Hi guys!

After a long discussion in the SSD thread we started looking for alternative better SSDs that provide better performance with better power efficiency. We are still resting Intel SSD 600p for power consumption but after studying the SSD thread we realize that there are better options out there. This is great learning for our next project! We will make sure to provide all of the information to community at all time next time :slight_smile:

Now we need some of your help here!

We are now finding out availability and pricing of the following SSDs. Let us know what other SSDs we should add to the list.

We are looking for:

Samsung Evo 850
Samsung Evo 950
Samsung Evo 960
Samsung SM/PM 961 and 951

###Added based on discussion:

Crucial MX300

Sorted by importance based on discussion:

  1. Evo 850
  2. Crucial MX300
  3. Samsung 950 /960
  4. Samsung PM/SM 961

Let us know if we should concider other options.
In the SSD discussion we saw a lot of great suggestions but many of those SSDs were coming from not so known brands that are harder to buy in big volume from as well as get support from.
So please suggest other SSDs we should look for with similar performance to Intel 600P.

We need 2280 form factor.



@Konstantinos In the event of the community deciding on a more expensive SSD than the 600P how would this increase in cost be handled?

My vote goes for the Samsung Evo 850 for its power efficiency, but I wouldn’t mind a much faster SSD like the Evo 960 for a small power comsumption hit.


No time right now, but I prefer the most power effective drive.

Since it was asked in the SSD thread: this means SATA and PCIe are possible, otherwise 850 Evo would not be possible.


@Mike made the following statement:

I believe the case is made (to at least look into it). And I agree with you, it should be the most power effective SSD (unless there is a scenario where we have a 1% increase in power consumption for a let’s say 20%+ increase in performance). I’m leaning towards the 850evo due to it’s proven record.


Great to hear that you are hearing the community :wink: For me it actually doesn’t matter. I don’t think that I will need that much battery life, and I also don’t need that the difference in speed of the SSD is noticeable.


As some other have noted, I think power efficiency will be seen as priority, but with some understanding of a small hit if the performance difference is a significant difference!

I was trying to look at Anandtech’s review for the Power consumption numbers on the 960 EVO, but it sounds like they have to disable some of the power saving features, so I’m not sure what this would translate to in the V:


vs their reported consumption (under “Environment”):


Vs the 600p numbers


Any idea what we would be using on our m.2? Or are the Anandtech test figures a good comparison?


I think Anandtech’s results should be accurate enough, you can really see how much more efficient the 850 Evo is compared to the 600P. Regarding Evo 960 vs 600P, I understood that the 960 Evo consumes less power while idle but a lot more when its active, which is in part offset by the shorter time needed to process and transfer files as the 960 Evo is very fast.


In my personal opinion the list seems adequate and tends to be complete. The brand is leading at the moment while the drives, since popular, are widely used (and tested) and well supported.

Briefly I point out some (perhaps already mentioned) observations regarding the SSD’s in that list.

  • The PM951 and Pro950 are perhaps not available any longer as they are superseded by PM961 and Pro960 accordingly. This leaves Evo850, Evo960, Pro960, and PM961.

  • Sorted by price and performance too (+ for price, * for speed):

    • Evo850 (+) < PM961 (+) < Evo960 (++) < Pro960 (+++****)
  • The Evo850 has a SATA interface, even in PCIe (x2) mode, so its max speed is at 540/500 MB/s. Costs the same as the P600, and P600 reads twice as fast.

  • The Pro/Evo 960 and PM961 are exactly the same hardware with the same Polaris controller, which consumes a x4 lane PCIe. They are locked into different performances to justify the price category of each.

    • Additionally, the main difference of the PM, is that it was intended for OEMs mainly where a) the energy footprint, performance and cost, were lowered, so as to meet the needs of portable devices, while still adding an edge towards the competition for each OEM. Moreover the PM drives, are firmware locked into that specification, and also not firmware upgradable, while the consumer-oriented siblings (Evo/Pro) are firmware upgradable, configurable, and with strong windows drivers support).
  • Idle consumption is approximately equal for all drives, including the Intel P600, at 0.04-5W. The truth is the Samsung drives are quite power hungry. I’m not at all sure what kind of impact their drain might have in the battery life of the V.

