Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1TB SSD Review

January 8, 2014

Review: Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1TB
Reviewed by: Wendy
Robertson
Provided by: Samsung
Model: MZ-MTE1T0
Firmware version: EXT41B6Q

Last year was a big year for Samsung and their SSDs, and it
isn't that long ago that I tested the Samsung 840 EVO range of SSDs. In fact
the review editors here at Myce.wiki voted the 840 EVO series of SSDs as the best
consumer grade SSD of 2013.

Let's fast forward a few months, and Samsung have taken the
840 EVO making it available in the much smaller mSATA form factor. There are
few motherboards available which already have an mSATA slot available, but it
is most likely that the 840 EVO mSATA SSD is aimed at the Ultrabook and laptop
market.

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA utilises the now familiar Samsung
MEX SSD controller, coupled with 19nm TLC NAND. The NAND onboard the 840 EVO is
a little more interesting than the NAND of the normal 840 EVO series of SSDs,
but we'll take a look at the NAND a little later in this article.

Samsung was kind enough to send me two SSDs for review. A
250GB model, and the world's first 1TB mSATA SSD. In this article I will be
taking a look at the 1TB model, and I will cover the 250GB model a little later.
There are also 120GB and 500GB versions available.

I will also introduce the new 'revision 3 Myce Reality Suite',
with an expanded range of tests, and a new test platform. We will also take a
look at this a little bit later in the article.

So let's find out how this new SSD performs in our range of
tests.

Samsung company information

Samsung should need no introduction, but those of you who
would like to find out more about Samsung, can do so at their website.

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA - 1000GB SSD

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

Packaging

The review sample I received was the full retail kit.

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD full retail kit

The full retail kit contained the following items. The
Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD itself, a couple of 'Samsung SSD activated' stickers,
and an instruction and warranty information booklet.

Box front

Box rear

Software

The software supplied via download from the Samsung website
is as follows.

Samsung Magician 4.3
Samsung Migration software (not shown or tested)

Samsung Magician

The Samsung 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 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 Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 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 NVELO 'Rapid' cache
feature.
Data Security: Applying 256-bit AES keys, the new self
encryption feature allows strong data security, and is compliant with TCG
Opal and IEEE 1667 standards.

Now let's head to the next page, where we look in more
detail at the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD.....

A closer look at the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA hardware.

PCB

PCB topside

The topside of the PCB hosts two 19nm toggle 2 TLC NAND chip
packages manufactured by Samsung. We can also see various support components.

PCB underside

The underside of the PCB hosts the Samsung MEX SSD
controller, another two NAND chip packages, and the cache chip.

The SSD controller

The SSD controller is the Samsung MEX. This controller is
based on an ARM Cortex R4 and has three cores, with a clock frequency of
400MHz, which is clocked 100MHz faster than the MDX controller found on the
original 840 series of SSDs.

The firmware onboard the review sample is EXT0AB0Q.

The NAND

The NAND is Samsung's own SSD grade 19nm toggle 2 TLC NAND,
with 400Mbps bandwidth per die. More interesting is that only four NAND chips
are used for the 1000GB capacity of this SSD. Each NAND chip package on the 1TB
model actually has 16 NAND dies stacked together, with each NAND chip package
giving an incredible 256GB of storage. This also creates the possibility of this
type of NAND chip package being used in a 2.5 inch form factor, since it is
possible to house 16 of these packages within a standard 2.5 inch drive
housing. This opens the prospect of having an SSD, sometime in the future, with
a staggering 4TB capacity.

How does TLC NAND differ from MLC NAND?

MLC NAND as we know stores 2 bits of data per cell, meaning
that each cell has four possible states, which all require a different voltage
to access one of these states. The four possible states for MLC NAND are as
follows.

00 (high voltage)
01 (medium high voltage)
10 (medium low voltage)
11 (low voltage)

From this you may expect TLC NAND to have six possible
states, but this isn't so. TLC NAND has eight possible states, and requires
eight different voltages to access, erase, and program the NAND, which makes
TLC much more difficult to program. The eight possible states for TLC NAND are
as follows.

000 (highest voltage)
001 (high voltage)
010 (medium high voltage)
100 (high medium voltage)
011 (low medium voltage)
101 (medium low voltage)
110 (low voltage)
111 (lowest voltage)

With all these different states and voltages required, not
only is TLC more complex, it is also less durable, and it takes longer to erase
the NAND as well.

