AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Data Rate)

Both of the SM2256 drives were near the bottom of the ranking for average data rate on the Light test, and the Intel 540s doesn't improve any. The SP550 had previously performed relatively well for a TLC drive when full, but the latest Phison S10 TLC drives have mostly caught up.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

The average service time of the Intel 540s is about the same as the SP550 and close to that of most Phison S10 TLC drives, but the Marvell-based TLC drives from SanDisk do significantly better.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

The frequency of latency outliers for the Intel 540s is a little bit worse than the SP550, but all three Silicon Motion-based drives are at the bottom of the chart.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Power)

The power efficiency of the Intel 540s is quite good overall and well ahead of any other planar TLC drive.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
Comments Locked

77 Comments

View All Comments

  • Notmyusualid - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    Ya saved me from writing it...
  • shelbystripes - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    Intel is considered a reliable brand to OEM PC makers and other bulk purchasers. Offering a low-end part means capturing business that might go to a second-tier manufacturer. For builders with a use case where any modern SSD is fast enough, and you care about reliability without breaking the bank, this will be the #1 choice. You get the Intel name and the things INCLUDED with that, like solid customer support and timely firmware updates, at a lower price point.

    Nobody buying this is expecting it to be a performance part. Intel is the company that sold Celerons with no L2 cache, that sells cut-down Atom CPUs and Core CPUs under the same Pentium brand name. Intel doesn't always mean performance. It does mean confidence that what you're buying actually works, though.
  • BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link

    @shelbystripes: "Offering a low-end part means capturing business that might go to a second-tier manufacturer. For builders with a use case where any modern SSD is fast enough, and you care about reliability without breaking the bank, this will be the #1 choice."

    You know, Intel used to cater to this market, ... , with their 300 series drives. Interestingly, the relative performance of this drive matches up to where their 300 series used to slot in as well. Why is this not a 300 series drive?
  • vladx - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link

    My tablet running an Atom quad-core works great. To compare this joke of a SSD from Intel to that is a fucking joke.
  • plopke - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    Won't the 540 be shortlived? Shouldn't we be seeing 3d nand drives of intel soon followed by optane?
    https://i0.wp.com/benchlife.info/wp-content/upload...
  • A5 - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    This is for a different market segment.
  • Billy Tallis - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    That roadmap shows the 540s sticking around at least through Q1 2017, and merely being joined by some Optane and 3D TLC NVMe drives. The actual replacement of the 540s is at an indefinite point in the future.

    The determining factor will be how long it takes 3D NAND to get cheap enough to displace 15/16nm TLC. I don't think that will be happening any time soon; even Samsung apparently can't pull it off yet, since they introduced the 750 EVO.
  • Mobile-Dom - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    IIRC Samsung used planar NAND in the 750 because they wanted lower capacity without the performance degradation, as by using the high layered 3D NAND they used fewer packages resulting in worse performance for drives that had 1 or 2 packages for the entire SSD
  • extide - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    Nah, both their planar 15/16nm and their 3D NAND use 128Gb dies -- so same amount of dies in either product. It's purely a cost thing. It will probably take until we get into the 100+ layers of 3D NAND for it to be competitive, cost wise, with that 15/16nm planar TLC.
  • Billy Tallis - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    That's what they said at first, but then they introduced a 500GB 750 EVO while the 850 EVOs on the market are still using the 32-layer VNAND.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now