drive snapshot was then taken of the complete SSD and the drive snapshot image
copied to an HDD for safe keeping.

The image is then simply restored to each of the SSDs on
test. After imaging the drive the partition is then realigned “on the fly” and the
free space is filled then deleted to force TRIM. A 20 minute settling time is
allowed before the tests are run, then each of the six tests is run and the
results gathered. This process is repeated for each of the drives I am testing.

The test scenarios are as follows.

• Graphics content
• Video editing
• Audio import and compression
• Application multitasking
• Windows defender (full system drive scan)
• GRID 2 gaming test.

Let’s begin the tests.

Myce Reality Suite – Graphics content.

Using ACDSee Pro 3, 100 JPG pictures with an average size of
10MB are imported into the ACDSee library, and then 12 of these JPG files are
then selected for a batch process, of resize, compress the quality to 80%, and
finally write the edited pictures back to the drive. The test is approximately
78% read and 22% write, with an average queue depth of 1.98.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB performs well in this test, and
finishes in sixth place.

Myce Reality Suite – Video editing.

Using Vegas Pro, a 14GB HD MPEG2 video stream is loaded into
the editor, from which 2 segments are then cut and pasted into new segments. There
is a lot of disc caching going on in this test, which is approximately 55% read
and 45% write, with an average queue depth of 1.89.

Again the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD finishes in sixth spot

Myce Reality Suite – Audio import and compression.

Using Sony Sound Forge 10, a batch process is run consisting
of importing 30 24bit (192000 Hz sample rate) .wav files, and 100 16bit (44100
Hz sample rate) .wav files  which are converted to MP3 audio files with a bit rate
of 128kbps, and the MP3s are then written back to the drive. The test is
approximately 72% read and 28% write, with an average queue depth of 2.62.

This time the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB takes fifth place.

Myce Reality Suite – Application multitasking.

For this test I used several popular applications, Microsoft
Word 2007, Microsoft Access 2007, Microsoft Excel 2007, Microsoft Outlook 2007,
Adobe reader, Adobe Photoshop CS3, uTorrent, Windows media player, and Internet
Explorer 9.

This session runs for approximately 12 minutes. The test is
started by downloading a Linux distribution via uTorrent, Windows media player
is then opened, and a 1080p video file is opened and played for the duration of
the test. Microsoft Outlook is opened and any new emails are received, read,
then replied too, a document in Adobe reader is opened and scrolled from start
to finish, 3 Microsoft Word documents with graphics content are opened, browsed
and some sections of the documents are copied and pasted into a forth document
and then saved back to the drive. The same applies to Microsoft Access and
Excel. 100 MP3 files are imported into Windows media library. Six JPG images
are loaded into Adobe Photoshop and some minor editing is done and the files
saved back to the drive.

Finally, Internet Explorer 11 is opened with 10 tabs, and
the contents of the 10 tabs refreshed, and browsed while the other applications
are busy in the background.

I would describe the multitasking pattern as moderate to
heavy.

During this test there is approximately 85% reading and 15%
writing, with an average queue depth of 6.73.

With the higher queue depths in this test the Samsung 750
EVO 500GB SSD is able to show what it can really do when pushed hard, and performs
well, finishing in seventh spot.

Windows Defender (full system drive scan)

A full system drive scan is selected on drive C: and then
run. The test is approximately 99% reading and 1% writing, with an average
queue depth of 1.2.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has performed well in this
test, finishing in eighth place.

GRID 2 gaming test

The game is launched and then a pre-saved level is loaded.
The test runs until the loaded level starts. The test is approximately 98% reading
and 2% writing, with an average queue depth of 1.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has performed well, and takes seventh
spot.

Summary

I firmly believe that the Myce Reality Suite gives a very
good overall picture of how a drive can perform in the real world and, in this
case, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is clearly a very capable performer.

Now let’s head to the next page, and see how well the
drive performs after heavy use....

