News Report: PCIe 4.0-Based Samsung 980 Pro SSD Will Have Max Capacity of 1 TB

[Admin]

Samsung's 980 Pro has passed Korean inspection, telling us its launch is nearing.

Report: PCIe 4.0-Based Samsung 980 Pro SSD Will Have Max Capacity of 1 TB : Read more

 

[Makaveli]

The Current PCIe 4 drivers at 1TB capacity are in the $200 USD range.

So I expect Samsung to price this in the $350-$450 USD range because of the MLC memory.

 

[Deleted member 2783327]

I feel it is misleading to continually quote "max theoretical" speeds. Many people believe what they read and I don't think I've ever seen a drive, particularly Samsung, ever get close to those speeds, even for short periods of time. Take the speeds with a grain of salt, or better yet, take 30% - 40% off the speed and work with that.

The endurance on the Evo might be lower, but the EVO's out perform my pro drives in most, if not all tests.

Good news on the PCIe4.0 front, but only of use to AMD owners. I guess you can future proof your Intel rig as the drives are backwards compatible. Right now, 1TB Samsung Pro is about A$500. I would not be surprised to see these priced above A$750, which would agree with @Makaveli's feelings as we are now double the US price.

 

[Makaveli]

You will see those speeds but only on sequential transfers. And all of the companies marketing departments list their drives this way so its an industry issue not specific to one vendor.

 

[JamesSneed]

I feel it is misleading to continually quote "max theoretical" speeds. Many people believe what they read and I don't think I've ever seen a drive, particularly Samsung, ever get close to those speeds, even for short periods of time. Take the speeds with a grain of salt, or better yet, take 30% - 40% off the speed and work with that.

The endurance on the Evo might be lower, but the EVO's out perform my pro drives in most, if not all tests.

Good news on the PCIe4.0 front, but only of use to AMD owners. I guess you can future proof your Intel rig as the drives are backwards compatible. Right now, 1TB Samsung Pro is about A$500. I would not be surprised to see these priced above A$750, which would agree with @Makaveli's feelings as we are now double the US price.

Its misleading but not for what you said. Many drives will hit close to there max theoretical speeds minus overhead in specific sequential workloads. However what has been very misleading is the random IO which is what mostly impacts the average user and it usually is a factor or two lower. In fact some of the first PCIe 4.0 drives have worse random IO than the Samsung 970 Pros.

 

[excalibur1814]

Max 1tb to ensure mass adoption. Bang. As soon as everyone owns one, release the larger versions. Max cash $$$$.

 

[Makaveli]

Max 1tb to ensure mass adoption. Bang. As soon as everyone owns one, release the larger versions. Max cash $$$$.

I think it would be too expensive probably $600+ usd for a 2TB version.

 

[DZIrl]

The Current PCIe 4 drivers at 1TB capacity are in the $200 USD range.

So I expect Samsung to price this in the $350-$450 USD range because of the MLC memory.

970 Pro today is cca 350 Eur and PCI4 is some 50+ Eur more expensive then PCI3. So, yeah, I will say 400+ range.
I'm very happy with my 970 Pro but others PCI4 1TB drivers are 200 - 250 Eur.

 

[Deicidium369]

I feel it is misleading to continually quote "max theoretical" speeds. Many people believe what they read and I don't think I've ever seen a drive, particularly Samsung, ever get close to those speeds, even for short periods of time. Take the speeds with a grain of salt, or better yet, take 30% - 40% off the speed and work with that.

The endurance on the Evo might be lower, but the EVO's out perform my pro drives in most, if not all tests.

Good news on the PCIe4.0 front, but only of use to AMD owners. I guess you can future proof your Intel rig as the drives are backwards compatible. Right now, 1TB Samsung Pro is about A$500. I would not be surprised to see these priced above A$750, which would agree with @Makaveli's feelings as we are now double the US price.

