Sequential Read Performance

Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.

Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential read speed of the Intel SSD 760p is a substantial improvement over the Intel SSD 750 and 600p, but isn't quite fast enough to match Samsung's NVMe SSDs.

Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

The sustained sequential read speed of the Intel SSD 760p is only slightly above SATA SSD speeds. This makes it more than twice as fast as the Intel SSD 600p, but still far slower than other recent NVMe SSDs using 3D TLC NAND such as the Toshiba XG5 and the Samsung PM981.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read (Power Efficiency)

With subpar performance, it isn't surprising to see the Intel SSD 760p score near the bottom for power efficiency. There are a few TLC-based NVMe SSDs that score even worse—including the Intel SSD 600p—but there's clearly a lot of room for improvement here.

The Intel SSD 760p hits its full sequential read speed at QD1, while the 600p required QD4 or higher to offer its full speed. Like most other M.2 NVMe SSDs, the Intel 760p draws about 4W at full speed, and the efficiency differences between drives are mostly due to differences in speed, not power consumption.

Sequential Write Performance

Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.

Burst 128kB Sequential Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential write speed of the Intel SSD 760p is slightly above average and far above Intel's previous flash-based SSDs. It is only slightly slower than the larger 1TB Toshiba XG5, and about 15–20% slower than Samsung's NVMe SSDs.

Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write

The sustained sequential write speed of the Intel SSD 760p is comfortably above the limits of the SATA interface, which many NVMe SSDs can't manage. However, the Samsung PM981 is 60% faster than the 760p, and the 960 PRO is almost three times faster. The performance of the 760p is reasonable for a low-end NVMe SSD, but it can't compete at the high end.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Intel SSD 760p on the sequential write test is slightly below average. This is twice the efficiency of Intel's previous NVMe SSDs, but substantially worse than more recent drives from Samsung and Toshiba.

The Intel SSD 760p is very close to its full sequential write speed at QD1, and its performance is steady across the entire test—a marked improvement over the 600p and many other low-end NVMe SSDs. Samsung's PM981 delivered uneven performance on this test but was much faster overall with about the same power draw as the 760p.

Random Performance Mixed Read/Write Performance
Comments Locked

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • Dr. Swag - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    What happened to your performance consistency tests?
  • ImSpartacus - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link

    I'm glad I wasn't the only one that noticed them missing.

    I'd love to get a comment on why that is omitted.
  • SleepyFE - Saturday, January 27, 2018 - link

    Just assume it's not consistent enough to measure up. It is an Intel product after all. If they don't won't it published it won't be.
  • jjj - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Fair perf for the price but not exciting.
    Any word on a timing for their lower end 660p QLC based drive?
  • HStewart - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    So this does not used Micron memory, I remember reading that Intel stop work with Micron - maybe this is part of it.

    This is aim and price at lower end market - and came out at same time as the 860, maybe Intel has a faster one coming later this year. If so that is actually very smart on Intel's part.
  • edzieba - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    The Micron logo is printed right there on the packages for all to see...
  • emvonline - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    thats dram
  • HStewart - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Yes - I see that but did Intel designed the memory - also a lot of times company purchase other products in there own products - Intel has done this with AMD GPU's because it feels a hole with discrete GPU until they can provide a replacement.
  • msabercr - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    All the nand is IMFT, Intel has just also leveraged their own fabs to produce more for themselves. All the nand designs are joint venture.
  • jjj - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link

    Intel and Micron will stop developing NAND together with their 4th gen, this is the second gen, 3rd gen starts prod in second half of 2018 and 4th gen comes 1 year or more later. So you'll see products with that in 2020.
    Intel has it's own fab now , producing NAND developed with Micron (and so does Micron ofc) but Intel still has supply agreements (at cost) with Micron and those expire in 2018 and 2019.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now