Samsung 840 vs 840 Pro

[Deleted]

First off: I'm not actually planning on buying a Samsung SSD. But, there's still a fairly valid reason to start this ol' thread. Perhaps this might function as a reference for people with limited knowledge on the subject. On to the pressing matter at hand...

Around these forums, especially on the build advice one, SSD disks are getting recommended to any build that can in any way afford it. And it should - performance wise it's an amazing upgrade. I think we can all agree on that.

Around here, we generally see two brands recommended: The Crucial M4 series, and the Samsung 840 series. Samsung is definitely taking the lead lately, and most people will recommend an 840 or 840 Pro.

Now, the real question comes to mind: What are the actual benefits of going for the Pro rather than the normal version? And perhaps more importantly, in what scenarios is it wise to opt for the Pro version, and in what scenarios does a non-Pro suffice?

I know I can just Google the differences, make my conclusion and be done with it. However, I thought it might be nice to get a discussion going and have our native MMOC guru's fight it out. To the death! Or perhaps... just until we reach a general consensus.

In conclusion: In what scenarios will one notice the difference between an 840 and 840 Pro? And what would the recommended option be?

Fire away!

[SuperKW]

Both can read in same speed but the pro version write faster

[Asmekiel]

Because max read/write speeds is totally why SSD's are recommended

Three benchmarks 1 2 3
It's in Dutch, but shouldn't be too hard to understand, or use a translation service

The 840 Pro seems to be better than the 840 in about everything. At this moment the 840 Pro 128GB is ~40% more expensive than the 840 120GB (€119 and €84,99 resp.) and the 256GB version is ~33% more expensive (€198,99 and €149,45 resp.)
If that increase is worth it depends on what you want to do with it of course. The average user likely won't notice the difference and someone new to SSD's neither. Having said that I would recommend the 840 Pro over the 840 if the budget allows it.

[Tehterokkar]

If you do a lot of rewriting(installing/uninstalling), PRO will have the advantage because of faster Write speeds. If you just use it for "Install games and then play them", get the normal since Read speeds are same.

---------- Post added 2013-02-28 at 11:14 AM ----------

Because max read/write speeds is totally why SSD's are recommended

Three benchmarks 1 2 3
It's in Dutch, but shouldn't be too hard to understand, or use a translation service

The 840 Pro seems to be better than the 840 in about everything. At this moment the 840 Pro 128GB is ~40% more expensive than the 840 120GB (€119 and €84,99 resp.) and the 256GB version is ~33% more expensive (€198,99 and €149,45 resp.)
If that increase is worth it depends on what you want to do with it of course. The average user likely won't notice the difference and someone new to SSD's neither. Having said that I would recommend the 840 Pro over the 840 if the budget allows it.

40% more on price what is not needed by the average user who plays games. Read speed is all that matters for gaming, installing a program is just a small part.

[Deleted]

840Pro also comes with 5 year warranty compared to the 3 year warranty on the 840.

[Deleted]

I was hoping to find a few suggestions on when it's good and/or bad to recommend one. But I guess this works as well.

@Asmekiel: Seems odd that the samsung 840 pro scores fairly low on sequential read speeds. But then on a 4k random read, it's top again. I probably just don't understand the technology.

Offtopic: Not sure why this got moved. I'll admit it's to better understand what to suggest to people in some way, but it's really not asking for a particular build. Ah well, different definition of the intended use of the forums, I guess.

[Deleted]

This my "score" last I ran the test with Samsung Magician. I can try a different bench later.

I would say for anyone with a lower/mid end budget 840 is perfectly fine. On a higher end budget and to a person that don't might paying a little extra for longer warranty and better performance (on paper), different and more durable NAND's the 840Pro is good. Also depends on which deals you can find at the time.

[The Cat]

840 uses TLC, Pro uses MLC. Basically 3 bits stored per data cell vs 2 bits stored per data cell. MLC is inherently faster and lasts longer since if a cell degrades you lose 2 data bits vs 3. To my knowledge, the 840 is the only SSD on the market that uses TLC. So it's a bit unproven in terms of long term reliability.

So basically, it depends on if you just want a run of the mill ssd for cheap, or a performance ssd. Personally, I would pick the Pro with any of my builds.

[Deleted]

840 uses TLC, Pro uses MLC. Basically 3 bits stored per data cell vs 2 bits stored per data cell. MLC is inherently faster and lasts longer since if a cell degrades you lose 2 data bits vs 3. To my knowledge, the 840 is the only SSD on the market that uses TLC. So it's a bit unproven in terms of long term reliability.

So basically, it depends on if you just want a run of the mill ssd for cheap, or a performance ssd.

Statements like what you ended with is a prime example of what I fear. Those things get stuck in people's head without really knowing the technology behind it.

I'll be a noob and ask it: A cell degrading, is that something that happens frequently? Or does that start happening at the end of the lifetime of your ssd? (ie, first sign of it failing.)

Again, I could just google it, but I kind of like the discussion. I'll be able to link to this if people ask.

[The Cat]

Theoretically a modern ssd should outlast the machine you put it in given normal usage rates. For example, I'm more familiar with OCZ drives, the OCZ Vector has a 20 GB writes a day for 5 years before it should die. Which is attached to its warranty.