Filling up the SSD with data

For obvious reasons, when an SSD is tested, the drive is
always tested as a spare drive, and is generally always empty (no data on the
drive) during the synthetic benchmarks. There is no other way of having a level
playing field for all the SSDs under test. This of course changes during the
real world tests we conduct here at Myce.wiki.

Real users of course don't buy an SSD for it to remain
empty, and how full the SSD will eventually become varies from one user to the
next. What I thought would be useful is to run tests on the SSDs with real data
on the drives, and at different levels regarding how full the drive is.

Myce Sustainable Performance Test

Over the last few months I have been studying countless
analyzer traces of real computing workloads, and also developing a test that
would accurately emulate and measure how performance is sustained over a period
of time. For obvious reasons, it is not possible to test an SSD review sample
over several months before publishing a review. The solution was to condense
this down to a manageable test, that doesn't take too long to run.

I will make it clear right from the outset that this is not
a torture test. Bringing any SSD to its knees is not helpful in the least, as I
for one would not use any SSD that had slowed down to crawl, just to prove a
point. The Myce Sustainable Performance test, I believe is a tough, but
sensible test pattern to use for measuring how an SSD will be behave once it's pushed
hard over a period of time.

The test pattern is "workstation" based, and
closely emulates a typical video or graphics workstation environment. The
results are measured using the same hardware I use for the Myce Reality Suite
tests, however, the test data and measuring system use a different method.

With the drive filled to 80% of its capacity, I already have
an SSD with a lot of data on it. Adding to the data that is already there, the
"Sustainable Performance" test data is added. This test data is
approximately 20GB is size, so once this is added the SSD is pretty full.

The test is then run for a period of 20 minutes. 60
performance measurements are taken for every minute of the test, and an average
performance figure is generated after each minute. At the end of the test I
have 20 performance measurements which are then used to generate the graph
below.

The faster SSDs will obviously sustain more writes then the
slower SSDs. For the fastest SSD in this test, the test pattern generated 146GB
of writes, and 193GB of data was read from the SSD during the test.

When reading the graph, you should not pay too much
attention to which drive is the fastest, but instead look at the sustainable
performance curve of each SSD, as this is what this test is all about.

For the SSD that I am reviewing, I will also add a second
graph which looks at the result in more detail.

So let's look at the results.

Sustainable
Performance test

Detailed results for the
review drive

There is evidence of a slowdown in the performance of the Samsung
750 EVO SSD. It doesn’t slow down by a huge amount though, and in fact it is in
the region of 70 MB/s.

Sustainable writing performance

Whilst the ‘Myce Sustainable Performance Test’ is based on a
mixed reading and writing workload, I believe it to be a good representation of
how an SSD will perform under a heavy workload, and I am often asked how a
particular SSD holds up performance wise, when it is subjected to a heavy data
writing workload. The fact is all SSDs aimed at the consumer market will slow
down to a crawl if you absolutely murder them with constant ‘writes’. Murdering
a consumer based SSD with writes tells us only what we expect, and is therefore,
in my opinion, a totally pointless exercise.

Most of us consumers can write quite a lot of data in a
single session, but very few of us will write lots of data constantly. If you
do write lots of data continually, then an SSD aimed at consumers is not for
you, and you should seriously consider spending the extra money required to
purchase an enterprise class SSD.

I have given quite a lot of thought to how to conduct a
sustainable writing performance test that is both meaningful, and uses a real
world scenario, that you are likely to come across as a consumer. One should
always make a system backup. SSDs tend to fail without notice, and if you don’t
a have a system backup when an SSD fails, then I’m afraid you’re in for a long
haul getting your operating system installed and updated, and then
re-installing all your apps.

So for this test, I will measure the time taken for a
popular backup application to ‘restore’ a system backup image to the target
SSD. Using the restore feature will subject the target SSD only to ‘writes’,
and providing the ‘restore image’ is large enough, then it should provide a
good idea of how well the target SSD will perform when asked to write a large
amount of data in a single session.