Turbo write

Turbo write is a feature found on the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA series
of SSDs. On the 840 EVO mSATA SSDs, a given amount of NAND acts as a high
performance write buffer. On the 120GB, and 250GB models, 9GB of TLC NAND is
set aside for this purpose. The high performance buffer is actually emulated
SLC NAND, therefore the actual size of the SLC buffer is 3GB on the 120GB and
250GB 840 EVO mSATAs.

The 500GB, and 1000GB versions of the 840 EVO mSATA have
6GB, and 12GB of emulated SLC NAND respectively. SLC NAND is much faster to
program compared to TLC NAND, giving much higher performance.

When the 840 EVO mSATA is idle, the Turbo write buffer is
transferred over to the normal NAND, thus freeing the emulated SLC NAND for
further writes. This only takes a minute or two to complete.

The cache

There is up to 1GB of LPDDR2 (Low power DDR2) onboard the
840 EVO mSATA SSD, which is clocked at 1066MHz, and once again manufactured by
Samsung.

840 EVO mSATA 120GB = 256MB of cache
840 EVO mSATA 250GB and 500GB = 512MB of cache
840 EVO mSATA 1000GB = 1GB of cache

Dynamic thermal guard

Dynamic thermal guard monitors temperature within the SSD,
and will throttle the SSD controller clock speed if the temperature becomes
dangerously high. This could be very useful when the 840 EVO is installed in a
laptop where ventilation is limited.

Specifications

Available capacities: 120GB, 250GB, 500GB, and 1000GB
Sequential read: Up to 540 MB/s
Sequential write: Up to 520 MB/s
4K random read: Up to 98,000 IOPS
4K random write: Up to 90,000 IOPS
NAND: 19nm toggle 2 TLC
SSD Controller: Samsung MEX
Data encryption supported: 256-bit AES, which is
compliant with TCG Opal and IEEE 1667 standards

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 Z87 SaberTooth (Intel Z87 chipset)
Processor: Intel 4th generation Core i7 4770K
CPU cooler: BeQuiet Dark Rock Pro 2
RAM: 16GB Samsung Green DDR3 1600MHz (dual channel)
GFX: Onboard Intel HD 4600
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 UltraSharp U2412M 24” widescreen IPS LCD (HDCP
compliant)
Operating System: Windows 8.1 Professional 64bit

It won't have escaped your notice that the above test system
does not contain a connector suitable for mSATA. A StarTech.com SAT2mSAT25 SATA
to mSATA enclosure was used to connect the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD to our
test system. This enclosure is not endorsed by Samsung but it has proven to be
a fast and reliable method of connecting the 840 EVO mSATA SSD to the test
system. I'm not going to say any more about this enclosure in this article, but
I will publish a separate article in a few days time.

The SATA to mSATA enclosure was connected to the Intel
native SATA 6Gbps (port 0) on the Z87 motherboard of our review PC and all
tests on the drive were carried out with the drive connected to this port.

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
12.8.0.1016.

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 840 EVO mSATA 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

Test procedures

I will start off our testing procedures explanation by
stating that I did not run many synthetic benchmarks on the Samsung 840 EVO
mSATA 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
840 EVO mSATA SSD, and will complement this with advanced benchmarks using
IOMeter and AS SSD benchmark. I will also show how the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 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
OCZ Vertex 4 512GB SSD
OCZ Agility 4 256GB SSD
Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB SSD
Samsung 830 256GB SSD
OCZ Vector 256GB SSD
Toshiba THNSNF512GCSS
512GB SSD
Samsung 840 Pro 512GB SSD
Plextor M5 Pro 512GB SSD
Samsung 840 250GB SSD
Kingston V300 240GB SSD
OCZ Vertex 3.20 240GB SSD
OCZ Vertex 450 256GB SSD
Seagate 600 series 480GB SSD
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD
Samsung 840 EVO 750GB SSD
OCZ Vector 150 240GB SSD
Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1TB 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 840 EVO mSATA 1TB
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 an average sequential reading speed of 529.3 MB/s the Samsung
840 EVO mSATA SSD shows an excellent turn of speed.

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

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB is the third fastest in
this test.

ATTO disk benchmark

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

The reading speed results on the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD are
extremely impressive, topping out at nearly 557 MB/s, and writing speed is
equally impressive topping out at nearly 536 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 840 EVO mSATA SSD is one of the fastest SSDs
when reading data.

