Sequential Read Performance

Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.

Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential read speed of the Intel SSD 760p is a substantial improvement over the Intel SSD 750 and 600p, but isn't quite fast enough to match Samsung's NVMe SSDs.

Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

The sustained sequential read speed of the Intel SSD 760p is only slightly above SATA SSD speeds. This makes it more than twice as fast as the Intel SSD 600p, but still far slower than other recent NVMe SSDs using 3D TLC NAND such as the Toshiba XG5 and the Samsung PM981.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read (Power Efficiency)

With subpar performance, it isn't surprising to see the Intel SSD 760p score near the bottom for power efficiency. There are a few TLC-based NVMe SSDs that score even worse—including the Intel SSD 600p—but there's clearly a lot of room for improvement here.

The Intel SSD 760p hits its full sequential read speed at QD1, while the 600p required QD4 or higher to offer its full speed. Like most other M.2 NVMe SSDs, the Intel 760p draws about 4W at full speed, and the efficiency differences between drives are mostly due to differences in speed, not power consumption.

Sequential Write Performance

Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.

Burst 128kB Sequential Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential write speed of the Intel SSD 760p is slightly above average and far above Intel's previous flash-based SSDs. It is only slightly slower than the larger 1TB Toshiba XG5, and about 15–20% slower than Samsung's NVMe SSDs.

Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write

The sustained sequential write speed of the Intel SSD 760p is comfortably above the limits of the SATA interface, which many NVMe SSDs can't manage. However, the Samsung PM981 is 60% faster than the 760p, and the 960 PRO is almost three times faster. The performance of the 760p is reasonable for a low-end NVMe SSD, but it can't compete at the high end.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Intel SSD 760p on the sequential write test is slightly below average. This is twice the efficiency of Intel's previous NVMe SSDs, but substantially worse than more recent drives from Samsung and Toshiba.

The Intel SSD 760p is very close to its full sequential write speed at QD1, and its performance is steady across the entire test—a marked improvement over the 600p and many other low-end NVMe SSDs. Samsung's PM981 delivered uneven performance on this test but was much faster overall with about the same power draw as the 760p.

Random Performance Mixed Read/Write Performance
Comments Locked

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 notebook
  • iwod - 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...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now