Samsung 840 EVO SSD slow down issue - not actually solved.

[GoodBytes]

Samsung e-mail the media that it acknowledges that the performance drop over time of old data written on the Samsung 840 EVO SSD is actually not fixed yet.

 

 

The company states:

 

 

In October, Samsung released a tool to address a slowdown in 840 EVO Sequential Read speeds reported by a small number of users after not using their drive for an extended period of time. This tool effectively and immediately returned the drive’s performance to normal levels. We understand that some users are experiencing the slowdown again. While we continue to look into the issue, Samsung will release an updated version of the Samsung SSD Magician software in March that will include a performance restoration tool.

To be clear, the performance restoration tool is something you'll need to execute every now and then to keep the performance of the 840 EVO up and running with the same original performance.

Basically it is a workaround until Samsung figures it out, if it can.

 

The performance drop of the 840 EVO is a combination of TLC NAND cell charge decay and NAND management algorithm issues.

 

Samsung is not saying what is the cause of the problem, and only that they are still investigating.

 

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8997/samsung-releases-statement-on-840-evo-performance-another-fix-is-in-the-works

[CoolaxGaming]

Um surprisingly it is faster for me since it came. Seems like random read/write is going up instead of down.

If this is true, I am fking done with samsung

[79wjd]

So can I file a class action lawsuit? 

[CoolaxGaming]

So can I file a class action lawsuit? 

Yup, I am filling all the forms right now...

[The Pizza Thief]

Did I missed something again? Should I download some software to make improvements to my SSD?

[GoodBytes]

Um surprisingly it is faster for me since it came. Seems like random read/write is going up instead of down.

If this is true, I am fking done with samsung

Using TLC chip was the mistake. It was not a good idea since day 1, but Samsung insisted they could do it. They fixed the problem of performance, but only looked at the short term. They forgot that NAND naturally drop in performance, and TLC NAND which was initially designed for applications like USB flash drive, is not good enough for SSDs.

[GoodBytes]

Did I missed something again? Should I download some software to make improvements to my SSD?

Next month there will be a "performance restoration" tool that Samsung will include in it's SSD software, which is something you'll need to run every now and then when performance drops.

[The Pizza Thief]

Next month there will be a "performance restoration" tool that Samsung will include in it's SSD software, which is something you'll need to run every now and then when performance drops.

Thanks for the info!

[Victorious Secret]

Next month there will be a "performance restoration" tool that Samsung will include in it's SSD software, which is something you'll need to run every now and then when performance drops.

 

So its the SSD equivalent of defragging for Samsung? Not that great a sign. Then again, I've recommended people to go for Crucial drives if they want the best GB/$ number and still get pretty decent performance. 

 

So can I file a class action lawsuit? 

 

What you did there, I saw it. And I lol'd.

[Deli]

SSD requires regular defragmentation to maintain performance is just sucks. I think Samsung should issue a product recall.

 

Sweet Jesus, I have two in my systems.

[GoodBytes]

I always recommended to stay away of TLC NAND based SSDs. Unless, as they are so cheap, for a computer that is used for like web surfing and using Office. That was before I knew about the issue. I seriously expected that the TLC chips would start failing after a few years, due to their limited writes compared to other NAND technology like MLC, especially synchronous MLC which I have in my system (so fast, so durable!).

But, this problem came to be.

[Shyxlol]

So can I file a class action lawsuit? 

 

I obviously understand the joke but this is actually pissing me off a lot. I bought a 512GB one because there was a nice deal on it and everything else in comparison was a lot more expensive. I was too concerned about it being useless due to the writes etc. But I wanted that thing to last for a while.

I don't have a 970. But a SSD/HDD is supposed to last. This is worse than the 970 situation if you ask me.

[79wjd]

I obviously understand the joke but this is actually pissing me off a lot. I bought a 512GB one because there was a nice deal on it and everything else in comparison was a lot more expensive. I was too concerned about it being useless due to the writes etc. But I wanted that thing to last for a while.

I don't have a 970. But a SSD/HDD is supposed to last. This is worse than the 970 situation if you ask me.

Well, considering how 840 Evos are over a year old, I wouldn't worry about it too much. 

[Humbug]

Pcper testing also confirmed it was not fixed yet a few weeks ago.

Amazingly we still find people in the storage sub-forum recommending these drives; even with the huge variety of other options available in the market.

[Trik'Stari]

Glad I went with the 840 pro instead.

 

So can I file a class action lawsuit? 

Yup, I am filling all the forms right now...

 

Yeah...an issue that the manufacturer wasn't aware of is somewhat forgivable, one that the manufacturer created and purposefully lied about is different. Grow up.

[Just Monika]

Still glad I went with the 840 Pro for my OS drive despite then-popular recommendations for the 840 Evo. I have an 840 Evo myself for game storage so this issue won't be too bad, by the time the slowdown happens I'll probably be done with the game.

[patrickjp93]

Glad I went with the 840 pro instead.

 

 

Yeah...an issue that the manufacturer wasn't aware of is somewhat forgivable, one that the manufacturer created and purposefully lied about is different. Grow up.

Oh my God... you really think Samsung didn't know this could happen to TLC NAND? Exactly how long have TLC USBs existed? 8 years! This has been a problem with TLC NAND for a very long time. You consider Nvidia to be the devil that could not have possibly let a clerical error get through, but you're sure Samsung didn't suspect they could have a problem when it existed in flash drives for half a decade before???!!!

