Power Consumption

To quantify power consumption we're looking at total system power, which takes into account the CPU load associated with workload generation as well as the power drawn by the drive itself. The P3700 was left in its default lower power operating mode, not the higher 25W mode.

Overall the P3700 doesn't raise any power consumption flags. The overall system power consumption ends up being around 16W higher than with a single S3700, but if you normalize for performance the two end up looking quite similar. There seems to be some power savings compared to the old Intel SSD 910, and roughly comparable power consumption to the P420m.

Total System Power Consumption - Sequential Writes

Total System Power Consumption - Random Write (QD128)

CPU Utilization Final Words
POST A COMMENT

85 Comments

View All Comments

  • gospadin - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    tRead on MLC NAND is > 50us. 10us latency will never be achievable with an MLC NAND back-end without a redesign of the NAND array. Reply
  • mavere - Friday, June 6, 2014 - link

    "I am angry because my ridiculous fantasies aren't fulfilled." Reply
  • Antronman - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    Fusion iO blows it all away. Reply
  • TelstarTOS - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    did they make it bootable on windows after what 8 years? Reply
  • extide - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    At what cost?

    I'd definitely like to see some FusionIO benches on this site...
    Reply
  • TelstarTOS - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    At last Intel showed its muscles again.
    If in a 6 month timeframe something similar and cheaper doesnt come out, the 400GB P3600 will be my next SSD. Looking forward SF3700 really curiously now.
    Reply
  • Kevin G - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    I love the raw speed that this delivers. It does not hold anything back in terms of performance. I'm genuinely excited as to what a full blown server implementation using 16x PCIe 3.0 could provide.

    My only issue is one of capacity and cost per GB of storage. It is good to see 2 TB solutions but honestly I was hoping for a bit more. Moving away from the 2.5" SATA, M.2 and mSATA formats should enable far more NAND packages. I can see Intel limiting these consumer/prosumer cards to lower capacities to keep the higher capacity units in the enterprise space where ultra fast storage carries a higher premium. Speaking of costs, I was prepared to accept this as costing a bit more but not this much. Things like moving to an 18 channel design and the cost of the NVMe controller would be more expensive but not quiet this much. I was hoping to see something closer to $1/GB as the 2.5" SATA market is well below that and starting to approach $0.50/GB. Speed can carry a premium but those lower $/GB SATA drives are still pretty fast on their own.

    Actually are there any subjective impressions? Does the P3700 feel noticeably faster in day-to-day usage than a generic 2.5" SATA SDD?

    I'd also like to see some boot testing. Generally there are some quirks here and there that crop up with technology introductions.
    Reply
  • kaix2 - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    with the p3700 drive rated at 10dw/d it's aimed at high end enterprise. expecting $1/GB for this high end of a drive isn't realistic. also it's not a fair comparison if you simply compare the price of this drive to an average consumer sata drive and not take nand endurance and quality into account. Reply
  • Sacco_svd - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    P3700 / 2048gb*3dollar = 6144 dollars

    P3500 / 2048gb*1.469dollar = 3061.76 dollars

    If those are going to be the prices they're still not competitively cheap, by a big margin.
    Reply
  • balindad - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    As mentioned else where, could you drop this in on any open pcie and have it work and bootable with no other upgrades needed as long as you're running windows 8? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now