ATTO Writing performance

ATTO - Writing performance at various block sizes

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD is showing 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, random reading and writing speeds at
low and high queue depths are outstanding.

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 7/8 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 840 EVO mSATA
SSD in the form of a screenshot. All our other comparison drives’ results are
presented in the form of a graph.

As we can see from the AS SSD test run, the Samsung 840 EVO
mSATA SSD has excellent reading performance, and writing performance is very
impressive, finishing this test in second place overall.

Summary:

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD has performed extremely
well in the basic synthetic benchmarks. Random reading and writing performance
is very impressive. 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 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 840 EVO mSATA 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD – 4K random write (QD 1)

At 147.51 MB/s the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD is excellent, and
finishes this test in fourth 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD (QD 4)

At a queue depth of 4, the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD delivers
outstanding performance, and finishes this test in first place.

Queue depth 32

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD (QD 32)

At 370.76 MB/s, the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD has
outstanding performance, and finishes this test in sixth 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD – 4K random write (QD 4 with fully random
data)

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD pays no penalty when writing
data which is incompressible, and with 363.34 MB/s it finishes the test in
first 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 840 EVO mSATA SSD has very
impressive performance at low queue depths, and at a queue depth of four it is
the fastest SSD.

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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD - 4K random read (QD 1)

In this test the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD is outstanding
and finishes in first place.

Queue depth 4

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD - 4K random read (QD 4)

Once again the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA is outstanding, and
finishes this test in second place.

Queue depth 32

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD - 4K random read (QD 32)

At a queue depth of 32, the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD once
again has outstanding performance, finishing this test in third spot.

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.

If we look at the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD 4K random read
performance in detail, at low queue depths the performance is outstanding, but
it doesn't stop there, and the 840 EVO mSATA SSD scales 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD - 512K Sequential write with repeating data

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD shows an excellent turn of
speed, finishing this test in second place, and is only marginally slower than
the fastest SSD in this test.

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 840 EVO mSATA SSD series reaches peak performance
at a queue depth of three, where it manages a very impressive 534.05 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB 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 840 EVO mSATA SSD
returns an extremely impressive 533.17 MB/s, and finishes this test in third
place.

IOMeter 512KB sequential read test QD1.

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

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD – 512K sequential reading test (QD 1)

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD has outstanding
sequential reading performance at very low queue depths, finishing in second
place, and is only marginally slower than the fastest SSD in this test.

IOMeter 512KB sequential read test (dual threaded).

This test measures 512k sequential reading performance QD2.

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD – 512K sequential reading test (QD 2)

At a more realistic queue depth the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA
1000GB is still showing excellent sequential reading performance, and finishes
this test in fifth 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.

512K sequential read - Queue depth profile

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

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD reaches maximum sequential
reading performance at a queue depth of four, where it achieves an outstanding 554.24
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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD – Workstation simulation

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD has excellent
performance with a workstation based workload. It isn't as fast the SSDs with
the Indilinx Barefoot 3 SSD controller, but is much improved over the Samsung
MDX controller found in the older 840 Pro.

Summary

All in all, the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD has
performed extremely well in our IOMeter tests.

Now let’s head to the next page where we will look at how
the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD series 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.

Anvil’s Storage Utilities is still in beta at the moment,
but the application is currently solid enough to use in this article, and I have
already verified the results obtained using an SATA analyser.

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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD (0 fill)

In the 0 fill test, the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD has
performed exceptionally well and finishes this test in first place.

Application profile

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD (application profile)

The application test pattern is much more realistic in terms
of the type of data that real users will employ, and once again the Samsung 840
EVO mSATA SSD finishes in first place.

100% incompressible

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD (100% incompressible)

With test data that can't be compressed at all, the Samsung
840 EVO mSATA SSD is still performing extremely well, and once again finishes
this test in first 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB 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 a SATA Express 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 840 EVO mSATA
SSD and our comparison drives.

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD has outstanding sequential
writing performance, so it's no surprise to see the 840 EVO mSATA doing
extremely well in this test, where it finishes in third 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 840 EVO mSATA SSD series 240GB SSD, and our other
comparison drives. The folder contained 7861 JPG pictures, with a total
capacity of 8410.3MB.

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD

This time the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB finishes in
fourth 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 840 EVO mSATA SSD series SSD and our other comparison drives.
The folder contained 1691 MP3 audio files, with a total capacity of 9176.5MB.

