Intel SSD 760p Review: The New NVMe Value Leader

Status
Not open for further replies.

AgentLozen

Distinguished
May 2, 2011
516
2
19,015
22
I'm really impressed with the 760p. It isn't a performance king but for what it can do, it has an amazing price point. Intel made good on it's promise of 2x the performance of the 600p.

$200 for a 512GB NVMe SSD is a good price, but it's still expensive compared to similarly sized SATA drives. Do you suppose NVMe drives will fall enough in the next year to make them competitive with SATA pricing?
 

mcconkeymike

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,061
0
19,960
234
I own the 600p in a laptop, while it isn't bad, I can see its shortcomings. I hope that once this 760p launches and gets a firmware update that it will be as good as we hope. With that price, I'm sure I'll be eyeballing it hard.
 

nooneymous

Prominent
Jan 20, 2018
2
0
510
0
I find it funny that all of these measurements are used to compare ssds, but when it comes to the "real world" there's little difference in perf. PCmark8 shows almost no sensitivity for all the goodness. Does that mean just by the cheapest SSD with a reasonable warranty?
 

237841209

Prominent
Oct 4, 2017
56
0
660
6
Meltdown affects processors, not SSDs. They wouldn't include a whole updated copy of Windows 10 if that's what you're implying.
 

Co BIY

Reputable
Jun 18, 2015
259
9
4,815
6
1. Also looking forward to the review of the new MyDigitalSSD. I have been pleased with my BPX.

2. Imagine if Intel stirred in a little Xpoint cache into the drives. We know they have the algorithms. I am a lot out of my depth but would the Xpoint work well for the "Datamap/Addressing list" that seems to be a major bottle neck for the newer drives. Seems like a place for synergy.

3. When is Microsoft going to get off the dime and improve the OS handling of these technologies ? It seems like Microsoft should be the next major innovator in the storage space.
 
Some users may want to run the drive in a workstation environment, but we don't recommend even light professional applications due to the relatively low endurance rating.
The 512GB drive you tested allows for 288TB to be written to it. At 10GB of writes per day, it would take someone nearly 80 years to hit that amount of writes to the drive. In order to hit that amount of writes within the drive's 5-year warranty, one would need to write close to 160GB to it every single day, 7 days a week for those 5 years. Unless the system were being used in some extreme usage scenario, the differences in endurance between any of these drives shouldn't matter much at all.

I could see a particularly heavy user potentially running into the write limit of the lowest capacity 128GB drive, since you would only need to write about 40GB per day to hit that within 5 years, but for any of the other capacities it seems fairly unlikely. And I would still not classify 40GB of writes per day as "light" professional use.
 

mischon123

Prominent
Nov 29, 2017
83
0
640
2
Testing a drive with broken software? Where is the high end Intel drive? 760 MTF is close to 70 years at 10gb writes per day. This Intel SSD works in servers and workstations without a problem. My SSD in my 8 year old Zen i7 still faultless. Finally why do we need dumbed down products like this SSD competing with other slow and unfinished products? With all the broken chips...I wait till next year buying a new tool.
 

DavidC1

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
387
5
18,785
0


The direct replacement to the current 600p is supposed to be the 660p series using QLC NAND. According to Toms article earlier, they are saying $100 for 512GB, which would undercut SATA SSDs. Of course performance would nothing to be writing home about, but the pricing may surely is at $100.
 

drajitsh

Commendable
Sep 3, 2016
61
0
1,640
4
According to crystal mark result you showed, the SLC cache should be less than 10 GB on the default config. Could you report the estimated pseudo SLC & ram. Also, does the Intel toolbox allow user to increase spare area.
 

AgentLozen

Distinguished
May 2, 2011
516
2
19,015
22


That's the price as sold by 3C Expert. I can't find this drive (512GB) on Amazon at all. It could be a supply issue driving it up.
 

AlistairAB

Honorable
May 21, 2014
157
29
10,710
0
Bought 20 SSDs never had a DOA. Bought the 256GB 760p, didn't work in any AM4 motherboard I have (MSI or Asus) so it's dead or not compatible. Back to Crucial :)
 

CRamseyer

Reputable
Jan 25, 2015
409
0
4,790
3
SLC cache is not a physical change. It's just a change in the way that area gets programmed. SLC has two options, 0 or 1 (charged or not) while TLC has sixteen different voltages. The controller has to determine what the charge voltage is AND if the reading is correct or not.

3D XPoint cache already exists in the Optane Memory product line. You can use it as Optane Memory on Z270/X299 (and others in the same 200 series) or as SRT cache drive in older chipsets dating back to Z68 (an unsupported use, but it works). One of the best implementations is with the Z170 chipset where you can use the Optane Memory stick as a cache for lower cost NVMe SSDs like the 760p and 600p.
 

Tanyac

Reputable
Aug 30, 2014
745
7
5,415
153
Here the 760p 512gb is selling for around $330, with specs that are less impressive than the 960 Evo 500gb, which sells for around $310. The 960 Pro 512gb can be purchased for $369 with significantly improved specs. $59 difference between 760p and 960 pro!? - I don't think the 760p is a compelling choice, at least here.
 

BaRoMeTrIc

Commendable
Jan 30, 2017
127
5
1,715
8


i doubt manufacturers would price them the same, as they all also manufacture sata ssd. they would be cannibalizing their own profits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS