Great price for this little monster. Price is based on Amazon currency converter, so could be even cheaper depending on what card You paying with. Euro price is 206,19.
I raid 0'd 2 of these and got a reasonable hike in write speeds but read stayed around 3,300MB/s.
taras
15 Jun 17#27
the intel x99 motherboards are unstable with these in raid 0
taras
14 Jun 17#26
the intel x99 motherboards are unstable with these in raid 0
Naith
12 Jun 17#6
Can someone tell me if you see a 'noticeable' difference in 'real world' use over a regular 2.5" SSD? (I only really use my PC to surf, use Word and encode the odd mp3 file)
scattman84 to Naith
12 Jun 171#8
in your situation, I wouldn't even bother thinking about one of these to be honest.
K1LLER_HORNET to Naith
12 Jun 17#9
There will be no noticeable difference.
ro53ben to Naith
13 Jun 171#12
PCI-E storage is massively quicker but you won't see much benefit at all for your usage.
EcumenicalMatter to Naith
14 Jun 17#25
It will improve your life immeasurably. In fact, buy two and configure them for RAID. Members of the opposite/same (delete as appropriate) sex will flock to you just because of this*.
* Results may vary.
Oneday77
13 Jun 17#14
Don't get me wrong. I know these are faster than SSD and newer tech. However i love how they charge more for physically less product. Smaller formfactor, no case and less interfacing
EndlessWaves to Oneday77
13 Jun 171#15
On the other hand the higher binning on the flash, tighter manufacturing tolerances for the higher speeds and lower production runs for the PCI-E controller chips.
I'd be pretty confident these cost more to make than 2.5" SATA drives, although probably not this much more of course.
taras to Oneday77
14 Jun 17#24
Sata ssd drives are physically the same size - different dimension but more or less the same size. Cases on m.2 format drives is a no no due to to heat.
"less interfacing" !!!!! I'm sorry but this drive uses pcie 2/3 x4 interface in a smaller package, it requires a higher tolelrence than sata interfacing ..
Also these drives are using 48 layer nand, when we go to 72 layer nand, we will see even smaller packaging .. it should also mean that prices will fall .
Sorry but your post is totally miss informative ..
kowalski
13 Jun 17#21
just bought one of these for my NUC this week from Amazon UK for £220. doh.
TomScrut to kowalski
13 Jun 17#23
Wow you're treating the NUC aren't you?
I would have snapped this up if I had the brass at the moment. Just got a new motherboard and cooler so the pot is empty!
kowalski
13 Jun 17#22
coming up as EUR 229.00 on Amazon Germany now for me (~£201.19)
950 EVO 1TB = 150GB over 5 years.
960 EVO 1TB = 400TB over 3 years.
The 950 has the longer warranty but a much lower endurance rating.
malachi
13 Jun 17#19
Nope, Ive just upgraded my PC to an Ryzen 1700. Went from an SATA 2.5 SSD to Evo 960 Evo NVMe. The Evo is going back, 2 sec difference in boot time, not worth the extra. Will get a bigger size when NVMe is cheaper next year.
dreamcat4
13 Jun 17#18
Yeah sure I agree with all of that... its not going to be noticed enough the difference in performance for typical user to matter. And that is fine. Actually we can disregard the performance entirely = I'm totally OK with that.
However I felt I needed to come back and more clearly highlight what I think is more the matter here. My 'main beef', as it were:
* The actual NAND wear lifetime of the SM961 product is much higher than this 960 evo model. Who has the same endurance as MX300. This is even less than the previous 850 evo model, for which it replaces.
Now while the endurance rating of a Crucial MX300 is acceptable. It is not what most users typically expect from Samsung, or is commonly assumed of a Samsung drive. And its also nothing as good as the previous older MLC models of Crucial drives either. So it is not as-if Samsung is the only manufacturer playing this game of reducing the endurance: Crucial set the precedent of this long before Samsung. (with bringing out their underwhelming BX--- line).
So, I just think given the relative higher expense of the 960 evo, (compared to e.g. MX300 and similar SATA ones). That its not a BAD drive for regular user. Its just this makes it over-priced for what you are paying. When the better endurance is actually a major selling poing / feature of all other premium SSDs. So why do so many people make an exception for the 960 evo? You all just didn't know about it? Or its because you don't actually care about it? (until one day in the future, and your disk stops working?)
Because all this advertising / positioning as some sort of prosumer or kinnda 'premium' type component. The endurance rating of the disk should at least be mentioned in a fair manner. To makes people aware that (relative to other products) it may be a weaker aspect of the drive.