For this test I will be using Macrium Reflect (free
edition) to first make a system image of my review PC. Having done this, the
image created is now set in stone and will be used for future reviews. The
system backup image was then copied to an OCZ REVODrive 350 PCIe SSD, and a backup
copy stored on an HDD for safe keeping. As the REVODrive 350 will be used to
read the system restore image, it has to be fast enough at reading data to
ensure that the reading drive is not slowing down the target writing drive. I
have complete confidence that the REVODrive 350 has more than enough reading
performance to ensure this test can remain constant for the foreseeable future.

The system image is 95.73GB on the drive, which is small
enough to fit onto a 120GB SSD, and yet large enough to give a fair
representation of sustainable writing performance on a larger capacity SSD.

All target SSDs in this test were secure erased before
running the test to make sure the test is fair. Since this is the first time I
have included this test in my review, I will show a screenshot of both the SSDs
used in this test. In future reviews, I will only show a screenshot of the
‘review’ SSD, and all other obtained results will displayed in a graph.

The results will be ‘time’ based. Or in other words, the total
amount of time taken in seconds to restore the ‘system backup image’ to the
target SSD.

Please note that in the screenshot, the OCZ Vector
(my current system drive) is shown as the source drive, as this was the drive
that was backed up. This was not the reading drive in the test. The reading
drive was an OCZ REVODrive 350.

Macrium Reflect system restore

Macrium Reflect
system restore – Samsung 850 Pro 500GB

Macrium Reflect
system restore – Samsung 750 EVO 500GB

Let’s look at the results in the graph below.

It isn’t a surprise to see that the 850 Pro is faster than
the 750 EVO.

Let’s head to the next page for an in depth analysis of
power consumption and efficiency...........  

 

Power requirements and efficiency

Storage device manufacturers by law must provide power
consumption specifications with their storage device products. Quite often
these specifications are quite vague, and rarely, if ever, publish the power
efficiency of their storage devices with regard to how much work a storage
device can do for a given amount of energy consumed. In this article we will
disclose with unprecedented precision, the energy efficiency of some popular
storage devices.

Myce has now secured a piece of 'state of the art' test equipment,
which takes a sample every four micro-seconds, that I will be using to measure
the power consumption of consumer grade SSDs and HDDs. I'm so very proud to be
able to announce that Myce.wiki, in partnership with Quarch Technology, now aims to bring our
readers the most comprehensive, and accurate, power consumption tests ever
carried out on consumer grade storage devices, to be found anywhere on the
Internet.

Myce’s Power Testing will be carried out using
Quarch Technology products. More specifically we are privileged that Quarch has
allowed us to use their latest XLC Programmable Power Module (‘XLC PPM’) and we
would also like to take this opportunity to give a huge 'thank you' to Quarch
for providing this equipment. The XLC PPM is specifically designed for testing
low power sleep states on modern SSDs and as such has a remarkably accurate low
level current measurement, down to 100μA (micro amps, or millionths of an
amp). Please click here for details.

Quarch Technology is a world leader in the
supply of testing solutions for the data storage industry and if you would like
any further information please visit their website by clicking here. 

Let's take a closer look at the Quarch XLC PPM box in a bit
more detail.

Quarch Technology XLC
PPM

The Quarch Technology XLC PPM is able to provide two power
supply rails to the target SSD. A 12V (volt) rail is required for PCIe based
SSDs, and also for SATA HDDs, SATA HDDs also require the 5V rail to function.
All the power requirements of a SATA SSD are handled by the 5V rail.

As already mentioned, PCIe SSDs also require a 12V rail, but
the second rail is 3.3V rather than the 5V rail used by SATA SSDs. Generally,
most of the PCIe based SSDs that I have tested, which admittedly isn't a huge
number at the moment, draw their power from the 12V rail, the exception being
the Intel 750 NVMe SSD which uses both the 12V and 3.3V rails.

The Quarch Technology XLC PPM can switch between 5V and 3.3V
on the secondary power output channel as required. So for SATA based SSDs it is
set to 5V, and for PCIe based SSDs, it is set to 3.3V.

