4TB Samsung 990 Pro SSD hits 7 cents per GB — limited time deal

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Math Geek said:
heck of a price though...

edit: it's also $299 at newegg if you wish to avoid amazon
Click to expand...
It's good, especially when the best price was recently as high as $350, but the lowest-ever was at the end of last year (and not that long after the 4 TB version released): $250!
If someone didn't have a near-term need for more storage, I think they could probably wait until the end of this year and see it go back below $300. Just a guess - don't hold me to that!
 
The insane 7GB/s+ speeds are nice, but it feels that at least for the majority of use cases, game loading times and windows booting, we have hit a bottleneck where increased speed doesn't help very much with day to day activities.
Obviously if your day to day activities include regularly transferring large amounts of data this would be different.
I was hoping Toms would have continued with a real world game load test like below, but i don't see it for Samsung 990 Pro or other current SSD ... unless I am blind and totally missed it !

KxQ8TteF4Vd9eU8zSdZUtC-1200-80.png

Samsung 980 500GB
3,500 read /3,000 write MB/s
Crucial P1
2,000 read /1,700 write MB/s
Comparing by speed alone 3500-2000 = The Samsung 980 was 1500 MB/s faster and saved 0.87 seconds off the game load time.
If we extrapolate to the Samsung 990 Pro at 7450 MB/s read we get
7450/3500 = 3950/1500 = 2.63 * 0.87 = 2.29 seconds faster load time for the Samsung 990 Pro over the Samsung 980 Pro despite being more than twice as fast

If window boot / windows game load times have indeed hit a point of diminishing returns due to CPU\GPU or otherwise, I would gladly sacrifice speed to gain capacity.
A 32 terabyte drive at 1000 MB/s for somewhere around $400 would be nice!
I currently use a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro for boot and games and a raid 6 storing about 16.7 terabytes of data.
A drive like that would mean I wouldn't have to use a raid array anymore!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
derekullo said:
but it feels that at least for the majority of use cases, game loading times and windows booting, we have hit a bottleneck where increased speed doesn't help very much with day to day activities.
Click to expand...
It has been that way since PCIe 3.0.
4.0 and 5.0 bring little real world benefit.

People glom on to the big advertised numbers. "2x, 10x as fast!!"

And don't even consider the random numbers which is where we all actually live and work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COLGeek
derekullo said:
it feels that at least for the majority of use cases, game loading times and windows booting, we have hit a bottleneck where increased speed doesn't help very much with day to day activities.
Obviously if your day to day activities include regularly transferring large amounts of data this would be different.
Click to expand...
I was curious about this, so I profiled a fairly substantial (but not irregular) docker container snapshot. Hardware I/O utilization peaked at about 61% with about 16.7K write IOPS and total writes of 1.66 GiB/s. That means the average write size was about 104 kiB. Seemed to be mostly QD=1, as far as I could tell. That's about the most I/O intensive thing I normally do, where I have to sit there and wait for it to finish (the container must be paused or stopped, until the operation completes).

The CPU was an i9-12900. The SSD was a Micron 3400 NVMe drive, which is PCIe 4.0, but not exactly the fastest thing around.

Working with containers & VMs are pretty much the only things I do, where I'd actually notice the difference between a SATA SSD and NVMe. Even compiling code seems to be so overwhelmingly CPU-bound that I/O wasn't an impediment back when I used to build on an 8-core, 16-thread server with a RAID of HDDs, although that's only true if you have abundant amounts of RAM.
 
Last edited:
I have them, Kingston KC3000 4TB is significantly faster in each benchmark aspect. Why is the author skipping Toshiba and Phison based cached units. Don't fall for this.
 
petar said:
I have them, Kingston KC3000 4TB is significantly faster in each benchmark aspect. Why is the author skipping Toshiba and Phison based cached units. Don't fall for this.
Click to expand...

tom's reviewed that drive when it was released as well

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/kingston-kc3000-m2-ssd-review/3

looking at the test data from the 990 pro and comparing it to the above review

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-990-pro-4tb-ssd-review/2

i don't see "Kingston KC3000 4TB is significantly faster in each benchmark aspect" in the data.

care to link some tests data where it does?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
bit_user said:
It's good, especially when the best price was recently as high as $350, but the lowest-ever was at the end of last year (and not that long after the 4 TB version released): $250!
​
​
If someone didn't have a near-term need for more storage, I think they could probably wait until the end of this year and see it go back below $300. Just a guess - don't hold me to that!
Click to expand...
Samsung EPP (employer pricing) is $224 for most qualified groups and even cheaper for military/government with coupon code (posted on SlickDeals).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom