Samsung Releases 750 EVO SATA SSD

by Billy Tallis on 2/17/2016 8:00 AM EST
Comments Locked

49 Comments

Back to Article

  • Pneumothorax - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Planar 16nm TLC?! No thanks Samsung, pay the extra measly $10-$20 for the 850 EVO. Samsung still hasn't released a 'fix' for the original 840 TLC drive and it's basically become worthless for me due to its degrading performance.
  • Gothmoth - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    useless... are you kiddng.
    i have a few 840 TLC drives and all this talk is just out of proportion.

    f you need best perfromance than buy a cheap drive as simple as that.

    i don´t bought the 840er drives and expected them to have the same performance as my SSD who cost twice as much.

    when you don´t fill them up the 840 behave just fine after the firmware update.
    at least my drives do....
  • Gothmoth - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    this stupid commenting stystem has still no edit function...WTF.

    of course i meant:

    if you need best perfromance than don´t buy a cheap drive, as simple as that.
  • littlebitstrouds - Friday, February 19, 2016 - link

    "if you need best perfromance than don´t buy a cheap drive, as simple as that."

    If you're going to complain about lacking the ability to edit... at least take the time to proofread what you're typing.
  • leexgx - Friday, February 19, 2016 - link

    Grammar Nazi
  • damianrobertjones - Sunday, February 21, 2016 - link

    How is anyone EVER going to improve if our basic language is failing?
  • XmppTextingBloodsport - Saturday, March 19, 2016 - link

    You're not predicating
  • Samus - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    I have seen a number of 840 EVO's first hand that have worse performance than hard drives. Even after Samsung's "fix"

    At least they don't die and lose data, but the issue is completely unacceptable.

    Back on topic...I'm surprised this product even exists. The 850 EVO is already competitive with Crucial, Corsair, Sandisk, Kingston, ADATA and OCZ entry-offerings, while being much faster (perhaps with the exception of the Sandisk Ultra II) than all of them.

    Just seems unnecessary to save what will probably be $5 unless they artificially inflate the price of the 850 EVO.
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - link

    I recently deconstructed a system with a standard 840 250GB, it had the same issue as reported with the 840 EVO. Why has nobody pushed Samsung on the standard 840? A lot of those were sold aswell.

    You're right about the competition and pricing, I don't see the point of the 750 EVO when the 850 EVO costs just a little more.
  • vladx - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    Samsung completely ignored the reports of performance issues for 840 vanilla.
  • FernanDK - Sunday, March 20, 2016 - link

    yeah! I have a 840 vanilla and it is disgusting the attitude of Samsung towards the early adopters of their product. My 840 performs like shit. Terrible read speeds after 2 3 weeks of normal usage. here's the screenshot = http://img.techpowerup.org/160321/ss075.jpg

    Literally millions of users are in the same situation and Samsung continues to ignore it. That tells us who Samsung is. Beware.
  • zodiacfml - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    As mentioned already, this is only Samsung's replacement for the 850 EVOs @ 120 and 250 GB which is why the 750 is only available in these two capacities.
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - link

    A replacement with a much shorter warranty and half the endurance at 120GB. Doesn't make sense.
  • Budburnicus - Friday, March 11, 2016 - link

    Yeah, I JUST bought a 500 GB 850 EVO for just $110 brand new!

    I mean I LOVE Samsung SSDs, but I really have to wonder, what the HELL is the point in the 750 series when the 850 EVOs are already so cheap, and INCREDIBLY FAST! Actually faster in a LOT of ways that the average gamer will benefit from than even the 850 PRO series - due to the SLC Turbo Write cache, which is 6 GB on the 500 GB model that I bought, 3 GB on the 250 and 120. And on top of all that, it even has 512 MB of DDR3L RAM on board!

    I mean, shit at this price - buying ANY new SATA SSD, you would have to be STUPID (Or just plain ignorant of technology - as will most often be the case, not EVERYONE is a Specification nut!) to NOT buy the 850 EVO 500 GB or larger!

    I mean, because of Samsung with their AMAZING performance TLC V-NAND as well as known reliability, the 850 EVO series is basically the BEST consumer SATA 6 SSD - because it maxes out SATA 6!