[Trik'Stari]

Oh my God... you really think Samsung didn't know this could happen to TLC NAND? Exactly how long have TLC USBs existed? 8 years! This has been a problem with TLC NAND for a very long time. You consider Nvidia to be the devil that could not have possibly let a clerical error get through, but you're sure Samsung didn't suspect they could have a problem when it existed in flash drives for half a decade before???!!!

I'm giving them the benefit of a doubt because they wouldn't gain anything from specifically engineering this into the SSD on purpose, whereas Nvidia purposefully handicapped the 970 and then lied about it. Fanboy elsewhere.

 

Suspecting you could have a problem with a product, is different from specifically creating that problem in order to prevent it from overlapping your more expensive product.

[Dabombinable]

I just had a look at the comments- that is just bad, I can't believe that some people see (they didn't show an SS of the actual speeds) speeds as low as 100MB/sec or even 50MB/sec. Even my 9 year old SATA 1 2.5" HDD is faster than that (up to 109MB/sec 2 years ago).

[Yoinkerman]

I think samsung is handling it decently well, or at least they haven't dropped the ball.  

 

It's quite a pickle though I don't know how they're going to get out of it.  Probably just write a firmware upgrade that rewrites the drive monthly or something.  I don't think they can fix the hardware issue.

[79wjd]

I'm giving them the benefit of a doubt because they wouldn't gain anything from specifically engineering this into the SSD on purpose, whereas Nvidia purposefully handicapped the 970 and then lied about it. Fanboy elsewhere.

 

Suspecting you could have a problem with a product, is different from specifically creating that problem in order to prevent it from overlapping your more expensive product.

What exactly does Nvidia have to gain by lying? Other than tainting their reputation. 

 

Samsung is no less guilty than Nvidia. 

[Trik'Stari]

What exactly does Nvidia have to gain by lying? Other than tainting their reputation. 

 

Samsung is no less guilty than Nvidia. 

Using an inferior product is different from creating a great product, and then handicapping it to prevent it from competing with a more expensive product. Nvidia purposefully changed the 970 design in order to prevent it from taking away potential profits on the 980. It's called market segmentation.

 

Yes, you could argue that Samsung intentionally used an inferior product, but thats still more honest than purposefully handicapping a decent product and then lying about it. And by all appearances, samsung is trying to find a way to fix it, whereas all Nvidia has done is basically say "Fuck you, we got your money bitch"

[patrickjp93]

I'm giving them the benefit of a doubt because they wouldn't gain anything from specifically engineering this into the SSD on purpose, whereas Nvidia purposefully handicapped the 970 and then lied about it. Fanboy elsewhere.

 

Suspecting you could have a problem with a product, is different from specifically creating that problem in order to prevent it from overlapping your more expensive product.

Oh FFS! It's market segmentation! Every single chipmaker does it! You're handling this without any sound logic. Intel shaves cores and clocks; AMD and Nvidia shave SMMs/render units, memory bus width, and more! One documentation error and you're pissed all of a sudden? Welcome to the real world! products are gimped for 2 reasons:

1) not every consumer can afford or is willing to pay the top amount of money for the top amount of performance/quality regardless of the product  

2) Producers do want to make profit on the things they make. Hence, to deal with array of budgets and demands, a variety of products are offered.

 

Market segmentation 101. Nvidia didn't do it to take profits away from the 980s. It's specifically about getting more people to buy. Not everyone is willing to pay the price for the 980, so it needs a card at a lower price point, but it doesn't want 980 owners getting mad that performance is too close. So it slices and dices, just like AMD does. Only this time the documentation had 1 tiny mistake. Now all of a sudden it's pitchforks and torches? Economists are wrong about at least 1 thing: consumers are NOT rational despite the initial claim.

[GoodBytes]

Using an inferior product is different from creating a great product, and then handicapping it to prevent it from competing with a more expensive product. Nvidia purposefully changed the 970 design in order to prevent it from taking away potential profits on the 980. It's called market segmentation.

No. Nvdia didn't do this. The way it works, is that no one knows the specs of the 970, 960, and all that. The engineers work on the fancy GeForce model, so the 980. When sent to production, the chip made are received back to Nvidia for testing. the ones that gets the 100% Pass, are the 980. The broken ones, an "average lowest common denominator" if you will, is made, and that start blowing some fuses on the ones that are less broken so that they are all the same, and voila: 970., Then the take the reminder, repeat the process, and you have the 960. Drivers are adapted for the lower end card. work around solution is made at the driver level for some none working properly features to make them operate correctly, and what these final specs are sent to the marketing team, and the chips are send to manufactures.

So really, the people that worked on the chip, have 0 idea of the actual specs of the 970, 960, and so on, and basically learn about it once released (beside the people that are part of the team in making the lower end models), hence why no one at Nvidia raised a flag.

Handicaping a GPU on purpose is idiotic. The economic doesn't add up. They could have sold the 970 for 50$ cheaper or even 20$ less. than the 980. Now they would make even more money. It's not like AMD is any competing product, or have market domination.

[ComradeHX]

Well shit.

Better give my 250GB one away on PCMR and go buy a 850EVO. /s