Intel Quietly Increases The 600p SSD Series Endurance Ratings

[Guest]

At launch, the Intel listed the 600p's endurance at 72TB for every capacity. The first entry-level NVMe SSD had the lowest endurance for any consumer-focused SSD we've tested in most capacities. Intel silently changed the specification over the weekend.

Intel Quietly Increases The 600p SSD Series Endurance Ratings : Read more

 

[captaincharisma]

hopefully next they will take the death timer off there value SSD drives

 

[jtd871]

I think you mean MWI (Media Wear Indicator) instead of WMI in the next-to-last paragraph. It is my understanding also that MWI is an Intel-specific SMART attribute.

 

[synphul]

I'm sure the new numbers are more in line with what we've come to expect but the statement seems a little odd. Makes sense, if you get x amount of write endurance from a given number of chips that it will increase as the amount of nand increases.

"With further testing" seems like a load of bull lol. More like someone said yep, our numbers for 128gb were accurate. Ok, multiply it accordingly.

I'm sure they knew ahead of time the write endurance for the 128gb or they wouldn't have just grabbed a number out of a hat. They just simply equated 72tbw = 128gb and every time capacity doubled so did tbw. Doesn't come off as 'further testing' but rather a quick stab with a calculator.

 

[InvalidError]

It is my understanding also that MWI is an Intel-specific SMART attribute.

Media Wear Indicator shows up as SMART register #230 on my SanDisk SSD and currently reports 5.26%.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

I think you mean MWI (Media Wear Indicator) instead of WMI in the next-to-last paragraph. It is my understanding also that MWI is an Intel-specific SMART attribute.

Good eye, typo fixed. There are MWI-equivalents, such as the wear leveling count, that you can use to calculate wear on other SSDs.

 

[photonboy]

Patlmmm,
I didn't follow most of what you said, but the "what does it matter?" point is that TBW related to WARRANTY.

 

[Uniblab]

...nice to know that you go beyond "just enough information" to get an article out by testing products even though a review is posted. Please, since you have the 600p in the labs, let us know how it performed. Maybe even as the drive passes various milestones.

I still like what samsung is doing with their ssd's better. Intel though, will always have a place in consideration - especially at a discount.

 

[CRamseyer]

I'm working on an update for the review.

 

[bit_user]

I still like what samsung is doing with their ssd's better. Intel though, will always have a place in consideration - especially at a discount.

Intel has multiple price points and reliability/performance levels.

The main reason I've bought Intel drives is the reliability features found in their 500-series and data center products. Crucial is the only brand in whose consumer drives I've found comparable features.

Samsung offers great performance, but their reliability has traditionally been a step down (just going by product reviews on Amazon and Newegg, every time I've bought SSDs).

 

[velocityg4]

“Based on continued evaluation and review of the 600p, Intel has updated the write endurance specification to better reflect the endurance of the product at each of the capacity points. The initial specification was a conservative figure and with further testing we were able to prove we can increase the endurance limit on higher capacities.”

You got caught trying to screw buyers of higher capacity models. Now you are backpedaling. It'll take many years until I trust an Intel SSD product again. Whomever thought this up should be fired along with any higher level executive who approved it.

 

[Uniblab]

I still like what samsung is doing with their ssd's better. Intel though, will always have a place in consideration - especially at a discount.

Intel has multiple price points and reliability/performance levels.

The main reason I've bought Intel drives is the reliability features found in their 500-series and data center products. Crucial is the only brand in whose consumer drives I've found comparable features.

Samsung offers great performance, but their reliability has traditionally been a step down (just going by product reviews on Amazon and Newegg, every time I've bought SSDs).

Yeah. Im going by the overwhelming adoption and performance of the samsung drives. My comment was a bit of an understatement and yeah, price consideration of the better intel drives. You can never knock intel except for price considerations and even though they may not be at the top of a buyers list they have a way of making everybody take notice. I wanted "only" intel when they came out with their consumer ssd's. When kaby lake comes out, it will be intel that will introduce x-point that some say will be another generational shift in ssd performance seemingly like that had when we moved from spinning drives to ssd's. Thats crazy. 1,000 times faster then a midrange ssd? 1,000? So will we be on the verge of a pc that will complete a boot before we turn it on? Thank intel for time warping pc,s.

 

[bit_user]

When kaby lake comes out, it will be intel that will introduce x-point that some say will be another generational shift in ssd performance seemingly like that had when we moved from spinning drives to ssd's. Thats crazy. 1,000 times faster then a midrange ssd? 1,000? So will we be on the verge of a pc that will complete a boot before we turn it on? Thank intel for time warping pc,s.

Intel has been steadily walking back the 1000x number. I don't know what's behind that, but SemiAccurate seems to think there are deeper problems with it:

http://semiaccurate.com/2016/09/12/intels-xpoint-pretty-much-broken/

Granted, they're hardly unbiased. They seem to relish bashing Intel and Nvidia, whenever they get the chance. But they're privy to insider rumors that most tech sites aren't.

I believe we'll have nonvolatile DIMMs with near-DRAM speed, soon enough. Just don't hold your breath. NVMe is fine for now, I think.