By the time this drive gets released, Tiger Lake will be out with support for PCIe4 NVMe SSDs, Rocket Lake will likely be out, also supporting PCIe4. Would expect the drive to be less than that $500 quote you gave for the 970 Pro - or less.

Samsung 1TB 970 Pro 1TB - $322 at New Egg.
Samsung 2TB 970 Evo 2TB - $429 at New Egg
Samsung 1TB 970 Evo 1TB - $180 at New Egg.

 

[Gurg]

My current motherboard has 2 m.2 3x4 slots each with a 500Gb Samsung 970 Evo. Going forward I would not consider a motherboard with less than 2 slots thus potential 2TB total capacity. Of course if you have an open PCIe slot you can also buy a M.2 adapter to add M.2 capacity.

I like to keep my W10 , software for PC parts and misc software on the c: M.2 and on the D: have my private data, financial program and data, pictures, personal videos and game programs. That way I can take the D:drive out if I need to take the PC in for service or upgrades.

 

[Deicidium369]

My current motherboard has 2 m.2 3x4 slots each with a 500Gb Samsung 970 Evo. Going forward I would not consider a motherboard with less than 2 slots thus potential 2TB total capacity. Of course if you have an open PCIe slot you can also buy a M.2 adapter to add M.2 capacity.

I like to keep my W10 , software for PC parts and misc software on the c: M.2 and on the D: have my private data, financial program and data, pictures, personal videos and game programs. That way I can take the D:drive out if I need to take the PC in for service or upgrades.

I don't take my PC in for service or for upgrades - I build my own, and when the times comes, build a whole new machine, my most important data lives on an on site large SGI array, and is mirrored to a FreeNAS server in our Dallas data center. PC uses 1TB 970 Pro. Makes more sense if you want multiple SSDs at NVMe speeds - then U.2 drives/arrays would be the answer.

A flash array built with even SATA3 SSDs would outrun anything you have installed in the M.2 slots

 

[Deicidium369]

I think it would be too expensive probably $600+ usd for a 2TB version.

Mainstream drive, and when Ice Lake SP / Tiger Lake / Rocket Lake S launch - then PCIe4 will be mainstream - and wold expect the early adoption tax to vanish.

 

[Makaveli]

Mainstream drive, and when Ice Lake SP / Tiger Lake / Rocket Lake S launch - then PCIe4 will be mainstream - and wold expect the early adoption tax to vanish.

The price premium for MLC memory won't vanish though.

There will most likely be an Evo drive and that will be the main stream model.

 

[Deicidium369]

The price premium for MLC memory won't vanish though.

There will most likely be an Evo drive and that will be the main stream model.

Yeah would expect an EVO drive - I have a few of those deployed - compared to the Pro, marginally faster.

Glad to see an MLC drive - especially from the top manufacturer Samsung.

 

[bit_user]

Max 1tb to ensure mass adoption. Bang. As soon as everyone owns one, release the larger versions. Max cash $$$$.

I think the issue is that there's not room to physically put enough 2 TB worth of MLC storage on it. Maybe a generation of newer 3D NAND will change that, but there's a real speed/capacity tradeoff at play, here.

 

[Deleted member 2783327]

Its misleading but not for what you said. Many drives will hit close to there max theoretical speeds minus overhead in specific sequential workloads. However what has been very misleading is the random IO which is what mostly impacts the average user and it usually is a factor or two lower. In fact some of the first PCIe 4.0 drives have worse random IO than the Samsung 970 Pros.

Indeed. On the Samsung drivers thread here are some Samsung SSD benchmarks. Random results are terrible. I have 21 Samsung SSDs. The highest random result I have is 25MB/s. I reinstalled Windows yesterday and now for my Pro and Evo drives it's down to 23MB/s. But even the sequential speeds are less than half of the advertised speeds.

I created a ticket with Samsung thinking my drives might be faulty, or I had somehow incorrectly installed 21 Drives. Made sure the drives are connected to CPU Vs Chipset (Motherboards are HEDT). Their response was "The algorythm gives different results for different drives". That was all they were prepared to say and do.

