The Intel SSD 540s (480GB) Review
by Billy Tallis on June 23, 2016 9:00 AM ESTMixed Random Read/Write Performance
The mixed random I/O benchmark starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. The queue depth is 3 for the entire test and each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. As with the pure random write test, this test is restricted to a 16GB span of the drive, which is empty save for the 16GB test file.
On the mixed random I/O test the Intel 540s has a stark advantage over almost all other planar TLC drives, and is close to the low-end MLC drives and SanDisk X400.
Power consumption is middle of the road, so the Intel 540s comes out at ahead of most of the TLC drives in terms of efficiency, though the SP550 is not far behind.
 |
|||||||||
The performance of the Intel 540s never dropped as the proportion of writes in the workload increased, but it also didn't show the common big jump in performance during the final pure-write phase of the test.
Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance
The mixed sequential access test covers the entire span of the drive and uses a queue depth of one. It starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. Each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The drive is filled before the test starts.
The mixed sequential I/O performance of the Intel 540s is significantly improved over the SM2256 drives, but that still only brings it up to par for planar TLC.
The power usage of the Intel 540s is relatively high, so it doesn't have great efficiency even by TLC standards.
 |
|||||||||
The Intel 540s is both faster and more power hungry than the SP550 at every point during this test. Performance still doesn't bounce back appreciably with the pure writes phase of the test, which keeps the average down despite the good read performance at the beginning.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
redzo - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
About the same price as a 850 EVO. The 540s is not worthy of your $$.Anato - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
Why this is 540, not 340 or even 140?BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link
Apparently, their 300 series has fallen off of their roadmap. Someone please link me to a roadmap that counters this statement.pwil - Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - link
Because 140 would have 1y warranty, and 340 - 3y warranty.nismotigerwvu - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
The idea of Intel, owner of the most advanced foundries on the planet, buying chips from the open market is oddly humorous to me. I understand why, and honestly it makes logical sense, but it's still an interesting quirk in an industry where quirkiness has mostly vanished.bloodinmyveins - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
Why is it so hard to dethrone Samsung 850 EVO and PRO? :(redzo - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
They've just designed a product and are 100% sure that they are going to sell it overpriced based on brand name only. It's business.Vlad_Da_Great - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
That was a bummer. I bought that with the notion that inside was Intel parts. I guess, they are trying to bang on their name now. 540s has been great so far, but I could have saved about $20 for the 120GB, I bought. AnandTech you are late!cm2187 - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
With Samsung about to introduce 4TB SSDs, a 1TB max size seems to be behind...Ej24 - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
Wow. Not only would I not purchase one of these, but I'm now convinced I need to buy several mx200's as it seems crucial isn't going to release another MLC drive. TLC simply doesn't impress me. The bx200 I put in my mother-in-law's pc was a disaster (granted its a worst case scenario). It's enough to demonstrate the shortcomings of tlc though. They're only able to make up for it with black magic and sophisticated controllers. No thank you.