The Intel SSD 760p 512GB Review: Mainstream NVMe Done Right
by Billy Tallis on January 23, 2018 11:30 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.
The Light test reveals bigger performance differences for full and empty drive states than the Heavy test, but the 760p doesn't suffer as much as most drives. The average data rates from the 760p are slightly higher than from the Intel SSD 750, and much higher than the 600p or the SATA drives. On the other hand, the TLC-based Samsung PM981 is almost twice as fast.
The average latency scores of the Intel SSD 760p are twice those of the fastest NVMe SSDs, but this isn't enough to amount to a noticeable difference on a light workload. The 99th percentile latencies are much higher than those of Samsung's NVMe drives, but are still faster than SATA SSDs.
The average read latencies from the Intel 760p fall into the middle of the range for NVMe SSDs, but the average write latencies are clearly on the high side of normal.
The 99th percentile read latencies of the 760p on the Light test are acceptable for a low-end NVMe SSD, but the full-drive score is actually slightly worse than the Intel 600p. On the write side, the 99th percentile latency is actually very slightly worse than good SATA SSDs, but the 760p doesn't get noticeably worse when full.
The two SM2260-based NVMe SSDs join the Toshiba XG5 this time as the most efficient NVMe SSDs ahead of the Intel 760p, but the SM2260-based 600p and GAMMIX S10 fall behind when the test is run on a full drive. The Samsung drives mostly use slightly more power than the 760p, but the PM981 ends up near the bottom of the chart.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
Makaveli - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Its not on the charts because this is a review of budget drives.There would be no point to adding it to this review its in a different performance segment.
emvonline - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
and you cant put it in a notebookiwod - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
I think we have come a long since the first SSD review on Anandtech. And we still have yet to determined the one benchmarks that is representative of real world usage.With these sort of SSD performance I wondered if we are still bottlenecked by IO at all.
The Intel 512GB is now under $200 for MSRP, I bet street price will be even lower, and $100 cheaper then Samsung. While the 128GB and 256GB is much closer, mainly because the cost of controller is fixed, contributing to the bottom line pricing.
Which is why I am sadden, and a little angry, how Apple in 2018, being one of the largest NAND buyer and has an economy of scale, their own SSD Controller, is STILL shipping a HDD on iMac.
xchaotic - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
So why would I want this over the slightly faster and cheaper 960 EVO? (espeically at 256GB it's faster)solar75 - Tuesday, January 30, 2018 - link
Dear BILLY, could you please test several NVME drives in several laptop models to see which ones provide the best speed? I think this will be a very popular review.Shirley Dulcey - Friday, August 31, 2018 - link
Half a year later we can see where the pricing has gone, and it's in a pleasant downward direction.I recently bought a 256GB 760p for a lower-end build (Ryzen 5 2400G, also a bargain at $110) and it's performing very well in that application. It was $60 that day ($65 right now), making it the least expensive option at that capacity other than the store brand drive. The 512GB is $125, but in that capacity class the Crucial MX500 is even more aggressively priced at $100. All in all a great time to be buying an SSD and CPU, but still a lousy one for RAM.
andras1 - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
So is the 500 GB Intel 760p better in every single aspect (including latency, power, and small random writes/reads) than the 500 GB SATA Samsung 860 EVO?andras1 - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link
How about full throttle maximum write/read speed power consumption?In which applications is 60ms wake up latency typically a problem? What does this translate to for the average user? Using Visual Studio for programming? Gaming? Internet? Video watching? Handling files?
FastCarsLike - Friday, May 24, 2019 - link
I don't get it, how is it still "TBD", this has been out for almost a year now.ktan112 - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
Is my Intel 760p dying, I'm getting less than half the performance of your results from testing:https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/18676663#DRI...