New, Microcenter, in-store only.
http://www.microcenter.com/product/...25_Internal_Solid_State_Drive_SSD_MZ-7GE480EW
http://www.microcenter.com/product/...25_Internal_Solid_State_Drive_SSD_MZ-7GE480EW
Nice deal. I have a MC near me too. Wonder how these compare to the Intel 730's that I just bought.
Thanks for the link @Patrick. Looks like the performance is quite similar. The one thing that is attractive to me is the more than twice as large write endurance (300TB compared to 128TB) of the 845DC compared to the Intel 730's. Considering I'll be using these drives as cache for my storage server, that could be an issue for me down the road with all the writing I'll be doing to them.Great deal. Too bad no MC here. BTW @JimPhreak this might help.
I do not know their standard test methodology, but that is a consumer workload looking results not a server workload. The 512GB 850 Pro does not have spare area like the 845DC Pro. When you hammer drives for even a few hours across the drives the 845DC Pro stays consistent while the 850 Pro starts to struggle. So for a client based SSD, that is probably a good source. For a server SSD, assuming it is on 24x7 I would not give that benchmark much credence.I found this comparison that shows the 845DC EVO is bested by the 850 Pro:
Best SSD Group Test: Six of the best tested
but at a price of $239 for the 850 Pro I could get 3 of the 845DC EVOs.
Pardon my lack of experience/knowledge on the subject, but if that is the case then why does the 845DC EVO has double the TDW of the 850 Pro? I mean doesn't the manufacturer say the 845DC EVO drive will last longer by saying it can write 300 TB versus 150?MLC 3-d vnand is orders better on write endurance than any TLC or older planar MLC due to the high 40nm~ size mostly!
Ok you convinced me, the 845DC will provide more consistent performance in my new storage system than the 850 Pros. Thank you for the explanation.I do not know their standard test methodology, but that is a consumer workload looking results not a server workload. The 512GB 850 Pro does not have spare area like the 845DC Pro. When you hammer drives for even a few hours across the drives the 845DC Pro stays consistent while the 850 Pro starts to struggle. So for a client based SSD, that is probably a good source. For a server SSD, assuming it is on 24x7 I would not give that benchmark much credence.
The 845DC EVO likewise has more spare area. The 32GB used for spare area helps with wear leveling and allowing the drive to maintain more consistent performance.
I'd love to see you do a READ test with Samsung drives (L2ARC, HEAVY REDIS READ, HEAVY MYSQL READ, whatever else READ). I mentioned it in another thread, but I recall seeing many tests when these came out (840P) that they REALLY slowed when they were utilized a lot and ran out of on-board cache/ram. Obviously the DC is not the PRO so maybe different firmware, garbage collection, ??? that fixes the old issue?The Samsung is a fine drive for read caching. And @HotFix :
New Samsung MZ7GE960HMHP 000AZ PM853T 2 5" 960GB SATA6 0Gbps | eBay
That is an example of a 960GB version (the PM853T is basically the same drive in OEM form). $375 BIN and sometimes they sell for even less. So $160 for a 480GB version is not too far out of line.
While I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, here are some sustained read and write performances that include the 845DC Pro, EVO, the OEM Patrick mentioned, and a couple of other drives including the Intel drive you mentioned:I'd love to see you do a READ test with Samsung drives (L2ARC, HEAVY REDIS READ, HEAVY MYSQL READ, whatever else READ). I mentioned it in another thread, but I recall seeing many tests when these came out (840P) that they REALLY slowed when they were utilized a lot and ran out of on-board cache/ram. Obviously the DC is not the PRO so maybe different firmware, garbage collection, ??? that fixes the old issue?
I'd love to see comparisons of the Samsung consumer/prosumer/DC/enterprise all compared where the cache would run out, and also just latency between all the drives and the Intels you have data on already as IMHO that's where the Intel really shines over the Samsung is in the much reduced latency.
845DC Evo use 2D 19nm TLC which same as 840 Evo. Also have old-written data read slow drops problem.Yeah... I meant GB. D'oh!
Is the 845DC EVO being TLC (with 3D nand) a bad thing? I guess that might be why it is slower than the 840 Pro with MLC V-NAND.
I found this comparison that shows the 845DC EVO is bested by the 850 Pro:
Best SSD Group Test: Six of the best tested
but at a price of $239 for the 850 Pro I could get 3 of the 845DC EVOs.
I still feel like I am missing something.
Let me see if I can get a few drives that have been sitting in the datacenter half full tested this week they have been installed for 5 weeks now. Personally I am not crazy about someone comparing a set of RAID 5 SSDs on a SAS 1, PCIe 1.0 controller to just about anything. That is a recipe for disaster.
If you have the Intel's, I would just avoid the hassle and keep them.I'm seriously considering returning my Intel 730's for a pair of these since I'd save another $70 on them. Still debating which would be better for my needs. One will be cache for my unRAID storage server and the other will be temp storage for downloading torrents.