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD

Once again the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD is very impressive,
finishing in second spot in this test.

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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD

With this test the SSD has to read and write data, and we
already know that this SSD has excellent reading and writing performance, which
allows the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD to finish in third spot.

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

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD finishes in eighth
place in this test.

Summary

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB has performed extremely
well in the copy tests. Its excellent reading and writing performance ensured
it was always near the top of the table in these copy tests.

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 an 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 840 EVO mSATA SSD showed an excellent turn of
speed when installing this large office suite, and finished the test in joint third
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 840 EVO mSATA
1000GB SSD finishes this test in joint second 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD has excellent performance in
the real world.

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

These tests are very 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

These types of tests are becoming pretty pointless, as there
is so little difference in tangible performance between the modern SSDs.
However, the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD loads this large application in
3.39 seconds, and finishes the test in joint third 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 SSD in
this test.

F.E.A.R. 2

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD posts the seocnd fastest
time.

Summary

By now it's is becoming very clear that the Samsung 840 EVO
mSATA 1000GB SSD delivers excellent performance, and its excellent reading capabilities
have ensured that it's one of the fastest SSDs in these tests.

Now let's head to the next page where we will see how the
Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD performs in PC Mark 8.....

PC Mark 8 - HDD 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 have 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 HDD suite results

Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB

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

PC Mark 8 HDD 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 HDD suite: Battlefield 3

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

PC Mark 8 HDD suite: Adobe Photoshop light

Yet again the results are all very close together, with the higher
writing performance SSDs out in front.

PC Mark 8 HDD suite: Adobe Photoshop heavy

Again, there isn't a large difference between any of the
competing SSDs, and the SSDs with the higher sustainable writing performance are
generally out in front.

PC Mark 8 HDD suite: Adobe InDesign

Once again, the SSDs with the higher writing performance
head the table.

PC Mark 8 HDD suite: Adobe After Effects

There is virtually no difference between the tested SSDs.

PC Mark 8 HDD suite: Adobe Illustrator

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

PC Mark 8 HDD suite: Microsoft Word

With only 0.2 seconds between the fastest and the slowest
SSD in this test, I would doubt anyone could tell the difference.

PC Mark 8 HDD suite: Microsoft Excel

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

PC Mark 8 HDD suite: Microsoft PowerPoint

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

PC Mark 8 HDD suite: Overall Score

PC Mark 8 sums all the individual times taken to run each
storage benchmark, 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD is the
second fastest SSD 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 3.

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 an
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 and then deleted to force TRIM. A 20 minute settling time
is allowed before the tests are run, then each of the 6 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB performs well in this test,
and finishes in fifth 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.

Once again the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD finishes in fifth
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.

The Samsung 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD finishes this test in
fourth 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 9 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 higher queue depths, in this test the Samsung 840 EVO
mSATA 1000GB SSD is able to show what it can really do when pushed hard, and performs
well, finishing the test in third 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 840 EVO mSATA SSD has performed very well in
this test, finishing in third 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.

Once again, the Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSD has performed
extremely well in this test, and takes third 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 840 EVO mSATA 1000GB SSD is clearly a very capable performer.

Now let's head to the next page were I look at the
Samsung 840 EVO proprietary Rapid mode......

Not that long ago, Samsung acquired a software company
'NVELO' who specialise in SSD caching software. At the time, I and many others
were rather puzzled why Samsung made this acquisition. Well, now it becomes
clear.

Samsung's Magician software (4.3) supports 'Rapid' mode on
selected Samsung SSDs, currently the 840 EVO SATA and mSATA models, and also
the 840 Pro. Only one SSD in the system can run in 'Rapid' mode, regardless of
how many qualified SSDs are installed.

Basically what 'Rapid' does is use system RAM as a cache, where
regularly used applications and data are stored in Rapid's cache. Since system
RAM is very much faster than NAND, a huge boost in performance can be gained.
This is especially true for small random files at low queue depths.

Rapid mode uses a filter driver which monitors the file
systems I/O activity, and will intelligently cache the data that the user
accesses most frequently. Up to 25% or a maximum of 1GB of system RAM will be
used for "Rapid's" cache.

I decided to run some tests, comparing 'Rapid' mode with
normal mode, and will present the results below by simply showing screenshots
of the two modes. In each test I will first show the result of 'Rapid' mode,
then follow that with the result obtained in normal mode.