Samsung 850 EVO SSD Review (120/500GB) – Showing Off 3D TLC V-NAND


Crystal Disk Benchmark is used to measure read and write performance through sampling of random data which is, for the most part, incompressible. Performance is virtually identical, regardless of data sample so we have included only that using random data samples.


Samsung 850 EVO 120GB Crystal Disk Mark


Samsung 850 EVO 500GB Crystal Disk Mark

In Crystal Disk Mark the 120GB 850 EVO achieved 537.9MB/s read and 525MB/s write, while the larger 500GB drive achieved 539MB/s read and 525.9MB/s write. These results are so close, even with the 120GB having only one NAND package. Samsung’s TurboWrite technology is putting in work!


The toughest benchmark available for solid state drives is AS SSD as it relies solely on incompressible data samples when testing performance.  For the most part, AS SSD tests can be considered the ‘worst case scenario’ in obtaining data transfer speeds and many enthusiasts like AS SSD for their needs. Transfer speeds are displayed on the left with IOPS results on the right.

The identified capacities are listed on each result…

Samsung 850 EVO 120GB AS SSD Samsung 850 EVO 500GB AS SSD

Samsung 850 EVO 120GB AS SSD IOPS Samsung 850 EVO 500GB AS SSD IOPS

In AS SSD, we can see the 120GB model reached a total of 1049 points and the 500GB model reached 1244 points. Sequential speeds reach around 515MB/s for reads and 500MB/s for writes. Now, this is where things start looking even better. 4K reads are reaching nearly 49MB/s! That is the fastest we have seen from any SATA 6Gb/s SSD! Following that, the 4K writes reach around 134MB/s. When looking at the 4K-64thrd test, you can see that the 120GB finally start to show weakness in writes due to the lesser number of NAND packages in the design.

As for IOPS, both capacities were just shy of their rated spec. We will see if Anvil’s Storage utilities can verify the spec. for us in a second.

Samsung 850 EVO 120GB AS SSD Copy Samsung 850 EVO 500GB AS SSD Copy

For our Copy Benchmark results both drives performed well. Again the 500GB model edging out ahead slightly in performance.


Anvil’s Storage Utilities (ASU) are the most complete test bed available for the solid state drive today.  The benchmark displays test results for, not only throughput but also, IOPS and Disk Access Times.  Not only does it have a preset SSD benchmark, but also, it has included such things as endurance testing and threaded I/O read, write and mixed tests, all of which are very simple to understand and use in our benchmark testing.

Once again, listed capacities are evident on each result…

Samsung 850 EVO 120GB Anvil

Samsung 850 EVO 500GB Anvil

With a result of 5,491.15 points the 500GB beats out the 120GB overall which achieved 5,471.54 in this test. Looking at 4K performance again, we see that both capacities were able to hit 50MB/s!  Lower by just a few percent, both drives reached slightly under their rated IOPS again.


  1. blank

    I think an 120gb 850 evo usb thumb drive would be awesome .

    • blank

      You can already buy flash drives with ssd controllers. Sandisk and mushkin are making those for example

      • blank

        i know that, still, the evo would be faster

      • blank

        Not when its limited to usb3 interface …

      • blank

        Yes, it would be faster. SanDisk U100 is rated 2300 write IOPS. This 850 EVO is rated 40000 write IOPS.

        But this is not suitable for use as Stick. SanDisk ‘cruzer extreme’ SDCZ80 is U100 SSD; SanDisk U100 does not use volatile cache. That is crucial for use as Stick: volatile write cache spells ‘data disaster’.

        And look at power rating: this 850 EVO current rating is 1.4 ampere. Not suitable for Stick. In fact, any 5V SSD is NOT suitable for use as Stick. Stick SSD should use lower voltage, such as 3.3 V, regulated down from USB VBUS.

      • blank

        why not? they are not limited by the usb3 interface, and the mushkin gets too hot and throttles all the time. check the review at anandtech. it will easily surpass them, even the corsair gtx

      • blank

        Yes they are. And also you need usb -> sata bridge controller, which also usually kills IOPS aswell.

        For best performance, sammy should design a ssd class controller around usb3 interface and its power restrictions.

      • blank

        no they are not. the usb to sata controller would probably lower the iops but it would still be faster than anything currently exists in usb thumb drives with ssd controller.

        you can’t seriously expect samsung to develop a new controller around usb3. There isn’t a market for it

      • blank

        >you can’t seriously expect samsung to develop a new controller around usb3. There isn’t a market for it

        They could just add usb3 interface to the existing controller.

        And yeah, there simply just isn’t market for those kinds of things. And again, you’re restricted to how much power you can sip from the usb port.

      • blank

        Corsair also makes one, the Voyager GTX.

  2. blank

    I am not impressed. Degraded performance after TurboWrite? “…speeds returning to where they should when TRIM was allowed to run…”?

    Your testing methodology was good but your observations, but not your conclusions, reveal weaknesses in performance that would appear to be characteristic of all SSDs.

    You missed the mark.


