Intel SSD 750 PCIe SSD Review: NVMe for the Client
by Kristian Vättö on April 2, 2015 12:00 PM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
While The Destroyer focuses on sustained and worst-case performance by hammering the drive with nearly 1TB worth of writes, the Heavy trace provides a more typical enthusiast and power user workload. By writing less to the drive, the Heavy trace doesn't drive the SSD into steady-state and thus the trace gives us a good idea of peak performance combined with some basic garbage collection routines.
| AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy | ||||||||||||
| Workload | Description | Applications Used | ||||||||||
| Photo Editing | Import images, edit, export | Adobe Photoshop | ||||||||||
| Gaming | Pllay games, load levels | Starcraft II, World of Warcraft | ||||||||||
| Content Creation | HTML editing | Dreamweaver | ||||||||||
| General Productivity | Browse the web, manage local email, document creation, application install, virus/malware scan | Chrome, IE10, Outlook, Windows 8, AxCrypt, uTorrent, AdAware | ||||||||||
| Application Development | Compile Chromium | Visual Studio 2008 | ||||||||||
The Heavy trace drops virtualization from the equation and goes a bit lighter on photo editing and gaming, making it more relevant to the majority of end-users.
| AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy - Specs | ||||||||||||
| Reads | 2.17 million | |||||||||||
| Writes | 1.78 million | |||||||||||
| Total IO Operations | 3.99 million | |||||||||||
| Total GB Read | 48.63 GB | |||||||||||
| Total GB Written | 106.32 GB | |||||||||||
| Average Queue Depth | ~4.6 | |||||||||||
| Focus | Peak IO, basic GC routines | |||||||||||
The Heavy trace is actually more write-centric than The Destroyer is. A part of that is explained by the lack of virtualization because operating systems tend to be read-intensive, be that a local or virtual system. The total number of IOs is less than 10% of The Destroyer's IOs, so the Heavy trace is much easier for the drive and doesn't even overwrite the drive once.
| AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy - IO Breakdown | |||||||||||
| IO Size | <4KB | 4KB | 8KB | 16KB | 32KB | 64KB | 128KB | ||||
| % of Total | 7.8% | 29.2% | 3.5% | 10.3% | 10.8% | 4.1% | 21.7% | ||||
The Heavy trace has more focus on 16KB and 32KB IO sizes, but more than half of the IOs are still either 4KB or 128KB. About 43% of the IOs are sequential with the rest being slightly more full random than pseudo-random.
| AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy - QD Breakdown | ||||||||||||
| Queue Depth | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-5 | 6-10 | 11-20 | 21-32 | >32 | ||||
| % of Total | 63.5% | 10.4% | 5.1% | 5.0% | 6.4% | 6.0% | 3.2% | 0.3% | ||||
In terms of queue depths the Heavy trace is even more focused on very low queue depths with three fourths happening at queue depth of one or two.
I'm reporting the same performance metrics as in The Destroyer benchmark, but I'm running the drive in both empty and full states. Some manufacturers tend to focus intensively on peak performance on an empty drive, but in reality the drive will always contain some data. Testing the drive in full state gives us valuable information whether the drive loses performance once it's filled with data.
It turns out that the SM951 is overall faster than the SSD 750 in our heavy trace as it beats the SSD 750 in both data rate and average latency. I was expecting the SSD 750 to do better due to NVMe, but it looks like the SM951 is a very capable drive despite lacking NVMe (although there appears to be an NVMe version too after all). On the other hand, I'm not too surprised because the SM951 has specifically been built for client workloads, whereas the SSD 750 has an enterprise heritage and even on the client side it's designed for the most intensive workloads.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
132 Comments
View All Comments
magreen - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
darkgreen, are you talking about a G1 without TRIM or a G2 with TRIM support?darkgreen - Friday, April 3, 2015 - link
I had a G1 without TRIM. The Intel fix was based on some ancient shareware (FreeDOS!) that wouldn't work with many modern motherboards and in some cases left drives bricked. It was well reported at the time (see my comment above for a google search that returns articles), but lots of people wound up with X25-Ms that were useless. If you weren't an enterprise customer the Intel response was "tough luck." No refunds, no replacements, nothing. In all fairness I'm sure Intel would love to be able to support consumers, but they probably aren't set up for it in their storage area because it's just not a big area of their business bottom line.magreen - Sunday, April 5, 2015 - link
Yeah, it seems like the G1 owners got screwed. (I have a G2 and G3 and they've both been great. Sorry they screwed the early adopters.)In Anand's words from 2009 when the G2 was released:
"TRIM isn’t yet supported, but the 34nm drives will get a firmware update when Windows 7 launches enabling TRIM. XP and Vista users will get a performance enhancing utility (read: manual TRIM utility). It seems that 50nm users are SOL with regards to TRIM support. Bad form Intel, very bad form."
http://anandtech.com/show/2806
"Overall the G2 is the better drive but it's support for TRIM that will ultimately ensure that. The G1 will degrade in performance over time, the G2 will only lose performance as you fill it with real data. I wonder what else Intel has decided to add to the new firmware...
I hate to say it but this is another example of Intel only delivering what it needs to in order to succeed. There's nothing that keeps the G1 from also having TRIM other than Intel being unwilling to invest the development time to make it happen. I'd be willing to assume that Intel already has TRIM working on the G1 internally and it simply chose not to validate the firmware for public release (an admittedly long process). But from Intel's perspective, why bother?
Even the G1, in its used state, is faster than the fastest Indilinx drive. In 4KB random writes the G1 is even faster than an SLC Indilinx drive. Intel doesn't need to touch the G1, the only thing faster than it is the G2. Still, I do wish that Intel would be generous to its loyal customers that shelled out $600 for the first X25-M. It just seems like the right thing to do. Sigh."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2829/11
Redstorm - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Could you elaborate on this (although there appears to be an NVMe version too after all) of the SM951. As looking at the numbers if NVMe even slightly improves the SM951 it would make it a better choice, and the form factor being M.2 makes it much more attractive.Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Ganesh received an NVMe version of the SM951 inside a NUC and I've also heard from other sources that it exists. No idea of its retail availability, though, as RamCity hadn't heard about it until I told them.eddieobscurant - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
if i'm not wrong the nvme version has p/n MZVPV256HDGL-00000 for the 256gb model while the ahci version has p/n MZHPV256HDGL-00000Redstorm - Friday, April 3, 2015 - link
Thanks looks promising , found this with verbage suposidly from RAMCity that they will ship in May.http://translate.google.co.nz/translate?hl=en&...
Redstorm - Friday, April 3, 2015 - link
So no real proof that they exist then.eddieobscurant - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Kristian, there is a DRAM difference between the two models. The 400gb has 1gb DRAM while the 1.2tb model has 2gb. Do you think it plays a big role in terms of performance between the two models.Also is there a way to reduce the overprovision in these drives? I would prefer 80gb more on the 400gb model over less consistency.
When will you review the kingston hyperX predator, and when will samsung release the sm951 nvme? Q3 or sooner?
KAlmquist - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
The 400gb model shouldn't need as much DRAM because it has fewer pages to keep track of. But there's no way to know how the 400gb model will perform until Intel sends out samples for review.