Samsung 980 Pro vs. Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus

BSim500

Posts: 786   +1,717
Ah, an SSD review. (Instantly scrolls past all the synthetics without looking and jumps straight to the real world tests, Boot + Game level load times). So basically, "The Samsung Premium" still isn't worth it for +3% on one game and -20% on another? And due to dropping MLC for TLC and halving the endurance (1200 -> 600TBW), if you already own a 970 PRO then just keep using that? Got it...

I swear we peaked with SSD's a couple of years ago. Can't wait for the PCI-E 6.0 HLC "PRO" drives with 30,000MB/s epeen marketing slides and 5 P/E cycle 'endurance'...
 

CBTex

Posts: 118   +231
What's up with the bar graphs? Some are zero based and some aren't. In my opinion, all bar graphs should be zero based, but at least be consistent.

Edit: Looks like the graphs were updated. Thanks! I think zero based graph help understand how large of a percentage the differences are as opposed to solely seeing the absolute differences.

Editor's note: Thanks for the note. We fixed the graphs after your comment. We made some aesthetic changes to the graphs before publishing without realizing the change in axis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

veLa

Posts: 1,090   +679
Ah, an SSD review. (Instantly scrolls past all the synthetics without looking and jumps straight to the real world tests, Boot + Game level load times). So basically, "The Samsung Premium" still isn't worth it for +3% on one game and -20% on another? And due to dropping MLC for TLC and halving the endurance (1200 -> 600TBW), if you already own a 970 PRO then just keep using that? Got it...

I swear we peaked with SSD's a couple of years ago. Can't wait for the PCI-E 6.0 HLC "PRO" drives with 30,000MB/s epeen marketing slides and 5 P/E cycle 'endurance'...

Yeah. That's a solid take.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,292   +1,472
Prices overall need to come down. Brand means almost nothing anymore. I got what I need (500GB Gen 3 and 1TB SATA), but paying $100CAD/TB in 2020 was annoying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nanochip

Posts: 8   +9
Thanks for the review. One thing that interests me with SSD’s is operating temperature. Some SSD’s operate fairly hot while others are much cooler under load. For example, my 970 Evo Plus gets quite warm under load (60 degrees) while other nvme drives I’ve used stay in the 40s.

What are the operating temps of the 980 vs Sabrent?
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,259   +1,750
"These numbers are just like Wi-Fi speed ratings in that they're only guidelines and you'll never actually hit them."

Disagree with this from the article. It is correct on wifi you won't see its speeds to due it being half duplex, interference from other networks etc. However for the PCIe 4.0 drives you can hit those speeds as long as the workload is sequential.

One will never hit its advertised speeds the other can in specific situations.
 

duckofdeath

Posts: 287   +383
Thanks for the review. One thing that interests me with SSD’s is operating temperature. Some SSD’s operate fairly hot while others are much cooler under load. For example, my 970 Evo Plus gets quite warm under load (60 degrees) while other nvme drives I’ve used stay in the 40s.

What are the operating temps of the 980 vs Sabrent?
Somewhere between piping hot and scorching.
I have the 4,500MB/s Sabrent and it's definitely keeping the heatsink busy. I think, it's hard to avoid at these speeds at the moment. They are pushing the silicon to the limits, unlike SATA drives where the interface is a finite bottle neck.
 

SixTymes

Posts: 127   +85
It would be nice to see sustained tests for SSDs to see how fast it is once the cache runs out and then how fast it is once it has to actually write to TLC for example. I have an older pci3 Sabrent than goes from 1,000MBs to 80MBs after 50GB. Makes copying video footage unusably slow.

Bottom line, if you want true sustained speed no matter what the work station scenario, Intel's Optane SSD 905P is still the drive to own, regardless that it's 3.0. It will be interesting to see what Intel does next with their upcoming next gen Optane.
 

mattferg

Posts: 149   +153
It would be nice to see sustained tests for SSDs to see how fast it is once the cache runs out and then how fast it is once it has to actually write to TLC for example. I have an older pci3 Sabrent than goes from 1,000MBs to 80MBs after 50GB. Makes copying video footage unusably slow.

Bottom line, if you want true sustained speed no matter what the work station scenario, Intel's Optane SSD 905P is still the drive to own, regardless that it's 3.0. It will be interesting to see what Intel does next with their upcoming next gen Optane.

That’s because your older drive is QLC. Most TLC drives are consistent in speed, QLC is the one with the big speed drop.
 