On the left hand side of the Quarch XLC PPM, you can see
trigger in and out sockets. These are used for external triggering of the XLC
PPM. For now, I will not be using this feature.

On the right of the Quarch XLC PPM, you can see the socket
where the main power injection lead connects.

On the rear of the box (not shown) you will find a USB 2
socket, a power socket (to supply power to the unit) and a Torridon connection
interface, for connecting to external equipment.

My setup.

Although the Quarch Technology XLC PPM can be used on a
single PC, which can act both as host and measurement system, I will be using
two PCs to run the tests. One PC will handle the measurements, and the second
PC will act both as a host for the target SSD, and will also be used to load
the target SSD with data. This will allow me to do some pretty fancy power
consumption tests.

I will first show the type of workload being used to load
the SSD during the power consumption test. I will then present the power
consumption graph, and power consumption statistics of the SSD.

I will display the results in the form of bar graphs, at the
end of each test carried out in this article, so one can compare the results
obtained on all the SSDs featured in this article.

I will use the following IOMeter test patterns to load the
SSD or HDD.

• 4K random read and write at a queue depth of 1 (to emulate
  a lightweight consumer workload).
• 4K random read and write at a queue depth of 4 (to emulate
  a medium workload).
• 4K random read and write at a queue depth of 32 (to
  emulate a heavy workload).
• 512K sequential read (to emulate reading a sequential file
  from the storage device).
• 512K sequential write (to emulate writing a sequential
  file to the storage device).

I will also show graphs that will display how much work an
SSD can do for a given amount of energy usage. To do this I will use the
IOMeter results obtained in the tests, and then use a simple calculation to
work out how many IOPS a drive can generate per Watt of power consumed.

The calculation used for the results is IOPS divided by
the amount of power consumed in Watts.

Example: The Intel 750 NVMe 1.2TB SSD obtained an IOPS
result of 219,716.47 IOPS for 4K random read at a queue depth of 32, and
consumed 5097mW (5.097 Watts). Divide the IOPS by 5.097 and this shows that the
Intel 750 NVMe SSD can generate 43,107.01 IOPS per Watt of energy consumed for
this particular workload.

For all these tests IOMeter was used to generate the test
patterns and workload for the target SSD. The tests were run for a duration of
approximately 90 seconds.

I will also run a couple of additional tests.

• Power consumption when the drive is idle.
• The maximum power required to initialise a drive (this is
  for information only).

All results in this article are derived from the 'average
power consumption' and are displayed in milliwatts (mW), unless otherwise
stated.

Power requirements for a lightweight consumer workload. - 4K random read
and write QD1

A typical lightweight consumer workload will generally be at
very low queue depths. Typically at a queue depth of one or less. I'm testing
random data at a block size of 4 Kilobytes, as this block size of small random
files is generally accepted as the most frequently occurring in the consumer
environment.

I will show the chart generated by the Quarch XLC PPM for
the drive that I have tested. I will then show the results in the form of bar
graphs, so one can easily compare with other recently tested SSDs.

There will actually be two bar graphs for each test. The
first graph will show the average power consumption during the test run. The
second graph, which is much more important, will indicate the power efficiency
of the storage device, showing how much work the storage device can do for each
Watt of energy it consumes.

4K Random Read - queue depth 1

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
– 4K random read QD1

The Samsung 750 EVO consumes the least amount of power, drawing
only 928.85 mW, but let’s see how this translates to power efficiency in the
graph below.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB is the most power efficient SSD in
this test, managing an impressive 12751.91 IOPS per Watt.

4K Random Write - queue depth 1

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
– 4K random write QD1

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB has an average power consumption
of 1745.84mW, but let’s see how this translates to power efficiency.

The Samsung 750 EVO was the third most power efficient in
this test, and managed 20700.29 IOPS per Watt of energy consumed.

Power requirements for a medium weight consumer workload. - 4K random read
and write QD4

A typical medium weight consumer workload will generally be
at a queue depth of four or lower. This workload would typically involve some
multitasking, with perhaps two or three applications running, and processing
data simultaneously.  I'm testing random data at a block size of 4 Kilobytes,
as this block size of small random files is generally accepted as the most
frequently occurring in the consumer environment.

