Does extra storage space for a Samsung SSD = better power and overall quality?

[darthmaster09]

I recently bought a 2TB Samsung 860 Pro SSD on Amazon. I spent over $1000 for it and I really hope that I made the right choice. I didn't buy a 4TB 860 Pro because it was almost double the price. I could of bought a 4TB 860 Evo for around the same price but I went with the 2TB 860 Pro since I read that the Pro edges the Evo in terms of quality. I basically chose quality over quantity in this case.

My question is, is a 4TB Samsung 860 Evo SSD more powerful and is overall better quality than the 2TB Samsung 860 Pro SSD that I bought or does the extra storage space not make a difference except for it being the larger hard drive, of course?

 

[RARRAF]

the extra storage space does not make a difference except for it being the larger is the answer you were looking for.

 

[Colif]

In both cases you're going to be interface limited most of the time. The point of the pro is MLC NAND (2 bits per cell) rather than TLC NAND (3 bits per cell). MLC NAND is more wear-resistant. If you're hammering writes on the drive-- heavy prosumer level stuff -- then MLC is better. Reads don't cause wear.

MLC is also traditionally better in write speeds as well, but the new Evos have nearly closed the gap to some degree. For what it's worth the latest WD Blue SSDs, which are designed in conjunction with their SanDisk division (the same as the SanDisk Ultra 3D models) are similar to the Evo in terms of being the latest-and-greatest in TLC NAND and they've also made good progress in speeding up writes to TLC NAND.

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1427573

powerful? its 2tb bigger and therefor should have a larger cache for file transwers, as well as much more spare ram to be used for data correction. Whether its better is another question. Pro use different types of NAND flash and historically its been the better choice as it has a longer life span, but the gaps are being reduced by Vertical nand and new technologies.

Your 2tb drive might last longer than the 4tb but the speed people are upgrading parts these days, you may never see either die. So what you choose is your choice.

 

[darthmaster09]

In both cases you're going to be interface limited most of the time. The point of the pro is MLC NAND (2 bits per cell) rather than TLC NAND (3 bits per cell). MLC NAND is more wear-resistant. If you're hammering writes on the drive-- heavy prosumer level stuff -- then MLC is better. Reads don't cause wear.

MLC is also traditionally better in write speeds as well, but the new Evos have nearly closed the gap to some degree. For what it's worth the latest WD Blue SSDs, which are designed in conjunction with their SanDisk division (the same as the SanDisk Ultra 3D models) are similar to the Evo in terms of being the latest-and-greatest in TLC NAND and they've also made good progress in speeding up writes to TLC NAND.

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1427573

powerful? its 2tb bigger and therefor should have a larger cache for file transwers, as well as much more spare ram to be used for data correction. Whether its better is another question. Pro use different types of NAND flash and historically its been the better choice as it has a longer life span, but the gaps are being reduced by Vertical nand and new technologies.

Your 2tb drive might last longer than the 4tb but the speed people are upgrading parts these days, you may never see either die. So what you choose is your choice.

So my 2TB 860 Pro is worse than having a 4TB 860 Evo? I was actually hoping that my 2TB 860 Pro is overall better than the 4TB 860 Evo despite my drive being 2TB less, but that's not the case?? So I paid all that money for nothing? I'm stuck with what I have and can't get my money back :/

I just want to make sure that having more storage space won't make a difference besides the drive being larger.

 

[darthmaster09]

the extra storage space does not make a difference except for it being the larger is the answer you were looking for.

I'm reading different responses and I'm confused :S Is your response factual and reliable? Someone else said that the 2TB bigger Evo drive (4TB) should have a larger cache for file transfers, as well as much more spare ram to be used for data correction.

Does this make the 4TB 860 Evo better than my 2TB 860 Pro?

 

[stdragon]

As true with any SSD, the larger the capacity, longer the write-back endurance due to wear leveling. Performance will be capped at SATA speeds for any SATA based SSD these days.

 

[darthmaster09]

As true with any SSD, the larger the capacity, longer the write-back endurance due to wear leveling. Performance will be capped at SATA speeds for any SATA based SSD these days.

So I made the wrong choice? The 4TB 860 Evo is overall better than my 2TB 860 Pro??

 

[stdragon]

As true with any SSD, the larger the capacity, longer the write-back endurance due to wear leveling. Performance will be capped at SATA speeds for any SATA based SSD these days.

So I made the wrong choice? The 4TB 860 Evo is overall better than my 2TB 860 Pro??

In terms of raw performance numbers, the Pro looks to edge out in IOPS.

In terms of endurance and overall value, the 4TB Evo would have been the better choice. But that's just my opinion.

