The Samsung 850 EVO 4TB SSD Review

Random Read Performance

The random read test requests 4kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, which is filled before the test starts. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.

Random read performance of the 4TB 850 EVO is substantially better than the 1TB and 2TB 850 EVOs, but still not quite as fast as the best MLC drives or the 500GB and 250GB 850 EVOs.

The power consumption of the 4TB 850 EVO is slightly higher than the 2TB model, but overall the efficiency is improved over the smaller drive with the same controller but older NAND.

Samsung 850 EVO 4TBSamsung 850 EVO 2TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 500GBSamsung 850 EVO 250GBSamsung 850 EVO 120GBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 2TBCrucial MX200 1TBCrucial MX300 750GBOCZ Trion 150 960GBOCZ Vector 180 960GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 960GBSanDisk X400 1TB

The scaling behavior of the 4TB 850 EVO is almost identical to the 2TB model, just with slightly higher performance and power consumption across the board.

Random Write Performance

The random write test writes 4kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test is limited to a 16GB portion of the drive, and the drive is empty save for the 16GB test file. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.

Random write speed for the 4TB 850 EVO is a little bit slower than for the 1TB and 2TB models, but still fast enough to beat almost all non-Samsung drives.

Power consumption of the 4TB 850 EVO is substantially better than the 1TB and 2TB counterparts, making it one of the most efficient large drives. The 750GB Crucial  MX300 was still much more efficient.

Samsung 850 EVO 4TBSamsung 850 EVO 2TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 500GBSamsung 850 EVO 250GBSamsung 850 EVO 120GBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 2TBCrucial MX200 1TBCrucial MX300 750GBOCZ Trion 150 960GBOCZ Vector 180 960GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 960GBSanDisk X400 1TB

The lower performance score for the 4TB was apparently due to a regression in QD4 performance, where the 1TB and 2TB models were able to reach full speed but the 4TB needs a larger queue.