Samsung quietly added its 4 TB 850 EVO SSD model to the product to the lineup back in May (according to its own datasheet) without making any formal announcements. Earlier this month the company lifted the embargo on reviews of the product (you can read ours here) and began to ship the high-capacity SSD to its partners. By now, all the major retailers already either have the product in stock, or are taking pre-orders with ETA about a week from today, at a US MSRP of $1499.

The Samsung SSD 850 EVO 4 TB (MZ-75E4T0) comes in a 2.5”/7 mm form-factor with SATA interface and is based on the company’s TLC V-NAND memory (3D, 32-layers). The 850 EVO 4 TB drive is based on the MHX controller and is equipped with 4 GB of LPDDR3 cache (previously we were told we knew about the MHX ASIC supported 2GB max, which is interesting). Like the rest members of the 850 EVO family, the 4 TB model fully supports 256-bit full disk encryption that is compatible with the TCG/Opal 2.0 and IEEE1667 specifications, which is important for workstation users.

Samsung SSD 850 EVO Specifications
Capacity 120 GB 250 GB 500 GB 1 TB 2 TB 4 TB
Controller MGX MEX MHX
NAND Samsung 32-layer 128 Gbit TLC V-NAND
DRAM 256 MB 512 MB 1 GB 2 GB 4 GB
Sequential Read 540 MB/s
Sequential Write 520 MB/s
4KB Random Read 94K IOPS 97K IOPS 98K IOPS
4KB Random Write 88K IOPS 88K IOPS 90K IOPS
DevSleep Power  2 mW 2 mW 2 mW 4 mW 5 mW 10 mW
Slumber Power  50mW 60mW unknown
Active Power (Read/Write) Max 3.7W / 4.4W 3.7W / 4.7W 3.1W / 3.6W
Encryption AES-256, TCG Opal 2.0, IEEE-1667 (eDrive)
Endurance 75 TB 150 TB 300 TB
Warranty Five years

As for performance, the Samsung 850 EVO 4 TB drive resembles other higher-end models in the 850 EVO family. The manufacturer declares maximum sequential read speed of 540 MB/s as well as maximum sequential write speed of 520 MB/s for the SSD. As for random performance, the drive delivers a top speed of 98,000/90,000 4K random read/write IOPS. Maximum power consumption of the drive is 3.1 W/3.6 W during active read/write operations, which is also in line with the rest of the high-end 850 EVO SSDs.

Right now, virtually all the biggest retailers in the world already have the Samsung 850 EVO 4 TB in stock, or, at least, list the drive and take pre-orders. We could say that the highest-capacity consumer-class SSD is now widely available, however, we should note that in many stores the first batch was sold out immediately and some only have several units left.

Samsung SSD 850 EVO 4 TB (MZ-75E4T0B) Availability
As of 7/22 9am
Retailer Country Local Price Price in USD In Stock
Amazon U.S. $1,499 $1,499 July 31, 2016
B&H Photo Video U.S. $1,499 $1,499 Ships in 7-10 days
CDW U.S. $1,648 $1,648 Yes
Fry's Electronics U.S. $1,499 $1,499 August 1, 2016
Newegg U.S. $1,499 $1,499 July 31, 2016
NCIX Canada CAD $1,920 $1,468 Ships in 1-2 weeks
 
Amazon UK U.K. £1,200 $1,570 July 30, 2016
Overclockers UK U.K. £1,200 $1,570 6 in stock
Scan U.K. £1,283 $1,680 Yes
 
Amazon DE Germany €1,299 $1,413 1 in stock
Amazon ES Spain €1,605 $1,768 Yes
Amazon FR France €1,502 $1,654 6 in stock
Alternate Austria €1,399 $1,541 July 28, 2016
BA Computer Austria €1,391 $1,532 July 29, 2016
Bora Computer Germany €1,379 $1,519 5 in stock
CaseKing Germany €1,480 $1,630 Yes
 
CineMagic Denmark 10,782 kr $1,596 Yes
Komplett Sweden 13,799 kr $1,598 Incoming
Misco Sweden 11,382 kr $1,318 Yes

The Samsung EVO SSD with 4 TB capacity has MSRP of $1,499 in the US, and the high price indicates that this remains a prosumer play at this point. At $1,499, the price is over two times higher than the 2 TB 850 EVO model ($675.76 at Newegg), indicating a higher cost per GB in exchange for density. Ultimately the product will likely find its buyer among those who need a large amount of solid-state storage (in 2.5"/7mm form-factor).

