Intel 660p 1TB M.2 NVME - $112.66 (Code: FEBSAVE19)

Almost .......... almost pulled the trigger. .. gonna wait for something faster but a damn good price for a 1TB NVMe
 
Oh man, tempted to get off my 256GB sandforce sometime does not detect in the BIOS boot drive
 
Probably quite well, but in a real world it wouldn't be noticeable. However, you might even get to the point of saturating a 32Gb/s M.2.
 
Coupon good for first time buyers only. Should be notated in OP.
 
Its deals like these that make me believe the next generation of consoles will feature at bare minimum 128gb SSDs
 
Neapolitan6th said:
Its deals like these that make me believe the next generation of consoles will feature at bare minimum 128gb SSDs
Click to expand...

meh there is no point to that thats like 1 and half game lol. I think by 2020 they probably get 1tb m2 or nvme for 50 bucks in a console. I am fairly certain it will be generic label brand but decent enough speeds.
 
NKD said:
meh there is no point to that thats like 1 and half game lol. I think by 2020 they probably get 1tb m2 or nvme for 50 bucks in a console. I am fairly certain it will be generic label brand but decent enough speeds.
Click to expand...
NVMe will be a no go for console. SATA based 1tb drives should he possible for them tho. The cost/performance benefit is not their for NVMe even in 2020.
 
kirbyrj said:
Why not? The cost difference has pretty much reached zero between SATA m.2 and NVMe m.2 drives.
Click to expand...
They always penny pinch on consoles. The days of consoles being loss leaders is over. Sony and MS want to be making a slight profit for each console sold. Sony and MS are not going to loose up to $100 a console like they did during the PS3 era. $400 is the sweet spot for consoles.
 
This seems to be cheap across the board for some reason. Maybe it has a chienese tracking chip implanted? Because I just ordered one here in the middle of freaking europe for the equivalent of $140. Mind you we are subject to a 27% VAT so it's basically the same price.
 
M76 said:
This seems to be cheap across the board for some reason. Maybe it has a chienese tracking chip implanted? Because I just ordered one here in the middle of freaking europe for the equivalent of $140. Mind you we are subject to a 27% VAT so it's basically the same price.
Click to expand...
These are QLC drives. While cheapest memory chips. They are also slower and less reliable then TLC drives supposedly.
 
vegeta535 said:
These are QLC drives. While cheapest memory chips. They are also slower and less reliable then TLC drives supposedly.
Click to expand...

Which are slower and less reliable than MLC, which are slower and less reliable than SLC...

...price following the same pattern for most current models.

In any case, QLC shouldn't have major reliability issues- it will just wear out faster, and that will only matter if it's abused. Which is actually difficult for a consumer to do.

Joust said:
At this price...anyone know how these perform in RAID 0?
Click to expand...

Theoretical numbers are pretty easy to come up with and have been reliable for NVMe, but it's hard to imagine a scenario where it would actually be useful vis-a-vis the halved reliability rating. Now RAID-1, I could see, and you'd still get double the read speeds.
 
vegeta535 said:
These are QLC drives. While cheapest memory chips. They are also slower and less reliable then TLC drives supposedly.
Click to expand...
Compared to SATA drives they are still 3x faster. So it's still great value.
 
if the drive is big enough in size, you can always add a little safety / maintain speed by provisioning some extra room on it. I know Samsung Magician allows for it, not sure if Intel comes with software to do the same or not / never used an intel SSD.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
it will just wear out faster, and that will only matter if it's abused. Which is actually difficult for a consumer to do.
Click to expand...
Well, windows 10 seems extremely efficient at abusing drives.
250GB system drive running w7 since 2012: 35 TBW
250GB system drive running w10 since 2017 oct: 25TBW


Now RAID-1, I could see, and you'd still get double the read speeds.
Click to expand...
Does that actually work in practice? I mean do you get 2x read speed with raid1?
 
dvsman said:
if the drive is big enough in size, you can always add a little safety / maintain speed by provisioning some extra room on it. I know Samsung Magician allows for it, not sure if Intel comes with software to do the same or not / never used an intel SSD.
Click to expand...
All you have to do is make the partition about 10% smaller than the actual size of the drive, no need for special software for it. Samung removed the option for newer drives anyway. I think last I saw it was with the 840 series. Actually I just checked it's there again. Maybe it was some specific version that didn't have it.
 
Yeah - I just saw the option in Samsung Magician on my 970 EVO rig ... that's the only reason I figured to suggest it.

But back on point - since I didn't pull the trigger on a Radeon VII, I might have to click on this deal and try out some RAID0 NVME on my next build. I love the cordless / cableless builds when you run m.2 NVME only setups.
 
M76 said:
Compared to SATA drives they are still 3x faster. So it's still great value.
Click to expand...
Only until the SLC cache is exhausted, then these fuckers crawl writing at 100MB/s.

Store Steam games and archival stuff on these drives, fine. But for boot drive I'd go Samsung SATA or m.2.SATA before I went QLC clunker. The pseudo-SLC masks the abysmal speed of these things for a lot of tasks but when you're copying big chunks of data to it, be prepared to scratch your head.

Again, there's a reason they're cheap. It's not because the industry decided to grace everyone with kindness and insane value.
 
odditory said:
Only until the SLC cache is exhausted, then these fuckers crawl writing at 100MB/s.

Store Steam games and archival stuff on these drives, fine. But for boot drive I'd go Samsung SATA or m.2.SATA before I went QLC clunker. The pseudo-SLC masks the abysmal speed of these things for a lot of tasks but when you're copying big chunks of data to it, be prepared to scratch your head.

