Question 1TB Intel SSD 660P vs 500GB Samsung EVO Plus vs 500GB WD Black NVMe SSD 2018

[leyo96]

Hello,

I'm building my first pc, this is what I have (I' ll overclock):

-MSI z370 gaming pro carbon
-Intel I7 8700k (delid)
-Asus RTX 2080 Dual OC
-BitFenix whisper M 650W
-2x 3TB 7200rpm HDD in RAID 1 (so my data it's safe)

I want to get of course a NVME SSD as my primary (OS) drive.
I'm going to do mainly gaming, once in a while video editing of like my travels or other small projects, some photoshop and then basic pc usage.

500GB should be fine since I have the 3TB HDD, but Intel 660P slows down a lot when it's getting full and the 1TB is almost the same price as the 500GB version of the other two.

These are the prices in Italy:

-970 EVO 1TB: 209€
-970 EVO Plus 500GB: 120€
-970 EVO Plus 1TB: 222€
-970 PRO 512GB: 147€
-WD Black NVMe SSD 500GB: 106€
-Intel SSD 660P 512 GB: 75€
-Intel SSD 660P 1TB: 121€

Which one is better: the 1TB 660p or 500GB WD or 970 EVO Plus?

What should I do?


Thanks for the help!

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

970 EVO Plus

 

[leyo96]

970 EVO Plus

Is it worth the 16€ premium over the WD Black and better than the 660P at 1TB?

Thanks!

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Samsung are elite, well worth it for performance and reliability.

 

[The prime mediocre]

I'll add my opinion: you probably won't see a performance difference between the three brands. The WD Black and Samsung 970 EVO are neck-and-neck. The 660p's dynamic cache doesn't disappear until you hit 75% capacity (just under 700GB on the 1TB drive), so you've still got 300GB more space than you would on the other drives (assuming you leave the recommended 15-20% free space on the WD/Samsung SSDs). The 660p is measurably slower than the other drives, but there will be no perceptible difference in boot times, game loads, or in-game asset streaming.

 

[leyo96]

I'll add my opinion: you probably won't see a performance difference between the three brands. The WD Black and Samsung 970 EVO are neck-and-neck. The 660p's dynamic cache doesn't disappear until you hit 75% capacity (just under 700GB on the 1TB drive), so you've still got 300GB more space than you would on the other drives (assuming you leave the recommended 15-20% free space on the WD/Samsung SSDs). The 660p is measurably slower than the other drives, but there will be no perceptible difference in boot times, game loads, or in-game asset streaming.

Let's say this: I have a laptop with a sata III 1TB Samsung 850 PRO and it's good enough, if the 660P it's still decently faster than this at 700GB it's perfect for me.

How does 4k read compares between the 660p and the other two? Since that is the most important thing in everyday use?

 

[The prime mediocre]

It's definitely faster than the 850 EVO. Aside from a few major weaknesses (large sustained writes, certain latencies et al.) it's faster than any SATA drive. Here is a comparison at Anandtech Bench.

The 660p has better 4k read speeds than either of the other drives, but they get slower as the drive fills. There's a chart on the first page of that review showing dynamic SLC cache size relative to filled space. It's actually pretty difficult to tell how the drive performs at a given point on that chart! I would assume it's closer to the "full" speeds when reading directly from QLC.

 

[mdd1963]

The reviews on the 970 EVO Plus showed it to be downright amazing....(notably faster writes than standard 970 EVO, and although likely not noticeable for most folks, but, if only 10% more, do it if you can!)

Short of a very large price savings on the others (do be VERY careful with WD Black NVME, as there are two different versions out there with same name, and one is quite slow in comparison to newer version!) the 970 EVO Plus is a virtual ''must have' in my eyes...; there is also an HP EX-920 NVME that does quite well I have read, essentially tied with Samsung 970 EVO)

 

[seanwebster]

I'd just grab the Intel SSD 660P 1TB if it were me (coming from someone who owns all those drives lol). Having the fastest is nice and all, but when it comes to real world use, those SSDs perform similar enough in most tasks. Save the money and get the minutely slower Intel.

 

[leyo96]

It's definitely faster than the 850 EVO. Aside from a few major weaknesses (large sustained writes, certain latencies et al.) it's faster than any SATA drive. Here is a comparison at Anandtech Bench.

The 660p has better 4k read speeds than either of the other drives, but they get slower as the drive fills. There's a chart on the first page of that review showing dynamic SLC cache size relative to filled space. It's actually pretty difficult to tell how the drive performs at a given point on that chart! I would assume it's closer to the "full" speeds when reading directly from QLC.

I'd be using the ssd at max 750GB full, do you think I won't notice any difference compared to the others? Considering I'd fill up a 500gb ssd max to 400/450GB I'd have way more space as well. (Together with the 3TB HDD)

I'd just grab the Intel SSD 660P 1TB if it were me (coming from someone who owns all those drives lol). Having the fastest is nice and all, but when it comes to real world use, those SSDs perform similar enough in most tasks. Save the money and get the minutely slower Intel.

At what point of GB used do you start to notice the slowness?

Thanks

 

[seanwebster]

I'd be using the ssd at max 750GB full, do you think I won't notice any difference compared to the others? Considering I'd fill up a 500gb ssd max to 400/450GB I'd have way more space as well. (Together with the 3TB HDD)


At what point of GB used do you start to notice the slowness?

Thanks

It depends on what you mean by slow down. Performance is basically the same as empty when I tested it 50% full. Reads don't slow due to being full. The SLC write cache, however, will dynamically adjust to being smaller once capacity fills.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-ssd-660p-qlc-nvme,5719.html

 

[leyo96]

It depends on what you mean by slow down. Performance is basically the same as empty when I tested it 50% full. Reads don't slow due to being full. The SLC write cache, however, will dynamically adjust to being smaller once capacity fills.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-ssd-660p-qlc-nvme,5719.html

So read speed basically remain the same while write speeds slow down when it gets full?

 

[seanwebster]

So read speed basically remain the same while write speeds slow down when it gets full?

Well, write speeds won't slow down really. What happens is, that the size of the SLC write cache is impacted. It will be smaller and thus it will still write at the rated 1,800MB/s, it will slow down to native write speeds faster. At 75% full you get 25GB of SLC cache for the 1TB model rather than say 100GB free at 40% empty.

 

[leyo96]

Well, write speeds won't slow down really. What happens is, that the size of the SLC write cache is impacted. It will be smaller and thus it will still write at the rated 1,800MB/s, it will slow down to native write speeds faster. At 75% full you get 25GB of SLC cache for the 1TB model rather than say 100GB free at 40% empty.

Gotcha!
Thanks for the help, I bought the 1tb 660p!