Samsung 830 Series SSD Review

By on September 27, 2011, 2:00 AM

Although a seemingly diverse array of SATA 6Gb/s SSDs have launched in recent months, virtually all of them are powered by the Marvell 88SS9174 or SandForce SF-2200 controllers. A third competitor has been quietly lurking in the shadows: Samsung.

Following the success of its 470 Series, the company announced its new 830 Series flash drives earlier this year. At the time, little was mentioned about the drive except that it would utilize the company's in-house hardware and software, much like the 470 Series. The Samsung 830 Series doesn’t look as it will disappoint with a tasty 520MB/s read and 400MB/s write throughput.

Considering the company's delayed entry, we hope it's had plenty of time to assess and annihilate the competition. Will we see a repeat of last year's impressive demonstration? There's only one way to find out…

Read the complete review.

User Comments: 10

Got something to say? Post a comment
captainawesome captainawesome said:

Hmm I wonder if the drivers/software could be the culprit of the average performance on some of the tests? Also I think I prefer the Vertex 3 when you take performance per dollar into account.

Guest said:

I have one of the very first generation SSDs from Samsung (the ones with the brushed metal look) and I absolutely love it.

Served me very well for the past couple years, but its 120GB is running low and these new drives definitely look like a worthy successor.

I'd much rather buy from a large company like Samsung that makes everything in-house than a far smaller company like OCZ or Corsair (they probably use Samsung components anyway).

Mictlantecuhtli Mictlantecuhtli said:

Large SSDs are usually faster than smaller ones due to memory chips working in parallel - so comparing 512 GB drive to 128-300 GB ones isn't really a fair comparison.

Guest said:

I get ~560/520 MB/s max read/write in the ATTO (default) benchmark with my Kingston HyperX 120GB SSD. That's on a P8P67 motherboard, with a i7-2600K CPU and 16GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600Mhz CL9 memory. So, that 240GB version doesn't seem to perform very well in these graphs for some reason.

Steve Steve said:

What size sample data? 128K or larger?

Guest said:

Yeah, that's right. That was at 1024-8192 sizes. I didn't notice the graphs stopped at 128. :p

Steve Steve said:

Yeah, that's right. That was at 1024-8192 sizes. I didn't notice the graphs stopped at 128. :p

Yeah 1MB+ performance is much greater.

Guest said:

There absolutely needs to be an addendum to this test.

Crucial released firmware 009 over a month ago. The m4 128gb now reads at over 500 sequential and almost 300mb in the 4k-64thrd marks in as-ssd.

Anyone taking the time to do a review should be making sure that all drives are updated to the latest firmware. That is the only way to give the end user a fair assessment.

Guest said:

Would this drive work as a replacement of a HDD in a Dell laptop? Any comments appreciated.

Guest said:

Yes it would. I did it in latitude e6220 without any problems

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.