The Intel SSD 760p 512GB Review: Mainstream NVMe Done Right
by Billy Tallis on January 23, 2018 11:30 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.
We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.
The Intel SSD 760p falls on the good side of a big gap in average data rate scores on The Destroyer. Scoring far below the 760p are SATA drives and most earlier entry-level NVMe SSDs. The 760p is a bit slower than some of the drives using planar MLC NAND or 3D TLC NAND, but it is clear that the 760p is capable of handling The Destroyer better than any previous SSD in its price range.
The average and 99th percentile latency scores don't provide the clear separation that the average data rate shows, so the Intel 760p simply looks a bit below average for a NVMe SSD. Given the relative pricing and the poor performance of the Intel 600p, that's a good result for the 760p.
Breaking down the average latency by reads and writes, the Intel SSD 760p ranks about the same either way. It is roughly on par with the slower (read: not Samsung) MLC NVMe SSDs.
The 99th percentile read latency of the Intel SSD 760p on The Destroyer is rather poor, and the 99th percentile write latency isn't great either. The 760p doesn't seem to have serious problems with garbage collection pauses, but The Destroyer definitely does stress the 760p.
The energy consumption of the Intel SSD 760p during The Destroyer is almost as low as Samsung's best NVMe SSDs, but nowhere near the SATA-like efficiency of the Toshiba XG5. Overall, the 760p is much more efficient than Intel's previous NVMe SSDs, but there's still room for improvement.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
Jhlot - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Right we are comparing EVO not PRO here. And this is Intel's midrange consumer NVME now if Optane is high/enthu and 600p is low, and the 760p still doesn't compare to Samsung's lessor NVME 960 evo consumer from more than a year ago. The 960evo has a small premium in price because it can command it based on performance since no one else is stepping up to its level. Also the OEM 960 evo (PM961) is often available new on ebay for a little over $300 at 1TB which maybe the Intel offering will match. So, an altogether underwhelming showing by Intel is a valid criticism while msabercr's exaggerated Beetle vs. 911 jab which is implicit on price/offering tier not being comparable is misplaced because they are comparable consumer NVME offerings.milli - Thursday, January 25, 2018 - link
Why even compare to the 960 EVO?It barely matches the Toshiba XG5 and there's already a faster XG5-P.
andychow - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Toshiba is trying to sell their memory chip business, that's why their prices are out of whack and they have no successor. They gutted that division and leave old stock at inflated prices to pretend their brand has some sort of value. Bain must be working some sort of angle to see $18B of value.emvonline - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
it has 2 dram chips? for a 512GB SSD? with average performance? is that normal?svan1971 - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Intel 50% lower performance for 33% less money than Samsung.HStewart - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
And the new 960 was release today.megapleb - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Real world testing would be very helpful on SSDs. While the benchmarks are great, as a consumer, what I really care about is how much difference a drive will make to dad to day activities - boot time, application loading etc.niva - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
You won't see much difference in those use cases, maybe some heavy applications might take a second or two longer to load even in the slowest drives. These drives only differentiate themselves in situations where you hammer them with tons of data and instructions.bug77 - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
And that's the "dirty" secret of SSDs: as much as benchmarks show them performing faster or slower, in real life it makes little difference unless your workflow relies on heavy I/O. I can confirm that as I have currently installed Vertex4, 850EVO and MX300 drives and I cannot tell of any difference when using any of them.I've said it before and I'll say it again: when buying an SSD, the only rule to follow is "get the biggest drive you can fit in your budget".
Amandtec - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Contrarian view: A PC is as much a status symbol as a tool. By your logic no one should buy a BMW because you unlikely to use all that extra speed.