    • blank

      I don’t hink you quite understand the report with respect to ‘after turbowrite’ and might suggest that you read it again in order to understand what ‘after turbowrite’ represents. As for when TRIM was allowed, you seem to be refering to the PCMark 8 testing which is the most demanding of benchmarks today. This is a consumer SSD with TLC memory and not intended for media workloads, or that tested through PCMark 8 as we did. It fared very well considering.

      • blank

        Oh, I understand it but I wonder if you do. The SSD chokes up and runs slower at some point and does not run faster again until TRIM is run. The demanding benchmark simply reached the choke point more quickly. I think highly of Samsung products, including this one, and I am simply critiquing your conclusions, not the product.


      • blank

        The Samsung 850 EVO is an SSD that is designed for client usage. Most client based activity requires small non-continuous writes, not large continuous transfers. TurboWrite will be working most of the time. If one is in need of better continuous write speeds, then they should look into SSDs designed for that type of work load. The 850 EVO is designed for client usage and it does that very well.

      • blank

        Your “client usage” criteria sells short people who are gamers, multi-taskers, or video aficionados. It would come as a surprise to Samsung if you are implying that this SSD is not recommended for that bunch.

        Again, I am not critiquing the EVO. I am not critiquing your methodology. Maybe you should run the same tests on a few other drives and see if they choke, too.


      • blank

        Jim, you seem to be running around in circles by stating that you are not critiquing and then doing just that. Are you suggesting we should recommend this drive for gamers, multi-taskers and video aficionados (whatever you classify that as)? This is a consumer SSD intended to be a high capacity low price product for the typical consumer. It is separate from the 850 Pro and I might think you would understand this. So what are you questioning… the benchmark results or our assessment of such? Are you suggesting that we should recommend it for more intense use scenarios? Are you trying to say that Samsung is doing that? Speak your mind in a straightforward fashion.

      • blank

        I do not feel it sells short for gamers or multitaskers. But can you be more specific in terms of the workload? Large continuous
        write performance is not needed for gaming and rarely for typical
        multitasking. For gaming, typically after the initial install, the
        system will just read the game data and only modify config files here and there. And for multitasking, you need to be more specific as there can be many different workload levels when it comes to different people and multitasking. In terms of video aficionados, what aspect are you referring to, editors, streamers, etc?

        Yes, lower capacity drives will simply run at a slower speed than the typical 500MB/s when the buffer fills and the 500GB and 1TB model will still have ~85% of the write performance after that. The TurboWrite buffer is about 3-12GB depending on capacity, which is plenty for system tasks for most consumers.

        So what you are getting at is that you would like to see some more real world testing? And are you referring to PCMark 8’s consistency test to see if other drives choke as well? I have done it on a few other drives such as the Crucial MX100, OCZ ARC 100, Samsung 830, 840 EVO, 850 Pro, Plextor M6e, and SanDisk Extreme Pro. The more value oriented drives show similar degraded steady state performance, the MX100 performs similar to 850 EVO as well.

      • blank

        I’m quite confused with your statements, as they seem to imply that gaming and video consumption requires large amounts of continuous writes, which they do not. All of these use cases you’ve mentioned are not only mostly read intensive they tend not to be largely different on one SSD or another (especially gaming, where using an SSD only drastically effects load times and not frame-rate or frame time variance).

  3. blank

    Great drive but pricing simply kills it. It runs just a few € cheaper than 850pro here in EU, which makes zero sense to buy.
    Once this settles down to mx100/ultra ii prices, it will make a lot of sense. Especially considering 5 year warranty.

    • blank

      Agreed. However, (at least here in the US) the 512GB/500GB model is about $90 cheaper for the EVO than the Pro, when you consider performance its a pretty good deal.. but yeah Samsung definitely needs to better compete with other brands’ budget offerings.

      • blank

        Don’t forget, the 850 Evo consumes less power over all and might be a better fit for ultra notebooks where as 850 Pro would be a better fit for a desktop or workstation class laptop like Thinkpad W series.

  4. blank

    Fantastic report as always Sean! This thing is awesome.

  5. blank

    256GB SSD is useless for me and until prices for 500GB not drops below $160 I’m staying with HDDs.

    • blank

      Pretty self defeatiing statement I might say. It is sort of like saying you are going to walk until the price of gas goes down.

      • blank

        i agree, and i don’t think 152 dollars shipped for the 250 GB evo is that much money anyways, i own one myself right now and it is noticeably better than the 850 pro ( for qd1 read speeds which i normally look for ) and well worth the money.

    • blank

      FYI, you can get mushkin chronos for 169$ via….