If we exclude the energy impact and consider the price/performance ratio, I believe the Evo960 would be the best choice, as for some 40-60$ extra than the P600, it delivers 2xRead and 4xWrite speeds than the P600. Again, not considering the energy consumption.


Is it not a case where the Evo 960 uses less power per IOPS or MB r/w due to the faster speed than the 850?


I think generally in idle or active state the 850 uses less power but you may be correct when thinking about power consumption per IOPS or MB R/W since the 960 is 3-4 times faster than the 850, which in turn makes the 960 EVO require much more power.


I believe the top three contenders in the SSD thread were the MX300, 850 EVO and 600P. @Konstantinos, is the MX300 completely out of the question due to not being available in a ~128GB capacity?

My preference would be

  1. Crucial MX300 (an incredible mix of performance and battery life)
  2. Samsung 850 EVO (a good mix of performance and battery life)
  3. Intel 600P (a good all-round competitor, but moreso on AC power. Great battery life for NVMe)
  4. Samsung PM961 (a speed monster on AC power, but more battery drain)

This, based on the extensive stream of information and discussion that took place in the SSD thread.


Noting that we are now considering more expensive SSDs, are we considering a price increase for backers, or does Eve have a high enough margin that it can bear the increased cost of a more expensive SSD?

I think we need to be mindful that it would be very difficult to force a price increase on backers for a better SSD (eg the Evo 960). Many backers just won’t be happy with being asked to pay more for something which they didn’t choose: they chose to pay $x based on the specs provided.


Do you know the PM-equivalent of the 850 EVO? I researched and found PM871 and PM851, not quite sure which one it is.

As someone from the SSD thread, I agree.

Id add Plextor M8Pe, as it seems to be the most power efficient NVMe drive, though it performs slower when running on battery than the 600p.

For maximum battery life, I am still convinced that DRAM-less is the way to go. We have the options of SanDisk Z400s (not available in 500 GB) and Mushkin Atlas Vital from big corporations. MyDigitalSSD Super Boot 2 if you want to try lesser-known brands.


i am also leaning towards to 850 evo. less power consumption.
but let’s make it first clear if we have to pay extra for the 960/950 evo …
everybody has paid a specific price for a X specific hardware.And many of us won’t be happy to pay extra for something we didn’t choose


Hi @ganny! We would make an update at our cost. To tell you the truth we are not having much of a margin on Indiegogo pricing. But we will raise prices in the future as promised.

So to summarize we will not charge you anything extra.
@Patrick_Hermawan , @Helios what do you guys think of 960 Evo?


It doesnt fare exactly well in term of battery life, here’s a chart that @Pacman made, covering almost all popular SSDs on the market.

For those whos never seen this chart before:

  • The speed is measured when running on battery using MobileMark 2014. As you can see, some devices slow down more than the other. Generally PCIe / NVMe drives slow down a lot.
  • The battery life is tested on Lenovo Y700, a large laptop where SSD power consumption plays a smaller role than it is on the Eve V
  • Data taken from Tom’s Hardware reviews

Moreover, the pricing seems to be on the higher side, and IMO the performance benefit for this type of devices is not worth the cost (even though I am not being charged for it)


Well, in 2015 that would have been the PM871 I guess.


I’d leave as a caveat that the battery performance would still have to meet with the set ‘12 hours guaranteed’ all-day battery life. I don’t think that’s something we can compromise on. Once that metric is met, however, I’m all for performance form that point. I don’t want a slower SSD if it can get me 13 hours, but I’ll not want a faster SSD if it drops us to 11 hours, so to speak. The 12 hours was a promise to your buyers.

That in mind, I’d totally accept a 960 EVO. It’s performance when plugged in is awesome (and for heavier tasks it’s more likely that the V is plugged in and on a desk somewhere).


You see, you can measure battery life in many different ways :smile: it really depends on the kind of usage you have, so everyone’s results will vary.


In the promotional material, Eve made claims that other manufacturers ‘claim to get X hours, but only get Y hours in reality’, but the V ‘claims 12 hours and actually gets 12 hours’. So… by that standard, whichever standard that was. Because that’s the standard they were building to.