And that is really why I said you might want to buy the OEM drive PM961 instead of this one. Being a 'better product'. Not because it is a 'faster product'.
Actually, if this model had a similar endurance as the previous 850 evo it replaces (which is also 3d tlc BTW). Then I wouldn't have even bothered mentioning any of this. Since then it would actually have a pretty stellar endurance.
Sp0oner
13 Jun 17#17
I've got one of these in my XPS and it's great wish it had been this price 2 months ago as I paid £230 for it.
The_Hoff
13 Jun 171#16
The SM9XX drives will run the same driver and fairly sure the magician software will run too.
I've got this as my OS/Apps drive and versus the 950 EVO that I used for this purpose previously it makes very little difference. Unless you're running specific workflows I'd save your money.
Evoflash
13 Jun 17#13
It's 1TB, vs 512GB.
TeamGSpurs
13 Jun 17#11
Price could be much better if we don't have these playful politicians....... think about 1 pound = 2 Euro back then...... :confused:
GwanGy
12 Jun 171#10
Not supported by Samsung , so no drivers and other samsung software will not recognize it so no secure rease or rapid etc etc. also 344 is a lot more than 188
dreamcat4
12 Jun 17#7
Well Novatech are reporting 17 units of 1TB PM961 @ #344.08 GBP
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
UK price is around £220.00 at the moment.
500GB Samsung 960 Evo,
V-NAND,
M.2 PCIe Gen 3.0 x4,
3200MB/s Read, 1800MB/s Write
Top comments
Better not show you the total for my pc parts.
Latest comments (28)
* Results may vary.
I'd be pretty confident these cost more to make than 2.5" SATA drives, although probably not this much more of course.
"less interfacing" !!!!! I'm sorry but this drive uses pcie 2/3 x4 interface in a smaller package, it requires a higher tolelrence than sata interfacing ..
Also these drives are using 48 layer nand, when we go to 72 layer nand, we will see even smaller packaging .. it should also mean that prices will fall .
Sorry but your post is totally miss informative ..
I would have snapped this up if I had the brass at the moment. Just got a new motherboard and cooler so the pot is empty!
according to Camels it was EUR 199 (~£174.84) yesterday
https://de.camelcamelcamel.com/Samsung-MZ-V6E500BW-Interne-Solid-schwarz/product/B01M20VBU7
960 EVO 1TB = 400TB over 3 years.
The 950 has the longer warranty but a much lower endurance rating.
However I felt I needed to come back and more clearly highlight what I think is more the matter here. My 'main beef', as it were:
* The actual NAND wear lifetime of the SM961 product is much higher than this 960 evo model. Who has the same endurance as MX300. This is even less than the previous 850 evo model, for which it replaces.
Now while the endurance rating of a Crucial MX300 is acceptable. It is not what most users typically expect from Samsung, or is commonly assumed of a Samsung drive. And its also nothing as good as the previous older MLC models of Crucial drives either. So it is not as-if Samsung is the only manufacturer playing this game of reducing the endurance: Crucial set the precedent of this long before Samsung. (with bringing out their underwhelming BX--- line).
So, I just think given the relative higher expense of the 960 evo, (compared to e.g. MX300 and similar SATA ones). That its not a BAD drive for regular user. Its just this makes it over-priced for what you are paying. When the better endurance is actually a major selling poing / feature of all other premium SSDs. So why do so many people make an exception for the 960 evo? You all just didn't know about it? Or its because you don't actually care about it? (until one day in the future, and your disk stops working?)
Because all this advertising / positioning as some sort of prosumer or kinnda 'premium' type component. The endurance rating of the disk should at least be mentioned in a fair manner. To makes people aware that (relative to other products) it may be a weaker aspect of the drive.
And that is really why I said you might want to buy the OEM drive PM961 instead of this one. Being a 'better product'. Not because it is a 'faster product'.
Actually, if this model had a similar endurance as the previous 850 evo it replaces (which is also 3d tlc BTW). Then I wouldn't have even bothered mentioning any of this. Since then it would actually have a pretty stellar endurance.
I've got this as my OS/Apps drive and versus the 950 EVO that I used for this purpose previously it makes very little difference. Unless you're running specific workflows I'd save your money.
also 344 is a lot more than 188
https://www.novatech.co.uk/products/samsung-pm961-polaris-1tb-m-2-pcie-3-0-x4-nvme-high-performance-ssd/mzvlw1t0hmlh-00000.html
So isn't that about the same price/GB for much better product?
Better not show you the total for my pc parts.
well spotted.