But, like I said the fact that it uses TLC means it basically degrades at a 33% higher rate than MLC. And, since it is the only drive using TLC it's a bit of an unknown how much, if any, impact that actually has on it's life.

It's a good drive. Just not as good. I personally use performance part, but I would not condemn anyone going for a budget build for using it.

To sum it up: The Pro is inherently better. Whether or not the price to performance ratio is better or not depends on the person. Everyone has a different budget and idea of what performance they want within that budget.

[chazus]

But, like I said the fact that it uses TLC means it basically degrades at a 33% higher rate than MLC. And, since it is the only drive using TLC it's a bit of an unknown how much, if any, impact that actually has on it's life.

Huh? How is it an unknown? There are more benchmarks than I can count out there on TLC drives (Specifically the Samsung 840, due to it being TLC).

Conclusion: The drive will last longer than the system. A 240gb TLCdrive under normal use will likely last 10-20 years, where the Pro MLC will likely last 40-70.

It makes me annoyed that people even bother bringing up the TLC/MLC lifespan thing. It's marketing/branding fearmongering, and little more.

[The Cat]

Huh? How is it an unknown? There are more benchmarks than I can count out there on TLC drives (Specifically the Samsung 840, due to it being TLC).

The 840 is the ONLY drive that uses TLC NAND. Other than that it is used in thumb drives. It is an unknown because all there is are benchmarks. It's not been around long enough to actually test beyond synthetic benchmarks.

[n0cturnal]

Huh? How is it an unknown? There are more benchmarks than I can count out there on TLC drives (Specifically the Samsung 840, due to it being TLC).

Conclusion: The drive will last longer than the system. A 240gb TLCdrive under normal use will likely last 10-20 years, where the Pro MLC will likely last 40-70.

It makes me annoyed that people even bother bringing up the TLC/MLC lifespan thing. It's marketing/branding fearmongering, and little more.

It has already been proven to last much shorter than older MLC drives, even so 430TB of data written should last most people a LONG time.

For reference I've had my SSD for a little over 1 year now and over the course of that time I've written just over 6TB of data to it. I'm not your average user either, during this time my SSD has a power on time of 9412 hours which is pretty much 24/7 since I got it.

[chazus]

It has already been proven to last much shorter than older MLC drives, even so 430TB of data written should last most people a LONG time.

For reference I've had my SSD for a little over 1 year now and over the course of that time I've written just over 6TB of data to it. I'm not your average user either, during this time my SSD has a power on time of 9412 hours which is pretty much 24/7 since I got it.

I'm kind of confused. You're saying that you use your drive a lot more than most people... And that TLC lives much shorter than MLC.. And based off that report, it might be possible to expect it to last a paltry 72 years.

Or am I reading this wrong. 443TB to dead, ~6 TB a year. It seems like my point still stands.

[n0cturnal]

I'm kind of confused. You're saying that you use your drive a lot more than most people... And that TLC lives much shorter than MLC.. And based off that report, it might be possible to expect it to last a paltry 72 years.

Or am I reading this wrong. 443TB to dead, ~6 TB a year. It seems like my point still stands.

I'm both confirming the fact that the drive will last a long time and that it still doesn't last as long as MLC drives, if you go through that thread you can see that most MLC drives make it into the Petabytes, with Samsung 830 being the untouchable king at over 6 Petabytes of data written.

[Korgoth]

I highly doubt the speed difference would be that noticeable outside of benchmarks. On Amazon right now the 256gb 840 pro model is $234 the 500gb 840 is $280, id go for the 500gb. Double the capacity for 20% higher cost.

[Loyrl]

Thanks Korgoth, I will be down some money when I get home =|

[jetguat]

I think this is a great post and one I was very interested. I'm curious about what a end of life for an SSD really looks/acts like to a non-techie user. Does it start to have bad sectors (might not be the correct for SSD but you get the point) that are just marked as bad and then not used anymore. So slowly you max capacity space starts to decrease. Surely the drive doesn't fault in its entirety all at once, or at least thats not the most likely scenario.

I'm planning a new build, it will be my first with an SSD, but I'll use that as my primary drive. Planning on a 256GB to give me room for MS office and my most run apps. Except for temp files and what not. if the PC lasts 10 years.. I'll likely just get a new PC.

But as an academic question, like the OP, what does a dying SSD look like as it reaches its end of life?

[n0cturnal]

I think this is a great post and one I was very interested. I'm curious about what a end of life for an SSD really looks/acts like to a non-techie user. Does it start to have bad sectors (might not be the correct for SSD but you get the point) that are just marked as bad and then not used anymore. So slowly you max capacity space starts to decrease. Surely the drive doesn't fault in its entirety all at once, or at least thats not the most likely scenario.

I'm planning a new build, it will be my first with an SSD, but I'll use that as my primary drive. Planning on a 256GB to give me room for MS office and my most run apps. Except for temp files and what not. if the PC lasts 10 years.. I'll likely just get a new PC.

But as an academic question, like the OP, what does a dying SSD look like as it reaches its end of life?

If you are lucky the drive will enter a read only mode, if you are not the drive can stop working completely.

You can read about it here http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...e-25nm-Vs-34nm