MS Flight Simulator (2020): the 2021 PC graphics performance benchmark review
Radeon Series RX 6700 XT preview & analysis
Corsair MM700 & Corsair Katar Pro XT Review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - February 2021
ASUS GeForce RTX 3060 STRIX Gaming OC review
EVGA GeForce RTX 3060 XC Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming X TRIO review
PALIT GeForce RTX 3060 DUAL OC review
ZOTAC GeForce RTX 3060 AMP WHITE review
Fractal Design Meshify 2 Compact chassis review
Samsung 980 PRO M.2 gets PCIe Gen4 and performance up to 6,500 MB/s
Samsung will be releasing its first PCIe 4.0 SSDs dubbed the 980 Pro, and on that PCIe Gen 4.0 link it achieves read speeds of up to 6.5 GB/s, there will be three models.
At this time specific specifications have not been detailed, so details of the controller and specifications of the NAND flash are unknown. However, the connection interface supports PCIe 4.0 x4, and the sequential access speed reaches up to 6,500 MB/s for reading and 5,000 MB/s for writing.
The 6th generation V-NAND, the latest 3D NAND from Samsung, will be used for NAND flash memory. The number of stacked layers has increased to 128, and not only capacity and access speed but also power efficiency have been improved compared to the previous generation V-NAND.The table below compares speed and power consumption with the previous model 970 EVO Plus. When using the 980 PRO with PCIe 4.0, the power consumption is the highest, but the performance per power is the highest.
Also, when using the 980 PRO with PCIe 3.0, power consumption is greatly reduced and it operates with lower power consumption than the 970 EVO Plus, so it has an advantage in the PCIe 3.0 environment. Three models will be released, 250GB, 500GB and 1TB. The release is scheduled for the second quarter of this year
| 980 PRO 1TB PCIe 4.0 | 980 PRO 1TB PCIe 3.0 | 970 EVO Plus 1TB | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Read | Write | Read | Write | Read | Write | |
| Sequential access speed | 6,500MB / s | 5,000MB / s | 3,500MB / s | 3,300MB / s | 3,541MB / s | 3,018MB / s |
| power consumption | 7.11W | 6.44W | 4.03W | 4.02W | 4.94W | 4.98W |
| Rate of speed per power | 914 | 776 | 868 | 821 | 717 | 606 |
Samsung T7 Touch Portable SSD (With a Fingerprint Sensor) is Out - 01/09/2020 09:46 AM
Samsung announced the release of its latest external storage device – the Portable Solid State Drive (SSD) T7 Touch – which combines sleek, compact design with the fastest transfer speeds currentl...
Samsung Electronics Unveils 2020 QLED 8K TV at CES - 01/06/2020 09:27 AM
Samsung Electronics introduced today its next-generation QLED 8K line at CES 2020 in Las Vegas, offering a glimpse into the future of display technology. ...
Samsung Odyssey G9 Ultra-curved 49-inch 'dual QHD' gaming monitor - 01/05/2020 09:51 AM
Yeah, this one is sexy to look at. Samsung's new 49-inch monster, the Odyssey G9 UltraWide VA screen has a refresh rate of 240 Hz, a resolution of 5120x1440 pixels and a 1000R curvature. The Odyss...
Samsung Expands Computing Portfolio with Galaxy Book Flex α - 01/02/2020 06:27 PM
Samsung today introduced Galaxy Book Flex α (alpha), a new variant of Galaxy Book Flex that offers long-lasting battery, immersive QLED display, and exquisite design features at a competitive price-p...
Samsung Partners with 8K Association to Launch Certification Program - 01/02/2020 09:38 AM
Samsung Electronics announced today that it has partnered with the 8K Association (8KA) to establish a first-of-its-kind certification program designed to distinguish 8K-enabled televisions and other ...
Humanoid_1
Senior Member
Posts: 960
Joined: 2009-10-14
Senior Member
Posts: 960
Joined: 2009-10-14
#5749544 Posted on: 01/10/2020 05:59 PM
I am going to rock my Samsung 960 EVO 1TB for a while longer, When the next gen AMD CPUs arrive I will probably upgrade my whole system including whatever drive out there offers best performance, price and most importantly durability of Age + writes. (I read a few articles some years ago that NAND tends to die more to age, a worryingly small age at that, than actual writes. Is this still so?)
Just for reference my current drive copying a 23GB mkv file from my RAM drive:
1st 30% at about 1.8GB/s
Remaining % slowed to about 1.1GB/s
Visa versa (Read from 960 write to RAM drive):
After V.small initial ramp up was steady at 1.42GB/s
Yeah, that is certainly no 3.2GB/s read it is meant to be capable of, but then this is compressed data I guess (though I thought this drive was pretty good at handling this and applies more to writes anyway)
I am going to rock my Samsung 960 EVO 1TB for a while longer, When the next gen AMD CPUs arrive I will probably upgrade my whole system including whatever drive out there offers best performance, price and most importantly durability of Age + writes. (I read a few articles some years ago that NAND tends to die more to age, a worryingly small age at that, than actual writes. Is this still so?)