    With just 2 of the 850 EVO drives, you are looking at a reliable 1 GB/sec read and write! Because pretty much 2 of any of the top performing SATA SSDs will saturate the SATA 6 controller on pretty much any mobo! Though I wonder what would happen if I did that sort of RAID with the ASMedia SATA 6 RAID ports on my ASRock Z77 Extreme4 mobo - they are supposedly faster than the standard SATA 6 RAID controller!

    And if you want the fastest, buy the 950 PRO M.2 drive for INSANE speed!
  • SkipPerk - Wednesday, April 13, 2016 - link

    Well, as drives get cheaper you might as well buy Intel. They are better quality, even if they are a bit slower. I bought an 800 gb 3510 for my office server share drive, as well as a 240 gb 740 for my home gaming PC. I did get an $80 250 gb Samsung 850 EVO, but I am reluctant to swap it in as my gaming boot drive when I have never had an Intel die on me. I think I might simply use it as another gaming SSD (my Toshiba 480gb has been a great gaming SSD along with an Intel 120 gb).

    Oveall as prices decline I almost feel like the best option is to go cheap brand at 1 tb as a STEAM drive and such, or spend a little more to get an Intel SSD you can trust. As for m.2, I cannot imagine the differences are noticeable at that speed. I would simply buy on reliability.
  • jjj - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Toshiba just launched a 15nm TLC budget line http://toshiba.semicon-storage.com/us/product/stor...
  • rxzlmn - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Just bough a 850 Evo 500GB for 150 Euros. Not sure how much they can undercut the price to justify buying inferior tech when their 850s are already pretty affordable.
  • thope - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    no, need more cheaper. mech hard drives should not be feasible anymore.
  • Zak - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Not if "more, cheaper" SSDs are not reliable. Cheap SSDs have problems. Mechanical hard drives still rule as backup media.
  • thope - Thursday, February 18, 2016 - link

    so you are saying cheap hard drives will be better than cheap ssd(s) ?

    seriously? digital vs. mechanical debate?
  • SkipPerk - Wednesday, April 13, 2016 - link

    I think what he is saying is that even with 1 tb cheap SSD's coming in around $200, you can still buy a reliable 4 tb HDD at that price. Most people today can buy an extra 2 tb HDD and use it as a back up drive, using a cheap 1 tb SSD as a STEAM drive, and then get 250's or 500's for other games or applications. I used to laugh at guys who had half a dozen SSD's in their rig, but now I do as well, but I still have a spinning drive in there. Even at work where I have migrated every machine to a boot SSD and all high-usage server shared drives are SSDs, the backup drives are still spinning away.
  • bug77 - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Heh, I got two of those already. And it's really hard to imagine a scenario where trading V-NAND's endurance to shave off $10-15 actually makes sense.

    To me, MLC and something like 850Pro/950Pro is king for home usage. V-NAND is a good solution for cheaper storage. And planar TLC is for when you have money to burn.
  • qap - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    I have both 840 EVO (250GB) and 850 EVO (500GB) and in real life apps I don't see any performance difference. Endurance was never a limiting factor in home PCs either.
    So why wouldn't I save 10-20$ next time I want to buy SSD, if there is no REAL benefit?
    With SSDs there is only one thing to be feared - problems with firmware. And that's why it is reasonable not to buy cheapest noname drive (or OCZ :).
  • ImSpartacus - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Yeah, I only care that the drive with reliably make it through it's specified life span with no catastrophic failures/issues.

    Stuff like what happened to the 840 is not cool. Other than that, I don't care if the drive is slower or had a shorter life span.
  • SkipPerk - Wednesday, April 13, 2016 - link

    OCZ is fine now. Toshiba made quality SSD's and OCA is simply one of their brands now.
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - link

    Over the xmas period the 850 EVO 250GB was cheaper than any other model at equivalent capacity, as low as 53 UKP on Amazon. Gone back up here now due to sliding exchange rates and Brexit paranoia (Brits are dumb, sorry about that), but still the better buy IMO.
  • thope - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    why not make a 1 tb / 2 tb drive for 40 - 50$ cheaper. who wants to save 10 bucks for a slower boot ssd. Oh samsung marketing why are you so clueless..
  • CaedenV - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    This! 240GB drives are useless. My next build will need a 512GB or 1TB option.
    Also, can we please have Sammy or other companies reach out to oems? 120GB should be standard in all computers today. Mech drives should not even be considered except for 2TB and up
  • vladx - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Not gonna happen, OEMs need to maximize their profits also, why do you think you're paying more than twice the retail price of an equivalent ssd drive.
  • xrror - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    The problem is a 500GB HDD is probably something like $20 in bulk to big OEM's, and those numbers still sell to JoeBob Consumers, or at least that's what retailer purchasing agents think when they make their big order for the channel from the OEM.

