The Intel SSD 540s (480GB) Review
by Billy Tallis on June 23, 2016 9:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.
On the Heavy test, the Intel 540s achieves an average data rate that is once again between the two SM2256 drives, but this is also par for Phison TLC drives.
The average service time of the Intel 540s is actually slightly better than the SP550 and significantly better than the BX200, but still poor compared to the best planar TLC drives.
The frequency of high-latency outliers for the 540s is half that of the BX200, but still clearly worse than the other TLC drives and more than an order of magnitude higher than the MLC drives.
The Intel 540s managed to improve on power efficiency compared to either SM2256 drive, putting it around the middle of the rankings.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Ananke - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
It is not the brand image, Intel is a government registered contractor, and it is US company, i.e. its products would be prioritized before price concerns.catavalon21 - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
Most USG computers are purchased all-up OEM systems (Dell, IBM, HP, etc.), and inclusion of a "foreign" SSD or HDD wouldn't slow down the purchase for a minute.Gigaplex - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
This barely qualifies as an Intel product. Other than firmware they didn't really build any of this.Vorl - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
So, you are defending overpriced crap because it's for government/corporate use? Wouldn't those same entities be better served with either cheaper similar performing options, or same priced better performing options?Honestly, you seem like you are defending them pretty hard and not using logic.
JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
I'm not defending it.Intel's milking their brand name, and more power to them. There isn't anything exactly evil for marking up your products because you have a global brand name (see: Apple, IBM, Beats, Bose, etc.)
Educated consumers like me and you are wiser than to buy this.
That being said, just because a smart consumer (again, you or I) shouldn't buy it, doesn't mean there's no point in releasing this SSD to the market. Let the sheeple buy them, you nor I should care about their choices in expenditures.
BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link
@JoeyJoJo123: "Let the sheeple buy them, you nor I should care about their choices in expenditures."Ideally no, we shouldn't. After all, if companies can make more money off of the "sheeple", then informed consumers can often times get a better value on another product that should by all rights be selling more if not for the "sheeple". However, letting the "sheeple" buy overpriced products from companies with a solid product line will sometimes encourage the company to overprice other products that informed consumers may have interest in. It's not always good for the informed consumer to leave the "sheeple" uninformed. Just don't get emotionally invested as it will almost certainly cause the opposite of the desired outcome.
vladx - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link
Indeed we should do our best and inform average joes about this kind of stuff whenever we can. This wat, more good products will be pushed instead of "trash" like this Intel SSD.catavalon21 - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
Fair enough on the corp / gov end use, though I have to wonder...who are they targeting with the 5 year warranty?euskalzabe - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link
Wait... how can you say that governments want to buy from "reputable" brands but then say that "brand image" doesn't count? If there's bad brand image, there's no reputation to talk about. They're essentially connected.JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link
Let me explain:Governments will make bulk purchases of resources they supposedly need. At one point the government purchases thousands of PS3s to network into a computing cluster. When the Pentium 4 came out, thousands of Pentium 4 computers were purchased by the government for government usage. Government entities seem to make these purchases primarily by brand recognition. Government entities rarely (if ever) purchase cheap Chinese PCs for official government usage, even though it would probably save them a lot of dough rather than procuring bulk workstations from HP/Dell/Lenovo, etc. Intel's a brand name and it's entirely feasibly that a Government IT sector office would procure bulk Intel SSDs to retrofit into slow/problematic workstations to prolong that workstation's lifespan, rather than purchase an entirely new workstation for that user.
On a personal level:
Never buy on brand name alone. Not every product a brand makes is great, and you shouldn't let good products that a company has made in the past cloud your judgment or decision on any particular other product. Unfortunately, Government procurements don't seem to follow this rationale.