I will show the charts generated by the Quarch XLC PPM, for
the drive that I have tested. I will then show the results in the form of bar
graphs, so one can easily compare with other recently tested SSDs.

There will actually be two bar graphs for each test. The
first graph will show the average power consumption during the test run. The
second graph, which is much more important, will indicate the power efficiency
of the storage device, showing how much work the storage device can do for each
Watt of energy it consumes.

4K Random Read - queue depth 4

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
– 4K random read QD4

In this test the Samsung 750 EVO is consuming an average of
1182.65mW, but again let’s see how this translates to the drive's power
efficiency in the graph below.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is extremely power efficient in
this test, finishing in first place.

4K Random Write - queue depth 4

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
– 4K random write QD4

This time the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB has an average power
consumption of 2994.22mW of energy.

Here the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD isn’t so power efficient
and finishes this test in fifth place.

Power requirements for a heavyweight consumer workload. - 4K random read
and write QD32

Whilst this workload is unlikely arise for the casual
consumer PC user, it could well appear in a semi-professional consumer
environment, such as in a graphics workstation. This workload would usually
involve heavy multitasking, and having several processes running concurrently
that require constant access to small files located on the storage device for
input or output.

I'm testing random data at a block size of 4 Kilobytes, as
this block size of small random files is generally accepted as the most
frequently occurring in the consumer environment.

I will show the chart generated by the Quarch XLC PPM, for
the drive that I have tested. I will then show the results in the form of bar
graphs, so one can easily compare with other recently tested SSDs.

There will actually be two bar graphs for each test. The
first graph will show the average power consumption during the test run. The
second graph, which is much more important, will indicate the power efficiency
of the storage device, showing how much work the storage device can do for each
Watt of energy it consumes.

4K Random Read - queue depth 32

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
– 4K random read QD32

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has an average power
consumption of 1892.5 mW.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB is very power efficient, managing
an outstanding 51681.86 IOPS per Watt of energy consumed.

4K Random Write - queue depth 32

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
– 4K random write QD32

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has an average power
consumption of 2124.4 mW in this test.

This translates to the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB being one of the
least power efficient drives in this test.

Power requirements of a storage device when reading and writing sequential
data

Not all of a consumer workload is based around the reading
and writing of small random files. Many files are sequential in nature, and can
vary in size from a few Kilobytes to several Gigabytes, so your storage device
will spend a lot of time reading and writing sequential data.

I'm testing sequential data at a block size of 512
Kilobytes.

There will actually be two bar graphs for each test. The
first graph will show the average power consumption during the test run. The
second graph, which is much more important, will indicate the power efficiency
of the storage device, showing how much work the storage device can do for each
Watt of energy it consumes.

512KB Sequential read

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
– Sequential read

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has an average power
consumption of 2157.02 mW during this test, but let’s see how this translates
into its energy efficiency.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is the third most efficient
SSD in this test, managing 480.37 IOPS for each Watt of energy it consumes.

512KB Sequential write

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
– Sequential write

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD has an average power
consumption of 2242.56 mW during this test.

This time the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is in second place,
managing a very impressive 448.69 IOPS per Watt.

Power requirements of storage devices when they are idle and doing no work
at all

The practical reality relating to power consumption is that
it can be quite erratic and sometimes unpredictable. Some of us will invest in
the most powerful PC we can afford, only to find that the PC can spend quite a
lot of time running and doing absolutely nothing. Storage devices are no
different.

Often we can be sitting idly pondering what to do next, or
perhaps browsing the Internet. When we arrive at a page that interests us, we
will read it, and that can take a fair amount of time to complete. During this
period the storage device will most likely be idle, but still consuming energy.

In this test, I'm measuring how much energy the storage
device consumes when doing no work at all.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
– Drive idle

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD consumes very little energy
when doing no work at all, drawing only 28 mW of energy.

I will now show a couple of additional tests which are for
information only.

Power requirements to initialise a storage device.