Julio Franco

Posts: 8,764   +1,652
Staff member
For some readers, some of these figures will look like a sea of sameness (two very fast and matched SSDs), but taken in further context, you should read back our previous storage reviews to see how these compare against the rest of the offerings out there.
We added this note to the review just now:

As an additional note, both of these drives are at the top of the consumer SSD food chain. For further context that goes beyond this comparison, you should check out our previous storage testing comparing game load times, testing PCIe 4.0 vs. PCIe 3.0 SSDs, and a storage performance roundup where we tested everything from a mechanical disk drive to mainstream, and high-end SSDs.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,391   +3,474
I bought the 2tb rocket 4 plus, partially because the 980 pro abandoned MLC and partially because despite being TLC the 980 pro has no 2TB version. I remember how hard it was to find a 2TB 970 pro and wasn’t going to wait.

So far it’s great. The 4K random puts my old 950 pro to shame.
 
Last edited:

Ben Myers

Posts: 133   +55
What's up with the bar graphs? Some are zero based and some aren't. In my opinion, all bar graphs should be zero based, but at least be consistent.

Edit: Looks like the graphs were updated. Thanks! I think zero based graph help understand how large of a percentage the differences are as opposed to solely seeing the absolute differences.

Editor's note: Thanks for the note. We fixed the graphs after your comment. We made some aesthetic changes to the graphs before publishing without realizing the change in axis.
The people who do the Techspot graphics would do well to read Edward Tufte's "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" or any of the other Tufte classics on the subject, then heed Tufte's guidance. (Of course, I can say this about 90% of all printed and on-line publications!) Portraying data as non-zero based obfuscates the reality that we are all looking at the number of angels that can dance on an SSD pin. SSDs are now commodities with small differences in performance for a given class of SSD, so buy reputable name brands!
 

131dbl

Posts: 32   +8
Ah, an SSD review. (Instantly scrolls past all the synthetics without looking and jumps straight to the real world tests, Boot + Game level load times). So basically, "The Samsung Premium" still isn't worth it for +3% on one game and -20% on another? And due to dropping MLC for TLC and halving the endurance (1200 -> 600TBW), if you already own a 970 PRO then just keep using that? Got it...

I swear we peaked with SSD's a couple of years ago. Can't wait for the PCI-E 6.0 HLC "PRO" drives with 30,000MB/s epeen marketing slides and 5 P/E cycle 'endurance'...

It depends on what you do with your PC really.
 

131dbl

Posts: 32   +8
Hey William, do you have something against WD SN 850? Asking as that's one very solid (Ha!) SSD and its really odd to see it missing here.

Yeah I find it a bit dissapointing that it wasn't included. These are TRUE gen4 drives, minus the fact that without a very large cache the writes are going to slow down, but for most users you don't write huge chunks of data to an NVMe, or if you do you're using it as a scratch drive where you're building files, and the APP you're running can't write fast enough anyway.
 

131dbl

Posts: 32   +8
It would be nice to see sustained tests for SSDs to see how fast it is once the cache runs out and then how fast it is once it has to actually write to TLC for example. I have an older pci3 Sabrent than goes from 1,000MBs to 80MBs after 50GB. Makes copying video footage unusably slow.

Bottom line, if you want true sustained speed no matter what the work station scenario, Intel's Optane SSD 905P is still the drive to own, regardless that it's 3.0. It will be interesting to see what Intel does next with their upcoming next gen Optane.


Most people aren't going to use an NVMe drive in that kind of way, so for most people that's going to be a useless stat that can mislead them into making a bad buying decision.

Common uses: loading and running an OS from, loading and playing games from, along with other applications. Using for scratch area for building files, such as rendering or other work with video or audio files. And I'm sure there are others. I don't think there exists an app that can write out a media file fast enough for that stat to matter, or the end file isn't that big anyway. Writing a 100GB file for instance tests the drive's ability to work as a scratch/work drive, and the reality is it mostly exceeds the ability of almost any app/PC hardware for the speed in which it can build the file.

I do understand there are fringe use cases where a person might want to write a couple hundred GB to an NVMe. I just can't think of a GOOD use case right now. Maybe if your system crashed and you have to restore your drive from a clone, but I'm not going to make a buying decision based on that rare use case. More than likely the clone is a magnetic drive or SATA SSD anyway, in which case these new drives are going to be waiting forever for the data.

OK, sorry there is a use case I can think of, and that's something like a ZFS RAID config. But even there you could use any of these drives in such a way where the NVMe drives aren't going to be the limiting factor, because more often than not these types of RAID configs are used for a large amount of storage, and most of it's going to be mechanical drives or SATA SSDs and the NVMe drives are operating more like a cache for the RAID. Once again though, you run into the issue of how often that RAID gets used for writing hundreds of GBs at a single time.
 
