After an accidental leak in November that was spotted by our friends at Tom's Hardware, the Samsung 750 EVO has now officially launched worldwide. Since the introduction of their first consumer TLC SSD with the 840, Samsung's consumer/retail SATA SSD lineup has consisted of two product families: the MLC-based Pro drives, and the TLC-based 840 and EVO drives. With the 750 EVO, Samsung is creating a new budget-oriented product line that makes them a participant in the race to the bottom that they had been avoiding by positioning the 850 EVO as a mid-range SSD.

There are several design choices that help minimize the cost of the 750 EVO, aside from the expected choice of TLC over MLC. The MGX controller it borrows from the lower capacity 850 EVOs is a dual-core version of Samsung's usual triple-core architecture. The 750 EVO will only be available in 120GB and 250GB sizes, so there won't be any sticker shock of higher capacities and the PCB only needs to be large enough to accommodate the needs of the 250GB model. Both capacities are listed as having 256MB of DRAM, where the 850 EVO 250GB has 512MB of DRAM. But the most significant aspect of the 750 EVO is that it doesn't use 3D NAND.

It may come as a surprise that the 750 EVO marks a return to planar NAND. Samsung has proudly led the industry in transitioning to 3D NAND, but they haven't entirely abandoned the development of planar NAND flash. Earlier this month they made two presentations at ISSCC of their R&D accomplishments: one about a 256Gb TLC built on their 48-layer third generation V-NAND process, and one about a 128Gb MLC built on a 14nm process. The 750 EVO uses a 128Gb 16nm TLC, a larger die based on the same process as the 64Gb MLC we found in the SM951.

The 16nm TLC NAND is the successor to Samsung's 19nm TLC that had a troubled tenure in the 840 EVO. More than a year after launch, 840 EVO owners started reporting degraded read speed when accessing old data that had not been written recently. Samsung acknowledged the issue, then provided a firmware update and Performance Restoration tool less than a month later, but had to issue a second firmware update six months after that. The 750 EVO inherits the results of all the work Samsung did to mitigate the read speed degradation, and there's no reason to expect it to be any more susceptible than the competition using similarly dense planar TLC built on Toshiba's 15nm process or Micron's 16nm process.

Samsung TLC SATA SSD Comparison
Drive 750 EVO 120GB 750 EVO 250GB 850 EVO 120GB 850 EVO 250GB
Controller MGX MGX
NAND Samsung 16nm TLC Samsung 32-layer 128Gbit TLC V-NAND
DRAM 256MB 256MB 256MB 512MB
Sequential Read 540MB/s 540MB/s 540MB/s 540MB/s
Sequential Write 520MB/s 520MB/s 520MB/s 520MB/s
4KB Random Read 94K IOPS 97K IOPS 94K IOPS 97K IOPS
4KB Random Write 88K IOPS 88K IOPS 88K IOPS 88K IOPS
4KB Random Read QD1 10K IOPS 10K IOPS 10K IOPS 10K IOPS
4KB Random Write QD1 35K IOPS 35K IOPS 40K IOPS 40K IOPS
DevSleep Power  6mW 2mW
Slumber Power  50mW 50mW
Active Power (Read/Write) 2.1W / 2.4W (Average) 2.4W / 2.8W (Average) Max 3.7W / 4.4W
Encryption AES-256, TCG Opal 2.0, IEEE-1667 (eDrive) AES-256, TCG Opal 2.0, IEEE-1667 (eDrive)
Endurance 35TB 70TB 75TB
Warranty Three years Five years

The 750 EVO's performance specifications are almost identical to the 850 EVOs of the same capacity. The 4kB random write latency is a little bit worse, but read speeds are the same and any other differences in the write performance of the 15nm flash are masked by the SLC write cache. The reduced warranty period of three years is typical for this product segment, and while the write endurance specifications may look quite low, they're sufficient given the capacity and intended use. It's nice to see that the 750 EVO keeps the encryption capabilities fully enabled, as many budget drives lack hardware encryption support.

