Intel SSD 750 Review: NVMe for the Desktop @ [H]

Kaos_Drem said:
So what they did effectively is just take the number back down to what 70GB per day x 365days x 5years. I'm pretty sure everyone expects the drive to last longer than that, but with the right usage case model you could probably burn through that faster. I can't imagine the 127TB applying to both the 400 and 1.2TB equally either.
Click to expand...
On average people write about 1~2GB of data a day to there drive, and if i check my 850 Pro i come to about 1.8GB a day, of writes, if i check with Samsung's SSD Magician, and dived my disk writes with days in use.

Even the smaller 250GB 840 EVO, with its crappy TLC nand, came to about 800TB of writes before failure.

I still think that these drives are way over priced, for at best marginal performance benefits on the desktop, but drive failure is the last thing i would worry about with these drives!
 
player-x said:
On average people write about 1~2GB of data a day to there drive, and if i check my 850 Pro i come to about 1.8GB a day, of writes, if i check with Samsung's SSD Magician, and dived my disk writes with days in use.

Even the smaller 250GB 840 EVO, with its crappy TLC nand, came to about 800TB of writes before failure.

I still think that these drives are way over priced, for at best marginal performance benefits on the desktop, but drive failure is the last thing i would worry about with these drives!
Click to expand...

yea but 1 single reinstall takes out 1% of use for the 1.2 TB? WTF I also go through like 50-100GB a day :/ I would be paying 300 dollars a year in upkeep.

I am think the Kingston x predator is looking nicer each day and thats got the second best latency scores and consistency next to the 750. It just sucks the kingston isn't 1TB so I might have to use one ultra M.2 slot and a PCIe to do RAID 0

player-x said:
I still think that these drives are way over priced, for at best marginal performance benefits on the desktop, but drive failure is the last thing i would worry about with these drives!
Click to expand...

maybe for you but plenty of us still see a very good difference.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
yea but 1 single reinstall takes out 1% of use for the 1.2 TB? WTF I also go through like 50-100GB a day :/ I would be paying 300 dollars a year in upkeep.
Click to expand...
Its not like the drive is going to fail after 219 TBW, Intel just guaranties that amount of writes, my TV has a warranty of 2y, but its not like its going to go stop working after 2 years.

If you look at the linked destruction write test of the 250GB EVO with crappy 19nm TLC NAND, it still did about 800TBW, then this 400GB SSD with MLC will at least do 1250TBW, and you properly can triple that number for the 1.2TB version.

And 50~100GB a day of writes is almost impossible, unles you do something really special with your SSD, if you do so many writes a day you need server grade SSDs, because 99.99% of desktop users dont go over 5GB of writes a day.

I am think the Kingston x predator is looking nicer each day and thats got the second best latency scores and consistency next to the 750. It just sucks the kingston isn't 1TB so I might have to use one ultra M.2 slot and a PCIe to do RAID 0
Click to expand...
Really there is not much difference between NAND from brand A or B in endurance, its even highly possible that the same NAND chips used in the SSD 750 als bin used in Predator.

maybe for you but plenty of us still see a very good difference.
Click to expand...
Ooo..., tell me what are those differences then, because from what i have seen, 3 SSDs in RAID0 behave very similar performance wise as the SSD 750's on the desktop.

If you are running a database that gets accessed by hundred's of people all the time, i would pick this SSD, but for desktop use, the average improvement of 2~3%, i dont see a point of buying this SSD for, for these prices.

 
player-x said:
Its not like the drive is going to fail after 219 TBW, Intel just guaranties that amount of writes, my TV has a warranty of 2y, but its not like its going to go stop working after 2 years.

If you look at the linked destruction write test of the 250GB EVO with crappy 19nm TLC NAND, it still did about 800TBW, then this 400GB SSD with MLC will at least do 1250TBW, and you properly can triple that number for the 1.2TB version.

And 50~100GB a day of writes is almost impossible, unles you do something really special with your SSD, if you do so many writes a day you need server grade SSDs, because 99.99% of desktop users dont go over 5GB of writes a day.


Really there is not much difference between NAND from brand A or B in endurance, its even highly possible that the same NAND chips used in the SSD 750 als bin used in Predator.


