Samsung 960 EVO 500GB M.2-2280 PCI-E 3.0 x4 NVMe SSD (R/3200, W/1800) £188.12 @ amazon.de
238°Expired

Samsung 960 EVO 500GB M.2-2280 PCI-E 3.0 x4 NVMe SSD (R/3200, W/1800) £188.12 @ amazon.de

28
Found 12th JunMade hot 13th Jun
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.

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

28 Comments

Silly money... I mean I'm sure it's fantastic and all that but wow!

what a lovely monster indeed!.

well spotted.

Great price. I paid £110 for my 250GB.

api182

Silly money... I mean I'm sure it's fantastic and all that but wow!



Better not show you the total for my pc parts.

Anyone know if this plays well with the m.2 slots on Z97 boards?

Original Poster

mikedigitales

Anyone know if this plays well with the m.2 slots on Z97 boards?



You will get around 1000mb/s r/w as Z97 m2 slot operate at pcie 1x only. Or something like that.

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)

Well Novatech are reporting 17 units of 1TB PM961 @ #344.08 GBP

novatech.co.uk/pro…tml

So isn't that about the same price/GB for much better product?

Naith

Can someone tell me if you see a 'noticeable' difference in 'real world' … 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)



​in your situation, I wouldn't even bother thinking about one of these to be honest.

Naith

Can someone tell me if you see a 'noticeable' difference in 'real world' … 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)



There will be no noticeable difference.

So isn't that about the same price/GB for much better product?


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

Price could be much better if we don't have these playful politicians....... think about 1 pound = 2 Euro back then...... oO

Naith16 h, 39 m ago

Can someone tell me if you see a 'noticeable' difference in 'real world' …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)


PCI-E storage is massively quicker but you won't see much benefit at all for your usage.

GwanGy

Not supported by Samsung , so no drivers and other samsung software will … 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


It's 1TB, vs 512GB.

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

Oneday77

Don't get me wrong. I know these are faster than SSD and newer tech. … 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



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.

GwanGy

Not supported by Samsung , so no drivers and other samsung software will … 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



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.

Edited by: "The_Hoff" 13th Jun

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

The SM9XX drives will run the same driver and fairly sure the magician … 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.



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.

scattman84

in your situation, I wouldn't even bother thinking about one of these to … in your situation, I wouldn't even bother thinking about one of these to be honest.



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.
Edited by: "malachi" 13th Jun

dreamcat4

Yeah sure I agree with all of that... its not going to be noticed enough … 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.


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.

just bought one of these for my NUC this week from Amazon UK for £220. doh.

coming up as EUR 229.00 on Amazon Germany now for me (~£201.19)

according to Camels it was EUR 199 (~£174.84) yesterday
de.camelcamelcamel.com/Sam…BU7
Edited by: "kowalski" 13th Jun

kowalski

just bought one of these for my NUC this week from Amazon UK for £220. … just bought one of these for my NUC this week from Amazon UK for £220. doh.



​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!

Oneday77

Don't get me wrong. I know these are faster than SSD and newer tech. … 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



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 ..
Edited by: "taras" 14th Jun

Naith

Can someone tell me if you see a 'noticeable' difference in 'real world' … 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)



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.

EcumenicalMatter

It will improve your life immeasurably. In fact, buy two and configure … 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.



the intel x99 motherboards are unstable with these in raid 0

EcumenicalMatter

It will improve your life immeasurably. In fact, buy two and configure … 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.



the intel x99 motherboards are unstable with these in raid 0

I raid 0'd 2 of these and got a reasonable hike in write speeds but read stayed around 3,300MB/s.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text