Just for reference my current drive copying a 23GB mkv file from my RAM drive:
1st 30% at about 1.8GB/s
Remaining % slowed to about 1.1GB/s
Visa versa (Read from 960 write to RAM drive):
After V.small initial ramp up was steady at 1.42GB/s
Yeah, that is certainly no 3.2GB/s read it is meant to be capable of, but then this is compressed data I guess (though I thought this drive was pretty good at handling this and applies more to writes anyway)
wavetrex
Senior Member
Posts: 1370
Joined: 2008-07-16
Senior Member
Posts: 1370
Joined: 2008-07-16
#5749554 Posted on: 01/10/2020 06:32 PM
Something must be wrong with your system, for example being PCI-e bandwidth chocked, because that's not how a 960 EVO behaves when it actually has all the 4 PCI-e lines available.
I'm actually copying at 3.4 GB/s to a RAMDrive complete file beginning to end.
And it writes at nearly 3 GB/s before the drop, which is indeed at around 0.9 in my case (using a 512 GB drive, not a 1TB one)
I do have an AMD system with the 4 lanes straight to the CPU.
Something must be wrong with your system, for example being PCI-e bandwidth chocked, because that's not how a 960 EVO behaves when it actually has all the 4 PCI-e lines available.
I'm actually copying at 3.4 GB/s to a RAMDrive complete file beginning to end.
And it writes at nearly 3 GB/s before the drop, which is indeed at around 0.9 in my case (using a 512 GB drive, not a 1TB one)
I do have an AMD system with the 4 lanes straight to the CPU.
Humanoid_1
Senior Member
Posts: 960
Joined: 2009-10-14
Senior Member
Posts: 960
Joined: 2009-10-14
#5749598 Posted on: 01/10/2020 09:25 PM
Something must be wrong with your system, for example being PCI-e bandwidth chocked, because that's not how a 960 EVO behaves when it actually has all the 4 PCI-e lines available.
I'm actually copying at 3.4 GB/s to a RAMDrive complete file beginning to end.
And it writes at nearly 3 GB/s before the drop, which is indeed at around 0.9 in my case (using a 512 GB drive, not a 1TB one)
I do have an AMD system with the 4 lanes straight to the CPU.
Yup, something not right there. I can remember what it tested at when I 1st got it.
Tested with CrystaDiskMark 5.2.2 when I 1st got it:
Read 3325MB/s / Write 1956MB/s
Tested CrystaDiskMark 5.2.2 just now:
Read 3047MB/s / Write 1807MB/s
Tried a bunch of large files with similar results. Will try re-installing the Samsung NVMe driver tomorrow and see if that helps.
of course the drive is fuller now, 368GB free, but I would not expect that to have a significant effect.
EDIT:
RAMDrive with CrystaDiskMark 5.2.2 gets:
Read 8195MB/s / Write 8033MB/s (1 CPU core, 2700X, maxed out must be a limitation of CrystaDiskMark 5.2.2 not expecting such fast drives)
Something must be wrong with your system, for example being PCI-e bandwidth chocked, because that's not how a 960 EVO behaves when it actually has all the 4 PCI-e lines available.
I'm actually copying at 3.4 GB/s to a RAMDrive complete file beginning to end.
And it writes at nearly 3 GB/s before the drop, which is indeed at around 0.9 in my case (using a 512 GB drive, not a 1TB one)
I do have an AMD system with the 4 lanes straight to the CPU.
Yup, something not right there. I can remember what it tested at when I 1st got it.
Tested with CrystaDiskMark 5.2.2 when I 1st got it:
Read 3325MB/s / Write 1956MB/s
Tested CrystaDiskMark 5.2.2 just now:
Read 3047MB/s / Write 1807MB/s
Tried a bunch of large files with similar results. Will try re-installing the Samsung NVMe driver tomorrow and see if that helps.
of course the drive is fuller now, 368GB free, but I would not expect that to have a significant effect.
EDIT:
RAMDrive with CrystaDiskMark 5.2.2 gets:
Read 8195MB/s / Write 8033MB/s (1 CPU core, 2700X, maxed out must be a limitation of CrystaDiskMark 5.2.2 not expecting such fast drives)
wavetrex
Senior Member
Posts: 1370
Joined: 2008-07-16
Senior Member
Posts: 1370
Joined: 2008-07-16
#5749615 Posted on: 01/10/2020 10:05 PM
Why test with 5.2.2 ? It's ancient !
https://crystalmark.info/en/2019/10/31/crystaldiskmark-7-0-0/
Beta already available for download:
https://osdn.net/projects/crystaldiskmark/releases/
Why test with 5.2.2 ? It's ancient !
https://crystalmark.info/en/2019/10/31/crystaldiskmark-7-0-0/
Beta already available for download:
https://osdn.net/projects/crystaldiskmark/releases/
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-11-13
I almost got a 970 Pro 512GB to replace my 950 Pro 512GB as my main drive.. Guess I'll wait a bit. Hoping the 512GB version is not too castrated compared to the 1TB version. And yeah hoping they improved random IO mostly.