Ooo..., tell me what are those differences then, because from what i have seen, 3 SSDs in RAID0 behave very similar performance wise as the SSD 750's on the desktop.

If you are running a database that gets accessed by hundred's of people all the time, i would pick this SSD, but for desktop use, the average improvement of 2~3%, i dont see a point of buying this SSD for, for these prices.

Click to expand...

we have been over this before so i am not going to bother and I posted my smart in the past.

running again.....
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bphrlgu43vj09zl/Sandisk extreme pro smart.png?dl=0

Drive has only been online for 262 days total. Maybe a year and a half old tops. I would have to check amazon.

Writes: 102.67 GB per day...wtf it went up a ton. I was down to 90 I thought on average a month or two ago...sigh. I think this new internet connection is killing me :/ I have downloaded and deleted a "few" games. I haven't shot any photos in a while so thats not a cause of the jump. Maybe its the games but I wonder if veracrypt containers play a role?
Reads: 332.98 GB per day. Still around the same.


WTF!!!!
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041643931&postcount=69
A month ago i was at 92 GB per day writes. Damn steam.

I went up 5TB in just over a month...wtf have I done to cause that much writes! I swear this stuff is in accurate. Does this count write amplification because that would make some sense if I did 1TB of data and it was 5TB of wear. I could believe that.

I am just a little olee cave dweller and no server user :/
 
Last edited:
Even with a 100GB a day, (you really are a program jockey :), you could still use the SSD for 6 years, guaranteed, but in practice more likely he would last at least 35 years before he would stop working.

Really, the drive wear is not something i would really worry about, 6 years is about the end of expected practical use, before replacement, and likely the drive will last even 5 times longer before failure.

And because they use the same numbers for both drives, its likely the 1.2TB version will last even 3 times longer.

b3149edf6e7756dad5258c230e36513a.jpg
 
yea but I can see my usage going either way to be honest...higher or lower. I am stunned that I some how just used around 150-170 GB per day over the last month and change. 5.7TB -_-

The problem is a single install of the drive to 80% capacity is going to take like 4% oh its warranty life away...thats dumb (granted, i am assuming there is write amplification of like 5x)
 
Just get a 500GB 850 Pro as your system drive, and you wont have any re installments, and a 850 Pro is about just as fast as the SSD 750 for desktop use.

And having your system and game files on different disk is properly even gone be faster in daily usage, at least it is for me, tho the 750 preforms very well with higher queue depth.
 
I have a sandisk Extreme Pro and it stutters due to garbage collections and hitting that endurance wall. 850 Pro will be the exact same or worse when it comes to endurance.

Kingston and 750 are the two best drives in those areas. I need better
 
player-x said:
How can that be a problem for a pure system disk?


De P3700 can have have 17x its drive size of writes a day, or a total of 62 PetaBytes of writes for the biggest model.
Click to expand...

yea 1k was kinda over my limit but was willing to do it. I dont have 2-7k. Want to buy me it? Also its a bit slower than the 750 IIRC or at least in writes but I might be mistaken. It also isn't NVMe so its not "future" proofed and for its life span and 7K I would hope it would be lol.

What do you mean by the first part? I some how do enough stuff on the PC at times in the day I have too much going on for too long and it looses peak performance and drops to the lower sustained speed and slow gets worse and worse and worse. I have to pause what I am doing for like 60s to let the SSD breath. What am I doing that causes this? Fuck if i know. I just go about my business on my PC. I had the 830 and I loathed it. It was worse than a HDD at times. I got the Sandisk Extreme Pro because it was the best in endurance before performance degraded and degraded performance was top noche. 850 Pro would be even worse.

Thats why the 750 was so tempting but now I am looking at the kingston unless I hear something in the next week or two about a 1 TB version or some good NVMe drives.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone found a difference in performance when moving from PCH pci-e lanes to CPU pci-e lanes?
 
SomeGuy133 said:
are you showing signs of capping?

The biggest thing I would be interested about is if the PCH adds latency.
Click to expand...
I don't own one yet. Planning the purchase for my Skylake build.