 

[cpaixao]

The Current PCIe 4 drivers at 1TB capacity are in the $200 USD range.

So I expect Samsung to price this in the $350-$450 USD range because of the MLC memory.

Wow just $450 for 6.500 Mbps?! I would buy 2 at once if it is that cheap. Fingers crossed!

 

[Makaveli]

Wow just $450 for 6.500 Mbps?! I would buy 2 at once if it is that cheap. Fingers crossed!

I hope so too but with COVID etc it may be even higher than my estimate.

 

[Deicidium369]

Indeed. On the Samsung drivers thread here are some Samsung SSD benchmarks. Random results are terrible. I have 21 Samsung SSDs. The highest random result I have is 25MB/s. I reinstalled Windows yesterday and now for my Pro and Evo drives it's down to 23MB/s. But even the sequential speeds are less than half of the advertised speeds.

I created a ticket with Samsung thinking my drives might be faulty, or I had somehow incorrectly installed 21 Drives. Made sure the drives are connected to CPU Vs Chipset (Motherboards are HEDT). Their response was "The algorythm gives different results for different drives". That was all they were prepared to say and do.

I have close to 80 deployed and have had no issues - all NVMEe (2x PCIe3, 4x PCIe3) and not a single one dead, or any issues with performance. You are definitely missing something somewhere - 23MB/s? That's more than a drive issue there. Attached to chipset vs CPU is meaningless - it's preferable to have the video card connected to the lanes provided by the CPU vs the chipset - but for storage it's not really an issue.

are all 21 doing the same thing? or a single or a couple of them are?

 

[bit_user]

Indeed. On the Samsung drivers thread here are some Samsung SSD benchmarks. Random results are terrible. I have 21 Samsung SSDs. The highest random result I have is 25MB/s. I reinstalled Windows yesterday and now for my Pro and Evo drives it's down to 23MB/s. But even the sequential speeds are less than half of the advertised speeds.

Which model numbers?

What sort of anti-virus software are you using? That would be another avenue to investigate.

 

[Deicidium369]

Which model numbers?

What sort of anti-virus software are you using? That would be another avenue to investigate.

Yeah, not sure about the anti virus being a factor, but something is going awry there. Maybe a BIOS or driver issue...

 

[JamesSneed]

Yeah, not sure about the anti virus being a factor, but something is going awry there. Maybe a BIOS or driver issue...

I have seen antivirus setup to scan on read and that just kills SSD performance. Its certainly not a default setup but is a valid point from @bit_user.

 

[bit_user]

I have seen antivirus setup to scan on read and that just kills SSD performance. Its certainly not a default setup but is a valid point from @bit_user.

I don't know exactly what services are running on my work laptop, but it has a 35W Skylake quad-core CPU and a decent NVMe SSD. Yet, from using it, you'd swear it has a mechanical HDD. Even when plugged in. It's actually that slow. You'd have to see it to believe it.

So, yeah, security software can definitely slow down I/O by a lot.

 

[Deicidium369]

I don't know exactly what services are running on my work laptop, but it has a 35W Skylake quad-core CPU and a decent NVMe SSD. Yet, from using it, you'd swear it has a mechanical HDD. Even when plugged in. It's actually that slow. You'd have to see it to believe it.

So, yeah, security software can definitely slow down I/O by a lot.

After seeing no new posts from the OP about the supposed 23MB/s I have concluded it was probably a pure BS story - someone with an axe to grind with Samsung.

 

[bit_user]

After seeing no new posts from the OP about the supposed 23MB/s I have concluded it was probably a pure BS story - someone with an axe to grind with Samsung.

It depends on how it's measured. If we're talking about copying folders with lots of little files, then I definitely believe it. However, it's that a linear transfer rate benchmark, or the speed of copying large files on a filesystem with a reasonable level of fragmentation, then I agree with your skepticism.