Last edited:

Tom Sunday

Posts: 58   +9
...two very fast and matched SSDs!
Yes indeed they are matched very well in many respects. Almost too well. I am about to permanently retire my deemed very slow Samsung 2TB 860 Evo and reaching for the imminent 2TB Samsung 980 Pro PCIe 4 NVME SSD. It to becoming my dedicated STEAM gaming drive. Why Samsung? I am personally very tired, overloaded with recommendations, opposing opinions, buying concerns, warnings, etc, and knowing that both Sabrent and Samsung are close in performance, it really does not matter what I buy. I also think that once someone is financially capable in loading-up ones PC with a full compliment of 2TB Samsung or Sabrent NVME's (forever adios 4TB HDD's) all or any reviews will not influence people like that.
 
Last edited:

DonquixoteIII

Posts: 76   +45
Most people aren't going to use an NVMe drive in that kind of way, so for most people that's going to be a useless stat that can mislead them into making a bad buying decision.

Common uses: loading and running an OS from, loading and playing games from, along with other applications. Using for scratch area for building files, such as rendering or other work with video or audio files. And I'm sure there are others. I don't think there exists an app that can write out a media file fast enough for that stat to matter, or the end file isn't that big anyway. Writing a 100GB file for instance tests the drive's ability to work as a scratch/work drive, and the reality is it mostly exceeds the ability of almost any app/PC hardware for the speed in which it can build the file.

I do understand there are fringe use cases where a person might want to write a couple hundred GB to an NVMe. I just can't think of a GOOD use case right now. Maybe if your system crashed and you have to restore your drive from a clone, but I'm not going to make a buying decision based on that rare use case. More than likely the clone is a magnetic drive or SATA SSD anyway, in which case these new drives are going to be waiting forever for the data.

OK, sorry there is a use case I can think of, and that's something like a ZFS RAID config. But even there you could use any of these drives in such a way where the NVMe drives aren't going to be the limiting factor, because more often than not these types of RAID configs are used for a large amount of storage, and most of it's going to be mechanical drives or SATA SSDs and the NVMe drives are operating more like a cache for the RAID. Once again though, you run into the issue of how often that RAID gets used for writing hundreds of GBs at a single time.

Think about cad/cam work, where your load image might very well be in the 10's / 100's GB Or rendering, where 50GB load files are not uncommon. Load from a HDD? Really? And I pay you HOW much an hour to sit there and thumb-twiddle?

I know an architectural firm that did not blink at a 500K$ lasser printer because it could output100GB A8 plots in minutes instead of days. Productivity pays the bills, mate.
 

jpuroila

Posts: 323   +181
Ah, how the mighty have fallen. Samsung used to be the go-to brand for premium SSDs(at least in consumer space), but now there seems to be little reason to buy any of their SSDs. The pricing was never great(when I built my PC, I opted for ADATA SU800 over Samsung 840 because it was noticeably cheaper for very similar performance), but the pro-line being 2-bits per cell was one of the last reasons to buy any of their SSDs. And now they can't even claim performance crown.
 
In the article there is a picture of the motherboard with the 2 sdds, the Sabrent at the top and the Samsung at the bottom.
I am wondering if you have done the tests in this configuration.
Because the pci of the chipset is slightly restricted, this is what I noticed on my side with my 980pro on my msi Unify X570
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,447   +1,043
I recently upgraded my mobo to X570 and CPU to a 5800X, which meant I could move my Sabrent Rocket 4.0 plus from a PCIe2 M2 slot in my old board to a PCIe4 slot on the new board and have yet to notice any difference in boot up time or gaming load times. Maybe there is an improvement but it’s too small for me to notice.

I don’t use my PC for much else so whilst I’m sure there are benefits for PCIe4 it doesn’t help gamers much at this point.
 
Prices overall need to come down. Brand means almost nothing anymore. I got what I need (500GB Gen 3 and 1TB SATA), but paying $100CAD/TB in 2020 was annoying.
I disagree. I'd say brand matters more. Certain brands have not only been caught out silently switching NAND but also their entire controllers and/or firmware leading to massive performance drops. The ADATA drive tested showed a 40% decrease in tests vs the original review model. Multiple review sites have covered this including Toms Hardware, Hexus and LTT.

I'll continue to trust Intel/Samsung for my system drives going forward.

Bottom line: do your research before going for that "too good to be true" deal.
 

Julio Franco

Posts: 8,764   +1,652
Staff member
In the article there is a picture of the motherboard with the 2 sdds, the Sabrent at the top and the Samsung at the bottom.
I am wondering if you have done the tests in this configuration.
Thanks for the question. For actual tests, we used the upper slot for everything as we noticed the lower one was slower.

The photo was only for showcasing them both, but we have clarified this with a caption now.