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

  • HStewart - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Make sense especially with their own fab, they no longer need Micron to supply, but these chips are older generation, so they probably realize that future generations are not necessary
  • ilt24 - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Intel converted a factory in China from making chipsets to making 3D-NAND a couple of years ago, then a couple of weeks ago Intel and Micron announced they would stop working together on 3DNAND once their 3rd generation was released ~2019. They said they would continue to collaborate on their 3DXpoint memory.

    Currently it isn't clear if all of Intel's supply comes from the Intel factory or if they are still getting any from the Micron fabs. Independent of where the flash comes from, it will have the Intel logo since they just get wafers from Micron and package it themselves.
  • rawcode - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Your pricing for the the Samsung 960 PRO are way off. You have prices for the 512GB in the 256GB column. 1TB for the 512GB, and 2Tb for the 1TB.
  • Billy Tallis - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Fixed. Thanks!
  • lux44 - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    I guess post-Meltdown/Spectre benchmarking is in the pipeline, as IO-benchmarks should show a large drop... It definitely will make Core8 benchmarks a lot more interesting. I wish you all good luck in getting to the bottom of the things regarding performance impact, we count on you!
  • tuxRoller - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Not as bad as was once thought.

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...

    Ignoring the XFS results (just that they are using cfq means the fs is starting the fight with one arm, and most of a leg, disabled) it looks like 5% or less (except for the compile benchmark which caused one fs to drop 15%)
  • lux44 - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link

    Given recent news about Intel microcode update recall and Linus's rants about unacceptable kernel updates, I think the actual Spectre mitigation impact is unknown, at least under Linux. I doubt it's larger than 15%, but we'll see.
  • Jhlot - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Bummer, still significantly outpaced by the 960 EVO which was released more than a year ago.
  • msabercr - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Dang it, this VW Beetle is nowhere near as fast as my 911 turbo.
  • shabby - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Price is close enough that it should be.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now