The Intel SSD 660p SSD Review: QLC NAND Arrives For Consumer SSDs
by Billy Tallis on August 7, 2018 11:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.
We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.
The Intel SSD 660p manages an average data rate on The Destroyer that is only slightly slower than the Crucial MX500 mainstream SATA SSD and the Kingston A1000 entry-level NVMe SSD. It's a step up from the performance of the 512GB Intel SSD 600p, and more than three times faster than the DRAMless Toshiba RC100.
The average and 99th percentile latency scores for the Intel SSD 660p are quite poor by NVMe standards and significantly worse than the Crucial MX500, but the latency isn't completely out of control like it is for the Toshiba RC100.
The average read latency from the 660p during The Destroyer is comparable to other low-end NVMe SSDs and better than the 600p or Crucial MX500. The average write latency is more than twice that of the MX500 but lower than the 600p and RC100.
The 99th percentile read latency from the Intel SSD 660p on The Destroyer is significantly worse than any other NVMe SSD or the Crucial MX500 SATA SSD, but the 99th percentile write latency is an improvement over the 600p and does not show the extreme outliers that the Toshiba RC100 suffers from.
The energy usage of the 660p during The Destroyer is a bit better than average for NVMe SSDs, though still quite a bit higher than is typical for SATA SSDs. The 660p is less power hungry than most NVMe drives and slower, but not enough to drag out the test for so long that the power advantage disappears.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
86 Comments
View All Comments
southleft - Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - link
SSDs replaced under warranty by the maker can sometimes have a silver lining, so to speak. Some years ago we had an Intel X25 80GB fail. Intel replaced it with a newer model 320 which was basically the same but updated to SATA III. We also had a Sandisk Ultra 120GB fail, and Sandisk replaced it with an Ultra 2. These newer replacement models are still running OK some 6 years later, for what it's worth!chrcoluk - Wednesday, September 25, 2019 - link
I agree, this is more important than hitting embargo date for publishing.Its the content not the date that matters. If it takes a year to do it, then so be it. I never buy hardware on release date, to me that's just stupid.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, August 7, 2018 - link
People trusted Samsung with the 840 and then, oops...The real rule is verify then trust.
mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - link
One thing about the 840 EVO issue which was a real pain was trying to find out if the same thing affected the standard 840. In the end my conclusion was yes, but few sites bothered to mention it. Oddly enough, of the many SSDs I have, one of the very few that did die was a standard 840. I never bought an 840 EVO because of the reports that came out, but I have a fair few 840 Pros and a heck of a lot of OCZs.Spunjji - Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - link
It was pretty obvious that the 840 was affected because it used the same NAND as the 840 Evo, just without the caching mode. It was also pretty obvious that Samsung didn't care because it was "old" so they never properly fixed it.OwCH - Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - link
Ryan, I love that you will. It is not easy for the user to find real world data on these things and it is, at least to me, information that I want before making the decision to buy a drive.Looking forward to it!
Thanks!
Solid State Brain - Tuesday, August 7, 2018 - link
The stated write endurance should already factor data retention, if it follows JEDEC specifications (JESD219A). For consumer drives, it should be be when the retention time for freshly stored data drops below 1 year after the SSD is powered off, at 30°C.BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - link
The Samsung 840 EVO would like to have a word with you.eastcoast_pete - Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - link
Yes, it should factor data retention, and it should follow JEDEC specs. The problem is the "should". That doesn't mean it or they do. I found that "Trust but verify" is as important in IT as it is in life. Even the biggest names screw up, at least occasionally.IntenvidiAMD - Tuesday, August 7, 2018 - link
Are there any reviewers that do test that?