This test is for information and interest only, and in these
results we're looking at the maximum power consumption figure during
initialisation of each drive, rather than the average power consumption for
each device.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD – Power up maximum power requirements.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB requires 2839.94 mW of power to
kick it into life. This test is for information only.

Power requirement trace of an SSD booting Windows 10, in real time.

This test is for interest only, and shows the power
requirements of the review SSD booting Windows 10 to the desktop.

Samsung 750 EVO 500GB
SSD – Real time trace of the drive booting Windows 10 to the desktop.

Summary

The power efficiency of the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is a
mixed bag. It’s very energy efficient when reading data, and writing sequential
data, but when writing random data, its energy efficiency is not the best in
class.

When the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is doing no work at all,
it is a very energy efficient SSD, consuming only 28mW of energy when idle.

 

This concludes our review. To read the final thoughts and
conclusion, click the link below....

Final thoughts and the conclusion

---

User experience

A modern operating system such as Windows 10 rarely does one
thing at time; it processes hundreds of threads at once. Just take a look at
the processes and services that are running in task manager for an idea of how
much is going on, even with the PC idling at the desktop. When you start
running applications on top of this, the workload increases in line with the number
and type of applications you are running. It’s also fair to say that many of
these processes are already loaded into system RAM, but many are also loaded into
and unloaded from RAM to the system drive as and when they are required.

If we look at the 4 basic requirements for a really fast
SSD, they are as follows.

• Small file threaded performance needs to be high.
• Small random file performance needs to be high.
• Sequential read and write speeds need to be high.
• Fast access times.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD series SSD has all of these attributes,
and feels very snappy in use as a system drive.

Stability

I have only had the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD for a few
weeks, so it’s not possible to comment on the drive's long term reliability.
What I can say though is that the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD hasn't caused any
stability problems during the test period.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is as “plug n play” as it
gets. There are no special tweaks needed other than simply making sure that
AHCI SATA mode is enabled in the system UEFI (BIOS), and installing the latest
Intel RST SATA drivers, if you want to get the best performance and compatibility
out of this SSD.

Conclusion:

Let us summarise the most important positive and negative
points below:

Positive:

• Silky smooth operation as a system drive.
• Outstanding sequential reading and writing performance,
  even at very low queue depths.
• Excellent 4k random reading performance at very low, and
  very high queue depths.
• Very good 4K random writing performance at low queue
  depths.
• TRIM support under Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 10.
• Completely silent operation.
• Fast operating system start-up and shutdown times.
• Excellent price.

Negative:

• Nothing to mention at this price point.

---

To sum up, this is what I
would say:

As an operating system drive, the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD
is pretty hard to fault. Performance is excellent as a system drive, and as fast
as any of the other SATA SSDs I have tested. The Samsung 750 EVO SSD also proved
to be very stable during the testing period.

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB is up against some very stiff
opposition in this market segment, but it is one of the best, if not the best
performing ‘budget’ SSD that I have tested.

The Samsung 750 EVO is also very energy efficient when
reading data, and as an operating system drive it will spend most of its time
reading data rather than writing it. When writing sequential data, the Samsung
750 EVO did prove to be energy efficient. However, when writing small block
size random data, power consumption did rise significantly.

One should keep in mind however that the Samsung 750 EVO is
a budget SSD, and as such, you should not expect it to perform like an OCZ
Vector 180 or Samsung 850 Pro, for example. The TLC planar NAND isn’t as fast
as Samsung’s V-NAND, however, the Samsung 750 EVO is still an excellent
performer.

Price and availability

The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD is available now, and I found it
on sale at Amazon
UK for £118.98 including VAT, making the Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD
excellent value.

The parting sentence is:

“The Samsung 750 EVO 500GB is an excellent budget priced consumer
SSD, with excellent performance in the real world.

Rating system

The editor rating is based on the following key factors.

• Performance
• Stability (is the device stable?)
• Price
• Warranty
• Supplied accessories (what is included in the package)

Thanks to:

---

You may comment on this review here.