Again, there's a reason they're cheap. It's not because the industry decided to grace everyone with kindness and insane value.
Click to expand...
Sure if it's full writes will slow down, but you can't write big chunks of data to a full drive anyway :D It's still great value it should be perfect as a drive for games and things where read speed is important, but writes are not. Except for installation. For a games drive I'd probably choose this over a sata drive even at equal price. But of course I might change my mind when I see the real world performance.
 
Oh sweet, this will go perfectly for my Sabertooth x79 mothe....... FUCK!
 
odditory said:
Only until the SLC cache is exhausted, then these fuckers crawl writing at 100MB/s.

Store Steam games and archival stuff on these drives, fine. But for boot drive I'd go Samsung SATA or m.2.SATA before I went QLC clunker. The pseudo-SLC masks the abysmal speed of these things for a lot of tasks but when you're copying big chunks of data to it, be prepared to scratch your head.

Again, there's a reason they're cheap. It's not because the industry decided to grace everyone with kindness and insane value.
Click to expand...

To be fair, not a lot of people write 100-200GB files.

Edited: meant GB.
 
Last edited:
legcramp said:
To be fair, not a lot of people write 100-200TB files.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you're getting those random numbers but you're maybe not understanding this correctly. Try copying a bunch of files from a smaller SSD over - let's say one you're upgrading from - and write speed hits a wall around 150GB. Sometimes you'll see copy speed dip to 0 and appear to be stalled as the cache space gasps for air.

Also, as the drive gets full, pseudo-SLC space shrinks and performance narrows. Read the reviews on the 660p, and Crucial P1 to understand qlc drives better. They're the SMR equivalent of the SSD world.
 
Last edited:
odditory said:
Not sure where you're getting those random numbers but you're maybe not understanding this correctly. Try copying a bunch of files from a smaller SSD over - let's say one you're upgrading from - and write speed hits a wall around 150GB. Sometimes you'll see copy speed dip to 0 and appear to be stalled as the cache space gasps for air.

Also, as the drive gets full, pseudo-SLC space shrinks and performance narrows. Read the reviews on the 660p, and Crucial P1 to understand qlc drives better. They're the SMR equivalent of the SSD world.
Click to expand...

Got the random numbers from here:

https://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_660p_series_review

https://hothardware.com/reviews/intel-ssd-660p-review

And I meant to put GB instead of TB. I personally never copied a file larger than 60GB so I am honestly just unaware of what application would require huge file sizes like that but maybe you can school me.
 
Last edited:
legcramp said:
Got the random numbers from here:

https://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_660p_series_review

https://hothardware.com/reviews/intel-ssd-660p-review

And I meant to put GB instead of TB. I personally never copied a file larger than 60GB so I am honestly just unaware of what application would require huge file sizes like that but maybe you can school me.
Click to expand...

intel-660p-slc-cache-sizes.png



SO if you are 75% full, You hit "the wall" at copying just 12 gig, or 25 gig if at 65%. So if your biggest load is 60 gig, you need to keep her at 50% full or less.
 
nightanole said:
View attachment 141277


SO if you are 75% full, You hit "the wall" at copying just 12 gig, or 25 gig if at 65%. So if your biggest load is 60 gig, you need to keep her at 50% full or less.
Click to expand...
And in fairness, for most users that won't present any problems for typical usage scenarios. I just don't like gotchas, like if I'm copying another drive over to a QLC drive, or restoring a drive image or copying raw 4K files, I don't want to suddenly see filecopy drop to 0MB/s intermittently and then remember "oh yeah this is because I tried to save a few bucks going QLC".

When Seagate 4TB SMR drives first came out, I bought 4 and began copying a bunch of data to them and very quickly windows filecopy appeared to freeze at 0MB/s, and I didn't know why at first -- but all those drives got returned and I bought proper non-SMR for a few more bucks.
 
odditory said:
And in fairness, for most users that won't present any problems for typical usage scenarios. I just don't like gotchas, like if I'm copying another drive over to a QLC drive, or restoring a drive image or copying raw 4K files, I don't want to suddenly see filecopy drop to 0MB/s intermittently and then remember "oh yeah this is because I tried to save a few bucks going QLC".

When Seagate 4TB SMR drives first came out, I bought 4 and began copying a bunch of data to them and very quickly windows filecopy appeared to freeze at 0MB/s, and I didn't know why at first -- but all those drives got returned and I bought proper non-SMR for a few more bucks.
Click to expand...

totally agree that this is such a small percentage of the time most will use the drive that it probably isn't relevant. I like the perspective though, as the "gotchas" you refer to are irritating as hell when they arise. with all those things considered, are you using nvme at all right now and if so, which drive(s)? pure curiosity.
 
odditory said:
And in fairness, for most users that won't present any problems for typical usage scenarios. I just don't like gotchas, like if I'm copying another drive over to a QLC drive, or restoring a drive image or copying raw 4K files, I don't want to suddenly see filecopy drop to 0MB/s intermittently and then remember "oh yeah this is because I tried to save a few bucks going QLC".
.
Click to expand...
That happened a lot with Samsung as well. Garbage collection kicks in, and you're watching a nonresponsive system for a few minutes. Especially with the 840 evo / pro drives under heavy load. If you know this drive is not for abuse then you'll be fine. If you buy it do to video editing on it, then the joke is on you. It's like buying a go-kart for offroading.
 
vegeta535 said:
NVMe will be a no go for console. SATA based 1tb drives should he possible for them tho. The cost/performance benefit is not their for NVMe even in 2020.
Click to expand...

and with consoles (at least xbox...).. they want to get away from you going to the store to buy/sell games and DL the entire game so yeah gonna need some massive room!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top