Check out the benchmark comparison between the two series below.

https://www.storagereview.com/samsung_860_evo_ssd_review

 

[darthmaster09]

As true with any SSD, the larger the capacity, longer the write-back endurance due to wear leveling. Performance will be capped at SATA speeds for any SATA based SSD these days.

So I made the wrong choice? The 4TB 860 Evo is overall better than my 2TB 860 Pro??

In terms of raw performance numbers, the Pro looks to edge out in IOPS.

In terms of endurance and overall value, the 4TB Evo would have been the better choice. But that's just my opinion.

Check out the benchmark comparison between the two series below.

https://www.storagereview.com/samsung_860_evo_ssd_review

What's more crucial? Raw performance numbers (IOPS) or endurance?

 

[stdragon]

[
What's more crucial? Raw performance numbers or endurance?

Unfortunately, that a question only you can answer. I can make the case for choosing one or the other. It really depends on your needs.

That said however, I'd say trading a little less performance for improved endurance and extra capacity would have been a better value if you have a large library of games and media content.

 

[darthmaster09]

[
What's more crucial? Raw performance numbers or endurance?

Unfortunately, that a question only you can answer. I can make the case for choosing one or the other. It really depends on your needs.

That said however, I'd say trading a little less performance for improved endurance and extra capacity would have been a better value if you have a large library of games and media content.

I don't know which is more crucial and can't answer my question. I don't understand what the performance and the endurance of an SSD means.

Do you know for a fact which is more important and makes the drive the better one?

 

[clarkjd]

What's more crucial? Raw performance numbers (IOPS) or endurance?

Since you might not ever see either die before being replaced by new tech, endurance is a wash. As has been said, performance of both is capped by the SATA III interface.

"A difference that makes no difference, is no difference."

 

[darthmaster09]

What's more crucial? Raw performance numbers (IOPS) or endurance?

Since you might not ever see either die before being replaced by new tech, endurance is a wash. As has been said, performance of both is capped by the SATA III interface.

"A difference that makes no difference, is no difference."

I didn't comprehend your text. Are you saying that my 2TB 860 Pro is better than the 4TB 860 Evo because of its better performance?

 

[USAFRet]

What's more crucial? Raw performance numbers (IOPS) or endurance?

Since you might not ever see either die before being replaced by new tech, endurance is a wash. As has been said, performance of both is capped by the SATA III interface.

"A difference that makes no difference, is no difference."

So my 2TB 860 Pro is better than the 4TB 860 Evo because of its better performance?

"better", in what use case?

Side by side, doing the same general consumer use tasks, I doubt anyone could tell in a blind test.
I posit that you couldn't tell the difference between a 2TB 860 Pro and 2TB 860 EVO.

And for someone that needs 4TB in a single SSD, your 2TB is of no use, even if it is infinitesimally faster.

 

[clarkjd]

What's more crucial? Raw performance numbers (IOPS) or endurance?

Since you might not ever see either die before being replaced by new tech, endurance is a wash. As has been said, performance of both is capped by the SATA III interface.

"A difference that makes no difference, is no difference."

So my 2TB 860 Pro is better than the 4TB 860 Evo because of its better performance?

The truth of the matter is that you can look at specs all day long and make a case for either drive being "The Best", depending on the criteria.

The only thing that matters, is what do YOU consider the pertinent criteria to determine the "best". I submit that since you cannot return the SSD you have, then it is "the best" as it would cost you at least another $1000 to get anything better. Do you have another $1000 to spend on this?

 

[stdragon]

Because the performance difference between the two is negligible, I'm going to recommend the 4TB Evo. At the end of the day, it's all about storage, and having the capacity to hold your data. So from that aspect, the 4TB Evo is "better"; which is of course subjective.

 

[darthmaster09]

What's more crucial? Raw performance numbers (IOPS) or endurance?

Since you might not ever see either die before being replaced by new tech, endurance is a wash. As has been said, performance of both is capped by the SATA III interface.

"A difference that makes no difference, is no difference."

So my 2TB 860 Pro is better than the 4TB 860 Evo because of its better performance?

The truth of the matter is that you can look at specs all day long and make a case for either drive being "The Best", depending on the criteria.

The only thing that matters, is what do YOU consider the pertinent criteria to determine the "best". I submit that since you cannot return the SSD you have, then it is "the best" as it would cost you at least another $1000 to get anything better. Do you have another $1000 to spend on this?

Do you know which one is factually better or is it subjective?

In your honest opinion, which drive is better? The 4TB 860 Evo or my 2TB 860 Pro?