      So if 9$ are keeping you away from SSDs, well then…

  6. blank

    Sean , what about mentioned analysis of RAPID 2.1 boot and app load times boost

  7. blank

    when I( finished your review I was very happy to see that you are a pro photog because my need for a SSD relates specifically to the fact that I am building a computer dedicated exclusively and specifically to do my photo processing. Often times I will shoot 100 or more photos under under the same lighting and settings. After I get a couple converted the way I like from RAW to TIF (usually 20-25 MB to even larger TIF) I batch process to another file on the SSD. If you were in my shoes, what 120 GB SSD would you be looking at? I would be most appreciative of your thoughts. Anything else could be easily handled by any SSD. . The reviews here are excellent and they cover all the bases, but I only need one base covered, but covered well. The program that consistently gives me the best results is DxO and it is very thorough but also very slow, I would be running an AMD Fx-6300, ASUS M5A99X EVO R2 mobo, Radeon 6700 graphics.That is what I had. I had a horrible experience with a OCZ Revo X2 and am gunshy of PCI SSD. I have a Samsung 830 on my current and I love it. Thank for any thoughts.

    • blank

      please change my request to a 250 GB. I dont need the space but the big drop off in performance on everything seems to be between 120 and 250GB as opposed to between the 250GB and the bigger ones. Happy, Happy and Merry, Merry!

  8. blank

    Ran my 850 EVO (250GB) and get 5835 Seq. Read, 4052 Seq Write, 5686 512K Read, 3749 512k Write, 844.7 4k Read, 509.7 4k Write, 837.2 4k QD32 Read, 474 4k QD32 Write with RAPID enabled. Wow RAPID is awesome lol

  9. blank

    Long time reader of the forum, made several SSD purchases based on the reviews posted here such as my Intel 520. After reading your review, I just picked up a 500GB version of Evo 850 from Amazon and will be receiving it tomorrow. The most disappointing SSD I picked up so far has been Crucial M4, which died very slowly contaminating even the good backups over a period of couple months, resulting in some data loss due to corrupt data replacing good old backups. The dreaded IAStor errors and stalling on the M4 eventually lead to total malfunction. The TLC nand on 850 evo makes me nervous but I read so much good stuff about the 3D nand from your 850 PRO review I figured they balance each other . I hope I’m not mistaken. Even my first Samsung SSD that did not support TRIM did not let me down as bad as my Crucial M4 did. For me there are only 2 SSD manufacturers; Intel and Samsung, the rest is for funny clowns who can afford to lose data.

    • blank

      Thank you for jumping in and taking the time to pass on that!

      • blank

        After 3 years of using intel 520 with superfetch deliberately left on, the SSD toolbox is still reporting 100% life left. I don’t know how accurate that figure is but based on my usage I hope to get a reasonable use out of 850 Evo, Even though smaller transistors and TLC design makes EVO less durable, I hope it won’t let me down like M4 did after 12 months + 1 day (literally).

  10. blank

    Thanks for another great review Sean.

    I see Amazon has the 250GB for $110 and the 500GB for $220. Amazing.
    It is funny to see people complaining about the price.

    I’d get one but my OCZ Vertex 4 seems to be going just fine.

    • blank

      Don’t ever… I did have an OCZ Vertex 4 (250GB) in my laptop on a SATA2 interface. When I needed more room, I upgraded to an Samsung EVO 850 (500GB). I sucks! Performance on a SATA2 interface is way slower than my OCZ Vertex 4. The RAPID mode makes it better, but in essence just ‘cheats’ its way out of bad performance on SATA2. It appears that the performance is better on SATA3… Check this before you buy one!

  11. blank

    @Sean – Do you recommend using the Samsung Magician software?

  12. blank

    Hi, I am considering buying of the Samsung 850 Evo 120GB or 250GB version. For me the capacity of the 120GB is enough I will use only Windows, MS Office and two small online trading programs. My laptop is on Sata 2 300 MB/s. I will use a second HDD for storage drive. Will be the 250GB version of the 850 Evo faster, than the 120GB, and what does it mean, that the speed after TurboWrite is 300 for the 250GB and 150 for the 120GB. I’m using the laptop only with two Internet streaming programs and for Internet charts, search, youtube, et. c.

    • blank

      You wont notice the difference.

      • blank

        Can the 850 Evo 120 GB be used without the magician software, because I have only 4 GB RAM and the software i have read uses 1 GB of the RAM for better performance?

      • blank

        Yes, it will work just fine without it.

        rapid feature is really just a gimmick that brings little performance difference in real world. Its great for benchmarks though, as you tell your buddies, that you have an insanly fast ssd 🙂

  13. blank

    I just saw they came put with an M.2 850 EVO. Would the performance be any different? I know it will still use the same SATA port. Wondering if the different configuration will make a difference…

  14. blank
    Danny Ong Lay Siang

    i bought this samsung 850 evo 250GB to replace my Laptop HDD. DId a complete clean Window 10 installation. Did a benchmark and show a 550/510MB/s Read/write with ~80k iops which is expected. Window boots up in 15s. However, i install Samsung SSD magician tool and enabled Over provisioning, RAPID and Highest Performance Setting. Same Benchmark tool result shoot up to over ~4000/3000MB/s with 150,000 iops but Window still boots up in 15s. Please advice why the seeing the tremendous increase reading from benchmark. It is real?

  15. blank

    ssd samsung 850 evo 1tb lpddr2 is it working to any laptop?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *