Intel SSD 750 PCIe SSD Review: NVMe for the Client
by Kristian Vättö on April 2, 2015 12:00 PM ESTFinal Words
For years Intel has been criticized for not caring about the client SSD space anymore. The X25-M and its different generations were all brilliant drives and essentially defined the standards for a good client SSD, but since then none of Intel's client SSDs have had the same "wow" effect. That's not to say that Intel's later client SSDs have been inferior, it's just that they haven't really had any competitive advantage over the other drives on the market. It's no secret that Intel changed its SSD strategy to focus on the enterprise segment and frankly it still makes a lot of sense because the profits are more lucrative and enterprise has a lot more room for innovation as the customers value more than just rock-bottom pricing.
With the release of the SSD 750, it's safe to say that any argument of Intel not caring about the client market is now invalid. Intel does care, but rather than bringing products with new complex technologies to the market at a very early stage, Intel wants to ensure that the market is ready and there's industry wide support for the product. After all, NVMe requires BIOS support and that support has only been present for a few months now, making it logical not to release the SSD 750 any sooner.
Given the enterprise background of the SSD 750, it's more optimized for consistency than raw peak performance. The SM951, on the other hand, is a more generic client drive that concentrates on peak performance to improve performance under typical client workloads. That's visible in our benchmarks because the only test where the SSD 750 is able to beat the SM951 is The Destoyer trace, which illustrates a very IO intensive workload that only applies to power users and professionals. It makes sense for Intel to focus on that very specific target group because those are the people who are willing to pay premium for higher storage performance.
With that said, I'm not sure if I fully agree with Intel's heavy random IO focus. The sequential performance isn't bad, but I think the SSD 750 as it stands today is a bit unbalanced and could use some improvements to sequential performance even if it came at the cost of random performance.
| Price Comparison (4/2/2015) | |||||
| 128GB | 256GB | 400GB | 512GB | 1.2TB | |
| Intel SSD 750 (MSRP) | - | - | $389 | $1,029 | |
| Samsung SM951 | $120 | $239 | - | $459 | - |
RamCity actually just got its first batch of SM951s this week, so I've included it in the table for comparison (note that the prices on RamCity's website are in AUD, so I've translated them into USD and also subtracted the 10% tax that is only applicable to Australian orders). The SSD 750 is fairly competitive in price, although obviously you have to fork out more money than you would for a similar capacity SATA drive. Nevertheless, going under a dollar per gigabyte is very reasonable given the performance and full power loss protection that you get with the SSD 750.
All in all, the SSD 750 is definitely a product I recommend as it's the fastest drive for IO intensive workloads by a large margin. I can't say it's perfect and for slightly lighter IO workloads the SM951 wins my recommendation due to its more client-oriented design, but the SSD 750 is really a no compromise product that is aimed for a relatively small high-end niche, and honestly it's the only considerable option in its niche. If your IO workload needs the storage performance of tomorrow, Intel and the SSD 750 have you covered today.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
132 Comments
View All Comments
KAlmquist - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
It's too bad that Anandtech didn't benchmark the 400 GB model, since that's the one most people are going to be most interested in buying. I assume that it's a case of Intel not making the 400 GB model available for review, rather than Anandtech deciding not to review it.jwilliams4200 - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Agreed, the 400 GB model is more interesting to consumers.Also, I hope that if Anandtech does test the 400GB model, that they re-run the tests of the comparison SSDs so that the competitors are overprovisioned to 400GB usable capacity (from 512GB or whatever nominal capacity). That is the only reasonable way to compare, since anyone who wants high sustained performance and is willing to try a drive with only 400GB to achieve it would obviously be willing to overprovision, for example, a 512GB Samsung 850 Pro to only 400GB usable to achieve higher sustained performance.
Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
That is something that I've had on my mind for a while now and I even have a way to do it now (the Storage Bench traces are a bit tricky since they are run on a raw drive, but thankfully I found an hdparm command for limiting the far LBA count). The only issue is time because it takes roughly two days to test one drive through the 2015 suite, so I may be include a drive or two as comparison points but I definitely can't test all drives with added OP.Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Not far LBA count, but raw LBA count, obviously :)Stahn Aileron - Friday, April 3, 2015 - link
Honestly, I'd rather have AnandTech test drives and components as-is ("stock" from the manufacturer) and publish those results rather than spend time doing tests on non-standard, customized configurations. Let the customers do that if they truly need that type of set-up or leave it to integrators/specialists.As far as I know, most customers of a product just want to use it immediately right of the box, no mucking with special settings. Most products are advertised that way as well.
Really, just test the product(s) as advertised/intended by the manufacturer first and foremost to see if it matches their claims and properly serves the target userbase. Specialty cases should only be done if that is actively advertised as a feature, there is truly high interest, something makes you curious, and/or you have the time.
jwilliams4200 - Friday, April 3, 2015 - link
If this were a review site for the totally clueless, then you might have a point. But anandtech has always catered to enthusiasts and those who either already know a lot about how computer equipment works, or who want to learn.The target audience for this site would certainly consider something as simple as overprovisioning an SSD if it could significantly increase performance and/or achieve similar performance at lower cost relative to another product. So it makes sense to test SSDs configured for similar capacity or performance rather than just "stock" configuration. Anyone can take an SSD and run a few benchmarks. It takes a site as good as anandtech to go more in-depth and consider how SSDs are actually likely to be used and then present useful tests to its readers.
Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
That is correct. I always ask for all capacities, but in this case Intel decided to sample all media with only 1.2TB samples. I've asked for a 400GB, though, and will review it as soon as I get it.Mr Alpha - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Has anyone managed to find this mythological list of compatible motherboards?Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
I just asked Intel and will provide a link as soon as I get one. Looks like it's not up yet as they didn't have an answer right away.tstones - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Older chipsets like z77 and z87 will support NVMe?