    At least hard drives you can generally replace. I wish the same was true for 13x7 screens.
  • ImSpartacus - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Yeah, I have no idea why they are only doing these at such tiny capacities. I want a cheap tb drive.
  • Flunk - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Those specs are really good for a budget SSD, very close to maxing out what SATA can do. If the price is right I can see this really cutting into the budget SSD market which is mostly older drives with outdated or poor quality controllers.
  • Quad5Ny - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Pro-tip to anyone reading this article: Stay away from 1x nm class TLC. The cells at that size just can't reliably hold a charge.

    I had 2 500GB 840 EVO's and both had slowdowns on static data (60MB/s less every 1.5 months). What's worse is I also had a 120GB 840 EVO that was not powered on for 6 months and ended up reading (sequential) at 15MB A SECOND!

    Now if you get a good deal on the drive, have backup plan and leave the computer on every day...then sure get one. But otherwise, please don't.
  • vladx - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Stop spreading FUD, I have an 840 EVO and the issues are completely gone after the 2nd fix provided by Samsung. Also, keeping an SSD unpowered more than a few weeks just means you're just a fool. everyone knows SSDs should not be used for backup purposes.
  • Olaf van der Spek - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    So I'm not supposed to go on a 5-week holiday if I've got a SSD??
  • extide - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    5-weeks is fine. Flash is rated for several years of retention, and that's AFTER it's rated p/e cycles have been used up.
  • vladx - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Data retention is fine indeed, but the guy I replied to was complaining about slow seq speed.
  • vladx - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    You should go of course but in that case I'd advise against turning your computer off and leave it in sleep mode instead which will keep it on while using just a tiny bit of power.
  • leexgx - Friday, February 19, 2016 - link

    in when windows is sleeping the power to the SSD/HDD is off
  • SkipPerk - Wednesday, April 13, 2016 - link

    Five week holiday!!!

    I am so jealous of Europeans.
  • dhotay - Thursday, February 18, 2016 - link

    Quad5Ny's comment isn't inaccurate. The charges do decay relatively quickly in the sub-20nm planar NAND. The fixes from Samsung that you are inaccurately disputing Quad with are essentially forcing the disk controller to rewrite existing data in order to refresh the decaying charges, trading durability for utility.
  • vladx - Thursday, February 18, 2016 - link

    The number of cycles lost has no impact on the overall durability experienced by the user. The durability numbers specified by manufacturers are intentionally conservative in order for consumer drives to not eat on the enterprise-class drives sales. As the experiment conducted by Techreport showed (http://techreport.com/review/26523/the-ssd-enduran... the consumers drives outlive the manufacturer numbers by a long shot.

    So again, both of you should inform yourselves better before spreading so much FUD.
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - link

    Sounds like you don't know what the supposed fix is doing. It's not really a fix at all, and the reason why performance is initially restored is just ridiculous (or didn't you read the explanation articles?).
  • vladx - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    Another moron spreading FUD, read my above comment.
  • creed3020 - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    I would rather see the full gammut of capacities. I have a MX100 512GB and I am already planning out my storage strategy going forward. I would love my next SSD to be a 1TB that doesn't break the bank.
  • Lolimaster - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Just get a bunch of 6TB WD Blacks and a 850 Pro 1TB for OS,Apps & drive sensitive games
  • nerd1 - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    I expect ~$150 for 1TB drive and ~$300 for 2TB drive. Even the cheapest SSD is still vastly faster and more reliable than mechanical ones.
  • rogerdpack - Thursday, February 18, 2016 - link

    Does this drive have an MLC cache like the the 850 evo does, which causes a drop in write speed when you exceed a certain number of gigabytes? http://www.pcworld.com/article/2998497/storage/tlc...
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - link

    For normal desktop use, it's unlikely most users would ever notice that effect. Anyone pushing a system that hard would more likely want to get an 850 Pro instead, or an M.2 if they have the option.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now