I read SL will have 20 lanes available to the CPU but that the z170 boards only support 1x16 or 2x8 like Haswell. Would they block off the remaining 4 lanes that I could use for the SSD?
 
bigdogchris said:
From what I'm reading SL should have 20 lanes available to the CPU on a z170 board.
Click to expand...
If i am correct the CPU will just have 16 lanes, but the chipset will have a upgrade to DMI 3.0 and have one PCIe 3.0 x4 connection, and some more PCIe 2.x connections.

If you want/need more M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe connections for more NVMe disks, you will need to use a PLX chip.
 
CPU is 20 lanes and PCH is DMI 3.0 with 8GTs

so you should be able to do 8x 8x 4x plus PCH 8GTs

So you should be able to do 16x and 4x and 8x 8x 4x if you do SLI/xfire

PCH should have been 10GTs but whatever

This is assuming intels slides and releases are right skylake is 20 lanes. They did claim it was 20 lanes so yea.

I cant find the slides quickly sorry kinda busy ATM
 
slide doesn't make sense. Look at z97 at the bottom for maximum.
z97 8 (2.0)
z170 20 (3.0)

huh?
 
player-x said:
If i am correct the CPU will just have 16 lanes, but the chipset will have a upgrade to DMI 3.0 and have one PCIe 3.0 x4 connection, and some more PCIe 2.x connections.

If you want/need more M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe connections for more NVMe disks, you will need to use a PLX chip.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I looked at it a little more and I see what you mean.

Has anyone benched one of these on CPU lanes and compared it to PCH lanes? Is there a difference?
 
Compared to the milliseconds latency that NAND has, a couple of nanoseconds will not make a huge difference. ;)
 
player-x said:
Compared to the milliseconds latency that NAND has, a couple of nanoseconds will not make a huge difference. ;)
Click to expand...

so what difference are you looking for? Thats the only real difference to exist.

Also who says the PCH doesn't add a significant delay? I dont know if it does but added a new point in a path adds some sort of delay. Never heard of any figured for a PCH so I am curious on what delay it has verse PCIe CPU lanes.

FYI PCIe has slower responses than you think. RAM is 10ns and NAND in RAM slots like Sandisk UltraDIMMS shows massive reduction in latency. So I would wager that PCH could easily be in the 100s of nanoseconds if not more. Still a lot a way from .x ms but still not a fast as you are thinking.
 
Last edited:
I'm just curious if there is a difference. You would think direct connection to the CPU would be better. But maybe direct connection to the CPU is not possible. I don't know, even under NVMe, if the cards require passing through the storage controller on the PCH.
 
bigdogchris said:
I'm just curious if there is a difference. You would think direct connection to the CPU would be better. But maybe direct connection to the CPU is not possible. I don't know, even under NVMe, if the cards require passing through the storage controller on the PCH.
Click to expand...

I agree I would like to see a complete break down of the types of latency each section has so better understanding may exist at the laymen level.
 
No there will be no noticeable difference between a SSD connected true a CPU or chipset.

All SSDs, even a fast one like the 750, have a slow access time, inhered of NAND.

The only exception could be if a SSD has cache memory, and you would access data from the cache memory, but that also still means that the cache memory have to really fast accessible, in like fast as system memory, something most of the cache memory is not.
 
player-x said:
No there will be no noticeable difference between a SSD connected true a CPU or chipset.

All SSDs, even a fast one like the 750, have a slow access time, inhered of NAND.

The only exception could be if a SSD has cache memory, and you would access data from the cache memory, but that also still means that the cache memory have to really fast accessible, in like fast as system memory, something most of the cache memory is not.
Click to expand...

then can you explain how this NAND is some how magical? According to the concept of NAND on RAM the interface is a big deal. Hence getting ride of SATA is a big thing.

Whats the difference from NAND in Memory, PCIe, PCH, and SATA?

According to everything i have seen each interface has different latencies so what are they? NAND in DIMMs is much faster than PCIe in terms of latency unless this NAND is special, which according to this article and review it isn't.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/68...-ddr3-400gb-ssd-enterprise-review/index7.html

EDIT: they directly market this and promote this as being faster and better than PCIe...so is it a bald face lie?