Given the aforementioned similarities with the 850 EVO, it should come as no surprise that the 750 EVO is in part a replacement. The previously announced and now imminent migration to Samsung's 48-layer V-NAND won't apply to the 120GB 850 EVO, as the 256Gb per die capacity would mean building a drive with only four flash chips. That is undesirable from both a performance standpoint and from a packaging standpoint—Samsung will otherwise have no reason to stack fewer than 8 dies per package.

A few online retailers are listing the 750 EVO already, albeit with limited or no stock. The MSRP of $54.99 for the 120GB model and $74.99 for the 250GB model is about $10 cheaper than what the 850 EVO is currently going for, and any sales below MSRP will make for a very competitive price.

Source: Samsung

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • FernanDK - Sunday, March 20, 2016 - link

    yeah! I have a 840 vanilla and it is disgusting the attitude of Samsung towards the early adopters of their product. My 840 performs like shit. Terrible read speeds after 2 3 weeks of normal usage. here's the screenshot =

    Literally millions of users are in the same situation and Samsung continues to ignore it. That tells us who Samsung is. Beware.
  • zodiacfml - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    As mentioned already, this is only Samsung's replacement for the 850 EVOs @ 120 and 250 GB which is why the 750 is only available in these two capacities.
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - link

    A replacement with a much shorter warranty and half the endurance at 120GB. Doesn't make sense.
  • Budburnicus - Friday, March 11, 2016 - link

    Yeah, I JUST bought a 500 GB 850 EVO for just $110 brand new!

    I mean I LOVE Samsung SSDs, but I really have to wonder, what the HELL is the point in the 750 series when the 850 EVOs are already so cheap, and INCREDIBLY FAST! Actually faster in a LOT of ways that the average gamer will benefit from than even the 850 PRO series - due to the SLC Turbo Write cache, which is 6 GB on the 500 GB model that I bought, 3 GB on the 250 and 120. And on top of all that, it even has 512 MB of DDR3L RAM on board!

    I mean, shit at this price - buying ANY new SATA SSD, you would have to be STUPID (Or just plain ignorant of technology - as will most often be the case, not EVERYONE is a Specification nut!) to NOT buy the 850 EVO 500 GB or larger!

    I mean, because of Samsung with their AMAZING performance TLC V-NAND as well as known reliability, the 850 EVO series is basically the BEST consumer SATA 6 SSD - because it maxes out SATA 6!

    With just 2 of the 850 EVO drives, you are looking at a reliable 1 GB/sec read and write! Because pretty much 2 of any of the top performing SATA SSDs will saturate the SATA 6 controller on pretty much any mobo! Though I wonder what would happen if I did that sort of RAID with the ASMedia SATA 6 RAID ports on my ASRock Z77 Extreme4 mobo - they are supposedly faster than the standard SATA 6 RAID controller!

    And if you want the fastest, buy the 950 PRO M.2 drive for INSANE speed!
  • SkipPerk - Wednesday, April 13, 2016 - link

    Well, as drives get cheaper you might as well buy Intel. They are better quality, even if they are a bit slower. I bought an 800 gb 3510 for my office server share drive, as well as a 240 gb 740 for my home gaming PC. I did get an $80 250 gb Samsung 850 EVO, but I am reluctant to swap it in as my gaming boot drive when I have never had an Intel die on me. I think I might simply use it as another gaming SSD (my Toshiba 480gb has been a great gaming SSD along with an Intel 120 gb).

    Oveall as prices decline I almost feel like the best option is to go cheap brand at 1 tb as a STEAM drive and such, or spend a little more to get an Intel SSD you can trust. As for m.2, I cannot imagine the differences are noticeable at that speed. I would simply buy on reliability.
  • jjj - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Toshiba just launched a 15nm TLC budget line
  • rxzlmn - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Just bough a 850 Evo 500GB for 150 Euros. Not sure how much they can undercut the price to justify buying inferior tech when their 850s are already pretty affordable.
  • thope - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    no, need more cheaper. mech hard drives should not be feasible anymore.
  • Zak - Wednesday, February 17, 2016 - link

    Not if "more, cheaper" SSDs are not reliable. Cheap SSDs have problems. Mechanical hard drives still rule as backup media.
  • thope - Thursday, February 18, 2016 - link

    so you are saying cheap hard drives will be better than cheap ssd(s) ?

    seriously? digital vs. mechanical debate?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now