[ssd] Intel 540s VS Samsung 850 evo

pocttopus

pocttopus

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Posts
62
Location
Naboo
Hello folks,

I am wondering what is the best option to buy between Intel 540s OR Samsung 850 evo. Both are 240 and 250gb capacity. I am not gammer and therefor I will not install any kind of games. There will be usual programs such as Office, IDE development tools and that's it.
Here is a more simple view of basic information and what are your opinions.

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Intel 540 s[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Samsung 850 EVO[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Capacity[/TD]
[TD]240gb[/TD]
[TD]250gb[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)[/TD]
[TD]1.6 Million Hours[/TD]
[TD]1.5 Million Hours[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sequential Read[/TD]
[TD] 560 MB/s [/TD]
[TD]540 MB/s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sequential Write[/TD]
[TD] 480 MB/s [/TD]
[TD]520 MB/s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Warranty[/TD]
[TD]5 years[/TD]
[TD]5 years[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]PRICE[/TD]
[TD]114,70 €[/TD]
[TD]99,99 €[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Thanks!
 
Both are great. If me, I would pick the Samsung but only for personal reasons. The 850 Evo has been around awhile so it has a well established reputation. I have a Samsung 250GB 850 Evo in this computer and it has performed flawlessly. Plus it is less expensive.

That said, there is nothing to suggest the Intel will not perform flawlessly either. I sure would not turn the Intel down.

That said, are you sure 240/250GB is large enough for your needs? That size is not small, but not large either. Windows and your apps will likely leave plenty of room, but data files, backups, and other user files can quickly eat up space - especially videos and music files. If me, I might consider something a bit larger, if the budget allows. Windows will love the extra space to play around in and due to "wear leveling" (the maintenance feature that extends the useful life of SSDs) a larger SSD will (in theory) last longer than one running low on free disk space.

I agree with satrow's comments about power consumption but note in the worse case scenario, it is still better than a hard drive.

Here are a couple Anandtech reviews to consider.

Samsung 850 EVO (note this is from 2014 and the big "however" was a concern over the price - but prices have dropped considerably since then).

Intel 540s (note while this review is for the 480GB version, SSDs in the same family generally have very near identical characteristics).
 
Digerati said:
... SSDs in the same family generally have very near identical characteristics).
Click to expand...

Maybe a generalisation too far ;) The 540 range, for example, covers 120GB > 1TB in six capacity steps, sequential writes from 400 MB/s > 480 MB/s, random writes from 50,000 IOPS > 85000 IOPS, though for this family the steps from 240GB > 1TB are much closer and probably unnoticeable in normal use.

Samsung's random writes figures are much closer, 88,000 > 90,000 IOPS, though they're coy about detailing sequential writes, giving only 'up to 520 MB/s' for the range.

Some families might also change hardware/controllers at some point through the range, as is the case with the 1TB + Samsung 850 EVO. With some brands, this might lead to somewhat different characteristics either side of the changeover.

With SSD reviews/comparisons, it's best to ensure that you're comparing exact models, rather than the generic family figures.
 
You are right and if Anandtech had done the 240GB version, I sure would have included that instead. Regardless, we both would go for the Samsung if given the choice.
 
Thanks to all for your response in this topic for helping me out to understand what are the differences between this all-time SSD war which is pain in the neck.:roll eyes (sarcasti
So my summary is as follows:


  1. Samsung runs a different 3D-nand but on 40nm architecture while Intel is running 2D-nand on 16nm. I don't really know if I am ever gonna be able to notice these differences while I'm working. Honestly as a user this is not really a big issue.
  2. The size of both disks are fine because I am already using a Samsung 850 EVO-120GB and now I have free space 40-45%. All my files are on storage disk 1TB and some are on the cloud. I am not a gamer and therefor I don't play games. All backups from the servers, images, music and video files are on the storage disk. 240/250GB size is more than I actual need but no one is arguing about more free space.:r1:
  3. From @satrow comment I don't see any big differences between the speeds from writes/reads which are also in the table on my first post. They are also hard to notice while I am working. There is one point which is on lower power consumption on Intel and because this disk will be installed on my Laptop I would consider this as a positive from Intel.


So as a person or user who wants to explore things, I think it will be no a big issue if I choose Intel 540s-240GB which i had found for even lower price (109 eur). I believe that this is not a bad choice for a low budged SSD and Intel is not a brand which can be easily thrown away. Maybe they are really bad from the marketing side comparing to Samsung because Samsung products can be even found in my local market for "bread or milk".

So what do you think about my opinion? :r1:

Thanks again to all! :thumbsup2:



 
There is one point which is on lower power consumption on Intel and because this disk will be installed on my Laptop I would consider this as a positive from Intel.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I am buying the power consumption specs. If you look at the links in your first post they say both consume 50mW at idle. I'm okay with that.

But for "Active" power it says the Intel consumes 90mW but the Samsung consumes 2.2W average and 2.4W max. That means the Samsung consumes 24.44 to 26.67 times more power than the Intel. Really? With the Intel being newer, I can understand some improvement but something seems off to me. Still less than a hard drive, regardless.

And to your point, with your stated purpose, these SSDs will be idle most of the time anyway. So I would not buy based on power consumption alone.
 
I understand (or maybe I don't) that the Intel should use less power when working hard for ~50% of the uptime; this would make it a competitor for the Samsung Pro line - more suited to server workloads than consumer > most workstation usage. I reckon SSD's would only reach that kind of figure for a tiny percentage of notebook users, mostly those who need HQ and similar i7s and the latest, top end mobile workstation GPUs.

.
 

Has Sysnative Forums helped you? Please consider donating to help us support the site!

Back
Top