Other Options, Mainly for Enterprise

Typically SSDs of such capacity are designed for servers and datacenters and come with professional grade features which makes them even more expensive. For example, the SanDisk Optimus Max 4 TB (SAS) is available for $2,685 at Amazon and for $2,718 at Ebay. Likewise, Samsung’s own enterprise-grade PM863 3.84 TB SSD (SATA) has suggested price of $2,200, whereas its faster PM1633 3.84 TB (SAS) brother is sold for $3,092. Moreover, if you go to companies like Fixstars or Foremay, they build special-purpose SSDs for various non-PC applications. These products typically aren't even quoted for pricing, because they can feature different configurations and the order quantity affects the pricing, along with any support deal.

Nonetheless, when it comes to performance, capacity, endurance and price, the sky is the limit for solid-state storage. Multiple companies (including Samsung and Fixstars) now offer 2.5” SSDs with over 10 TB capacity and there are specialized solutions (such as those from HPE) that can easily cost $10,000 and north. In short, $1,499 may not be that expensive for a consumer drive.

POST A COMMENT

29 Comments

View All Comments

  • xstylus - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link

    What ever happened to Mushkin's 4TB SSD drive that was touted around the start of this year for $500? Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link

    Is there any chance of HPE/etc letting a few of their crazy SSDs out for review? I'd be interested both in raw performance numbers from the standard SSD benches and in what Johan could do with a few to see how much they speed up various server applications. Reply
  • SkiBum1207 - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link

    I second that request! We still maintain some bare-metal database servers, and having some enterprise level benchmarks would be excellent! Reply
  • lilmoe - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link

    $1600.................... Imagine what you could get for $1600. This is consumer hardware for crying out loud.

    Sammy's been keeping lots of riches lately; best performing drives, great reliability, and the lowest cost BoM in all/most segments with higher than average prices (ie: highest margins).

    I seriously HATE how they're playing a major role in fixing prices at those extremely high levels. Like seriously? Double the space is DOUBLE the cost? I don't buy this one bit, even if it's first gen 48 layer NAND. Early adoption has its limits, 3D NAND can be considered mature now, newer tech in fabrication should be used to lower costs IMMEDIATELY, not milk the consumer.
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link

    Being new tech it probably is lower yield and has more unrecovered upfront R&D costs (that the mature 32 layer vnand has already long since recovered from early adopters). If anything is remarkable it should be that while clearly in low rate initial production (if it was yielding as good as the older production lines they'd be switching them over much faster and launching at mainstream sizes too) for a halo product that they're not charging a premium for it that would make it *MORE* expensive than RAID0ing a pair of 2 TB drives. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link

    Double the space is double the price because the cost to make one is double. SSD pricing doesn't scale like HDDs because high capacity SSDs simply contain more NAND chips. Reply
  • lilmoe - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link

    Does double the capacity mean double the silicon? We're talking 48 layer here. Isn't the cost of the controller relatively the same? Or does that double as well? Reply
  • wavetrex - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link

    Definitely milking. It's not even double the amount of chips... actually the quantity of silicon is the same, they're just using higher columns of 3D nand. Same controller, same packaging, same transport/handling...
    It's probably costing them ... let's say, 25% more to build.

    However, those research costs need to be recovered and the shareholders kept happy, right?
    "Send us your moneyz, peasants !"
    Reply
  • Impulses - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link

    Not even... Probably... Let's say... Sounds like you've got a firm grasp on the logistics involved. Reply
  • lilmoe - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link

    Also, this isn't double the cost, it's significantly MORE than double................................ Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now