The Intel SSD 760p 512GB Review: Mainstream NVMe Done Right
by Billy Tallis on January 23, 2018 11:30 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.
We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.
The Intel SSD 760p falls on the good side of a big gap in average data rate scores on The Destroyer. Scoring far below the 760p are SATA drives and most earlier entry-level NVMe SSDs. The 760p is a bit slower than some of the drives using planar MLC NAND or 3D TLC NAND, but it is clear that the 760p is capable of handling The Destroyer better than any previous SSD in its price range.
The average and 99th percentile latency scores don't provide the clear separation that the average data rate shows, so the Intel 760p simply looks a bit below average for a NVMe SSD. Given the relative pricing and the poor performance of the Intel 600p, that's a good result for the 760p.
Breaking down the average latency by reads and writes, the Intel SSD 760p ranks about the same either way. It is roughly on par with the slower (read: not Samsung) MLC NVMe SSDs.
The 99th percentile read latency of the Intel SSD 760p on The Destroyer is rather poor, and the 99th percentile write latency isn't great either. The 760p doesn't seem to have serious problems with garbage collection pauses, but The Destroyer definitely does stress the 760p.
The energy consumption of the Intel SSD 760p during The Destroyer is almost as low as Samsung's best NVMe SSDs, but nowhere near the SATA-like efficiency of the Toshiba XG5. Overall, the 760p is much more efficient than Intel's previous NVMe SSDs, but there's still room for improvement.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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 notebookiwod - 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...