AnandTech 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.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

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.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

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.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

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.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The Intel 540s managed to improve on power efficiency compared to either SM2256 drive, putting it around the middle of the rankings.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Comments Locked

77 Comments

View All Comments

  • Flunk - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    Looks like it's on Intel's low-end product map for well into 2017 (which is as far as that goes).
  • BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link

    I thought that Intel's low-end was the 300 series. Apparently not anymore:
    https://benchlife.info/mansion-brighton-stony-beac...

    Please post another link to a roadmap if you find one not plastered with a website logo.
  • JKJK - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    520 and 530 stuck with us for forever, even still when they where performance wise surpassed by other manufacturers. And the price didn't budge either, so I suppose 540 will be with us for a while.
    However, I'm pretty disappointed with Intel on this one. Samsung 750 evo and even 850 evo is way cheaper here in Norway.
  • Impulses - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    They're at price parity in the US right now, 'course the EVO is much better for the money...
  • Flunk - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    That's a lot of money to pay for a low-end drive with a Silicon Motion controller. Performance like a Trion, price like an 850 Evo. Good work Intel.
  • BrokenCrayons - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    In their defense, it's not a terrible performer relative to other planar TLC drives with the same controller. However, that doesn't excuse the much higher price MSRP. Were I in the market for a new drive, I wouldn't write off TLC, but I would write off the 540 right away based on the cost over its nearest competitors.
  • Guspaz - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    So, it's an Intel SSD that doesn't use an Intel controller, doesn't use Intel flash, and provides terrible performance at a much higher prices than the competition.

    What were they thinking? I've always been a bit of an Intel SSD fanboy (the five standalone SSDs that I've bought over the years have all been Intel, all the way back to the G1), but they've clearly lost their way, and I don't think the next SSD that I buy would be an Intel.
  • hojnikb - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    They probably want to bank on the clueless users, that have little idea of SSD performance but know Intel as a brand.
  • BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link

    @Guspaz: "So, it's an Intel SSD that doesn't use an Intel controller, doesn't use Intel flash, and provides terrible performance at a much higher prices than the competition."

    They did use Sandforce controllers for a while. Though their performance was pretty decent at the time. Firmware made the difference in reliability. Since they are still doing their own firmware and validation, I don't think the use of a third party controller or flash is an insurmountable problem. I do think that the product is not priced or named correctly. This should be a 300 series part with a 300 series price.

    Note: The relatively high price may be correlated with the fact that they have to acquire flash on the open market and not everything they get is necessarily meeting their validation requirements.
  • pwil - Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - link

    3 in 3xx series means 3y warranty.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now