If the 4TB 860 Evo is indeed better, then I'm extremely disappointed as I made a big mistake and can't get all my money back. I would of jumped all over the 4TB 860 Evo instead which conveniently has double the storage space along with better endurance like you mentioned.

 

[clarkjd]

What's more crucial? Raw performance numbers (IOPS) or endurance?

Since you might not ever see either die before being replaced by new tech, endurance is a wash. As has been said, performance of both is capped by the SATA III interface.

"A difference that makes no difference, is no difference."

So my 2TB 860 Pro is better than the 4TB 860 Evo because of its better performance?

The truth of the matter is that you can look at specs all day long and make a case for either drive being "The Best", depending on the criteria.

The only thing that matters, is what do YOU consider the pertinent criteria to determine the "best". I submit that since you cannot return the SSD you have, then it is "the best" as it would cost you at least another $1000 to get anything better. Do you have another $1000 to spend on this?

Do you know which one is factually better or is it subjective?

In your honest opinion, which drive is better? The 4TB 860 Evo or my 2TB 860 Pro?

If the 4TB 860 Evo is indeed better, then I'm extremely disappointed as I made a big mistake and can't get all my money back. I would of jumped all over the 4TB 860 Evo instead which conveniently has double the storage space along with better endurance like you mentioned.

In real world terms, there is no difference that you would be able to see, other than the capacity. Considering that you may never fill the 2TB drive up, I submit that even the extra capacity of the 4TB drive is really meaningless.

"factually better"? As I said before depending on what criteria you use, a case could be made for either drive, so that, at least, is subjective. Personally, I'm agonizing over choosing a 256GB or trying to cost justify a 512GB SSD (Haven't been able to do that ,yet! ). I don't have the funds to even consider a 2TB SSD.

 

[Colif]

the main difference between both (apart from capacity) is the type of NAND used, but as I pointed out, the TLC NAND is catching up to MLC so the advantages of one are getting smaller over time.

Which is better depends on what you use them for. 2tb is more than enough and any more than that getting into the realms of needing backups of backups for me to feel comfortable filling it as I would hate to lose that much all at once.

I don't even use the 2tb drive I have now. 2 drives in PC, 250gb ssd + 2 tb HDD. I still have 1761 gb free out of a total of 2094 gb

I wouldn't worry, your drive is fine.

 

[darthmaster09]

the main difference between both (apart from capacity) is the type of NAND used, but as I pointed out, the TLC NAND is catching up to MLC so the advantages of one are getting smaller over time.

Which is better depends on what you use them for. 2tb is more than enough and any more than that getting into the realms of needing backups of backups for me to feel comfortable filling it as I would hate to lose that much all at once.

I don't even use the 2tb drive I have now. 2 drives in PC, 250gb ssd + 2 tb HDD. I still have 1761 gb free out of a total of 2094 gb

I wouldn't worry, your drive is fine.

Should I be happy and appreciate having a 2TB Samsung 860 Pro SSD despite it not being 4TB like I really wanted?

I mean, is my drive still the better drive overall compared to the 4TB Samsung 860 Evo SSD despite mine having half the storage capacity?

 

[USAFRet]

Should I be happy and appreciate having a 2TB Samsung 860 Pro SSD despite it not being 4TB like I really wanted?

I mean, is my drive still the better drive overall compared to the 4TB Samsung 860 Evo SSD despite mine having half the storage capacity?

We out here are still wondering what, according to you, makes the 2TB 860 Pro better or worse than a 4TB 860 EVO.

In your own words and thoughts...

(and "I feel" doesn't count)

 

[clarkjd]

the main difference between both (apart from capacity) is the type of NAND used, but as I pointed out, the TLC NAND is catching up to MLC so the advantages of one are getting smaller over time.

Which is better depends on what you use them for. 2tb is more than enough and any more than that getting into the realms of needing backups of backups for me to feel comfortable filling it as I would hate to lose that much all at once.

I don't even use the 2tb drive I have now. 2 drives in PC, 250gb ssd + 2 tb HDD. I still have 1761 gb free out of a total of 2094 gb

I wouldn't worry, your drive is fine.

Should I be happy and appreciate having a 2TB Samsung 860 Pro SSD despite it not being 4TB like I really wanted?

I mean, is my drive still the better drive overall compared to the 4TB Samsung 860 Evo SSD despite mine having half the storage capacity?

If you really wanted the 4TB drive, why did you buy the 2TB drive? :/

Your drive cost over $1K, and you can't return it. That makes it $1K better than trying to get the 4TB drive, unless you have money growing on trees where you live!

"A bird in hand is worth two in the bush!"