Intel SSD 750 PCIe SSD Review: NVMe for the Client
by Kristian Vättö on April 2, 2015 12:00 PM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our sequential tests are conducted in the same manner as our random IO tests. Each queue depth is tested for three minutes without any idle time in between the tests and the IOs are 4K aligned similar to what you would experience in a typical desktop OS.
In sequential read performance the SM951 keeps its lead. While the SSD 750 reaches up to 2.75GB/s at high queue depths, the scaling at small queue depths is very poor. I think this is an area where Intel should have put in a little more effort because it would translate to better performance in more typical workloads.
 |
|||||||||
Sequential Write Performance
Sequential write testing differs from random testing in the sense that the LBA span is not limited. That's because sequential IOs don't fragment the drive, so the performance will be at its peak regardless.
The SSD 750 is faster in sequential writes than the SM951, but the difference isn't all that big when you take into account that the SSD 750 has more than twice the amount of NAND. The SM951 did have some throttling issues as you can see in the graph below and I bet that with a heatsink and proper cooling the two would be quite identical because at queue depth of 1 the SSD 750 is only marginally faster. It's again a bit disappointing that the SSD 750 isn't that well optimized for sequential IO because there's prcatically no scaling at all and the drive maxes out at ~1350MB/s.
 |
|||||||||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
132 Comments
View All Comments
Ethos Evoss - Saturday, April 4, 2015 - link
http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/plextor-m6...Brazos - Monday, April 6, 2015 - link
Does the Plextor use NVMe?Sushisamurai - Saturday, April 4, 2015 - link
I mentioned this on twitter with you already, but Dead Rising 3 on a HDD versus a NVMe SSD comparison would be nice :) would save me the work of doing it and testing it on my own :pAntonAM - Monday, April 6, 2015 - link
I don't understand why both drives have the same endurance if one of them have 3 times more flash? Is it endurance of something else?emn13 - Monday, April 6, 2015 - link
The endurance figure is also *really* low compared to other drives - it works out to around 128TB of total writes - that's on the order of 50 times less than an 850Pro (which is slightly smaller).I'm hoping this is just a really stingy guarrantee, and not representative of the actual drive - otherwise I'd really, recommend against using it.
I mean, running the anandtech destroyer benchmark with its close to 1TB of writes would use up your write-allowance for the next two weeks (put another way, it's cost around 10$ in relation to the 1k drive cost).
edved - Tuesday, April 7, 2015 - link
So how does this compare to the Kingstone HyperX Predator that was recently reviewed and I recently purchased?!eliz82 - Tuesday, April 7, 2015 - link
any chance of testing Kingston HyperX Predator PCIe SSD ?SanX - Tuesday, April 7, 2015 - link
Put down the drain all flash trash and start making full power loss protected ramdrives with flash/harddrive backup. Would be cheap by this time if not slow selfdedtroying flash garbage lying on the way.gospadin - Tuesday, April 7, 2015 - link
In other words, 100x the cost for a marginal improvement in performance?Rustang - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
1) Why would you post a review of a Intel SSD 750 PCIe SSD solution without benchmarking it against the other state of the art Intel PCIe SSD Intel DC P3700 solution?2) Why would you put up sequential/random read/write graphs with pull-downs to display the different hardware results instead of efficiently putting all of the hardware results on ONE graph?