I provided a source with factual evidence so please support yours with the same if memory interface, PCIe, and PCH do not have any different latencys (SP?).
 
What's with the slow boot time on these drives? I guess it's lack of the support for the chipset but will you get normal SSD boot times at least with X99?

What is the difference between the PCI-E version and the 2'5" M.2 version except location inside your case?

I noticed P3500 offers better speeds (write at least) with but a $100 higher pricetag. If one is already spending that much dough on a single hard drive, why wouldn't one try to get a P3500 one because of the obvious reasons you are grabbing a drive like this?
 
falconpunch said:
What's with the slow boot time on these drives? I guess it's lack of the support for the chipset but will you get normal SSD boot times at least with X99?

What is the difference between the PCI-E version and the 2'5" M.2 version except location inside your case?

I noticed P3500 offers better speeds (write at least) with but a $100 higher pricetag. If one is already spending that much dough on a single hard drive, why wouldn't one try to get a P3500 one because of the obvious reasons you are grabbing a drive like this?
Click to expand...

personally I never understood why in a desktop boot times matter. Mine stay on except when some stupid update is pushed. The long boot times i think some people were saying were due to the bad drivers/optimization. Other brands don't have it so it must not have been on intels list of important things.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
personally I never understood why in a desktop boot times matter. Mine stay on except when some stupid update is pushed. The long boot times i think some people were saying were due to the bad drivers/optimization. Other brands don't have it so it must not have been on intels list of important things.
Click to expand...

Well, of course it doesn't matter THAT much. it's just hard to justify that expensive hard drive to make your computer slower in certain areas and that is why I said normal SSD boot times and not hoping for better.
 
I too am wondering between the slot version (pci-e) and the nvme version and can't really decide. Cooling wise it would be easier to stick it in a slot and space wise somewhat favors this too, but not by much. Would the slot version stay cooler and thus be better for lifespan?

Thoughts focusing me on which version to get would be helpful :)
 
Anemone said:
I too am wondering between the slot version (pci-e) and the nvme version and can't really decide. Cooling wise it would be easier to stick it in a slot and space wise somewhat favors this too, but not by much. Would the slot version stay cooler and thus be better for lifespan?

Thoughts focusing me on which version to get would be helpful :)
Click to expand...

Well the PCIe version does have a heat spreader on it, but if you have multiple video cards and you sandwich it between them it isn't going to be great. I have also heard boot times on the PCIe cards is slower due to the software which can be frustrating after spending so much.

I decided to save my money and go with a standard SSD this time around
 
zaniix said:
Well the PCIe version does have a heat spreader on it, but if you have multiple video cards and you sandwich it between them it isn't going to be great. I have also heard boot times on the PCIe cards is slower due to the software which can be frustrating after spending so much.

I decided to save my money and go with a standard SSD this time around
Click to expand...

start saving for xpoint :)
 
SomeGuy133 said:
personally I never understood why in a desktop boot times matter. Mine stay on except when some stupid update is pushed. The long boot times i think some people were saying were due to the bad drivers/optimization. Other brands don't have it so it must not have been on intels list of important things.
Click to expand...

Troubleshooting, overclocking. When boot times matter, they matter a lot.
 
ZeqOBpf6 said:
Troubleshooting, overclocking. When boot times matter, they matter a lot.
Click to expand...

use a separate drive with blank OS -_-

If you want to get a good stable OC you want as clean of a slate as possible and isolate the environment so you are only experiencing instability due to the OC. An old SSD or 50 dollar SSD with do you wonders if your that die hard.
 
Holy crap..wish I saw this thread...just purchased the 800GB 750 PCI-E Version yesterday and it shipped already.

Planning to use it for VMware Workstation Lab Storage....doesn't seem to be a good fit for that use case with that crappy write endurance.
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
Holy crap..wish I saw this thread...just purchased the 800GB 750 PCI-E Version yesterday and it shipped already.

Planning to use it for VMware Workstation Lab Storage....doesn't seem to be a good fit for that use case with that crappy write endurance.
Click to expand...

they have an 800GB now? How much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top