Random Read Performance

Our first test of random read performance uses very short bursts of operations issued one at a time with no queuing. The drives are given enough idle time between bursts to yield an overall duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is impossible. Each burst consists of a total of 32MB of 4kB random reads, from a 16GB span of the disk. The total data read is 1GB.

Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

The Intel SSD 660p delivers excellent random read performance from its SLC cache, coming in behind only the drives using Silicon Motion's higher-end controllers with Intel/Micron TLC. When reading data from a full drive where background processing is probably still ocurring, the performance is halved but remains slightly ahead of the Intel 600p.

Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

On the longer random read test, the 660p maintains its outstanding SLC cache performance that beats anything else currently on the market, but filling the drive it is slower than almost any other NVMe SSD - the exception being the Toshiba RC100 that doesn't use a large enough host memory buffer for the data range this test covers.

Sustained 4kB Random Read (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

With the combination of lower power consumption afforded by its small NVMe controller and excellent random read performance, the Intel 660p earns the top efficiency score for this test. When it's slowed down by being full and still grinding away at background cleanup, its efficiency is much worse but still an improvement over the 600p.

At high queue depths the 660p's random read speed begins to fall behind high-end NVMe SSDs, but it isn't significant until well beyond the queue depths that are relevant to real-world client/consumer usage patterns.

Random Write Performance

Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.

Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst random write speed of the Intel SSD 660p is not record-setting, but it is comparable to high-end NVMe SSDs.

As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

On the longer random write test, the 660p is slower than most high-end NVMe SSDs but still performs much better than the other entry-level NVMe drives or the SATA drive. After filling the drive (and consequently the SLC write cache), the performance drops below the SATA drive but is still more than twice as fast as the Toshiba RC100.

Sustained 4kB Random Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

Power efficiency when performing random writes to a clean SLC cache is not quite the best we've measured, but it is far ahead of what the other low-end NVMe SSD drives or the Crucial MX500 SATA drive can manage

After QD4 the 660p starts to show signs of filling the SLC write cache, which is a little bit sooner than expected given how large the SLC cache should be for the mostly-empty drive condition. The performance doesn't drop very far, showing that the idle time is enough for the drive to mostly keep up with flushing the SLC cache when the test is writing to the drive with a 50% duty cycle.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light Sequential Performance
Comments Locked

86 Comments

View All Comments

  • dromoxen - Friday, August 10, 2018 - link

    You would hope these things would have even larger dram buffers than tlc. I will pass on these 1st gen and stick with with HD.
    Has intel stopped making ssd controllers?
    To do some tests , write endurance, why not cool down the m.2 nand to LN2 temps, I'm sure debauer has some pots and equipment. I expect these will be even cheaper by jan 19
  • tomatotree - Tuesday, August 14, 2018 - link

    Intel makes their own controllers for all their enterprise drives, and all 3DXP drives, but for consumer NAND drives they use 3rd party controllers with customized firmware.

    As for LN2 cooling, what would that show? That the drive might fail if you use it in a temperature range way out of spec?
  • 351Cleveland - Monday, August 20, 2018 - link

    I’m confused. Why would I buy this over, say, an MX500 (my default go-to)? This thing is a dog in every way. How can Anandtech recommend something they admit is flawed?
  • icebox - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    I don't understand why everybody fusses about retention and endurance so much. Do you really buy ssd's to leave them on a shelf for months or years? Retention ? If it dies during warranty you exchange it. If it dies after it then it's probably slow and small in comparison with what's available than.
    You do have backups, right? Because no review or test or battery of tests won't guarantee that *your drive* won't die.

    BTW that's the only way I saw ssd's die - it works perfectly and after a reboot it's gone, not detected by the system.
  • icebox - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    The day has come when choosing storage is 4 tiered.

    You have fast nvme, slow nvme, sata ssd's and traditional hdd's. At least I kicked hdd's off my desktop. I have a samsung nvme for boot and applications and sata ssd's for media and photos. Now I'm looking of replacing those with the 2tb 660p and moving those to the nas for bulk storage.
  • southleft - Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - link

    It would be very helpful if the review would show just how full the drive can be before performance degrades significantly. Clearly, when the drive is "full" its performance sucks, but can we expect good performance when the drive is half-full, two-thirds full, three-quarters full? C'mo, Anandtech, tell us something USEFUL here!
  • boozed - Monday, December 30, 2019 - link

    There's something wrong with the 970 EVO's results on page 3. Full performance exceeds empty performance. This is not reflected in the 970 EVO review.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now