인텔SSD 750 PCIe 리뷰: NVMe for the Client

I don't think it's an overstatement to say that Intel introduced us to the era of modern SSDs back in 2008 with the X25-M. It wasn't the first SSD on the market, but it was the first drive that delivered the aspects we now take for granted: high, consistent and reliable performance. Many SSDs in the early days focused solely on sequential performance as that was a common performance metric for hard drives, but Intel understood that the key to better user performance wasn't the maximum throughput, but the small random IOs that take unbearably long to complete on HDDs. Thanks to Intel's early understanding of real world workloads and implementing the knowledge to a well designed product, it took several years before others were able to fully catch up with the X25-M.

But when the time came to upgrade to SATA 6Gbps, Intel missed the train. The initial SATA 6Gbps drives had to rely on third party silicon because Intel's own SATA 6Gbps controller was still in development, and to put it frankly the SSD 510 and SSD 520 just didn't pack the same punch as the X25-M did. The others had also done their homework and gone back to drawing board, which meant that Intel was no longer in the special position it was in 2008. Once the SSD DC S3700 with in-house Intel SATA 6Gbps controller finally materialized in late 2012, it quickly built back the Intel image that the company had in the X25-M days. The DC S3700 wasn't as revolutionary as the X25-M was, but it again focused on areas where other manufacturers had been lacking, namely performance consistency.

Intel SSD 750 Specifications
Capacity	400GB	1.2TB
Form Factor	2.5" 15mm SFF-8639 or PCIe Add-In Card (HHHL)
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x4 - NVMe
Controller	Intel CH29AE41AB0
NAND	Intel 20nm 128Gbit MLC
Sequential Read	2,200MB/s	2,400MB/s
Sequential Write	900MB/s	1,200MB/s
4KB Random Read	430K IOPS	440K IOPS
4KB Random Write	230K IOPS	290K IOPS
Idle Power Consumption	4W	4W
Read/Write Power Consumption	9W / 12W	10W / 22W
Encryption	N/A
Endurance	70GB Writes per Day for Five Years
Warranty	Five Years
MSRP	$389	$1,029

모델명 - Intel SSD 750

폼팩터 - 2.5" 15mm SFF-8639 / PCIe Add-In Card (HHHL)

인터페이스 - PCIe 3.0 4배속 - NVMe

컨트롤러 - Intel CH29AE41AB0

낸드 플래시 - Intel 20nm 128Gbit MLC

시퀀셜 읽기 : 2,200MB/s - 2,400MB/s

시퀀셜 쓰기 : 900MB/s - 1200MB/s

4KB 랜덤 읽기 : 430K IOPS / 440K IOPS

4KB 랜덤 쓰기 : 230K IOPS / 290K IOPS

아이들 전력소모 : 4W

로드 전력소모 : 9W / 12W - 10W / 22W

워런티 : 5년

가격 : 400GB = 389달러 / 1.2TB = 1029달러

PCB 기판 레이아웃

[ 테스트 시스템 ]

AnandTech 2015 SSD Test System
CPU	Intel Core i7-4770K running at 3.5GHz (Turbo & EIST enabled, C-states disabled)
Motherboard	ASUS Z97 Deluxe (BIOS 2205)
Chipset	Intel Z97
Chipset Drivers	Intel 10.0.24+ Intel RST 13.2.4.1000
Memory	Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2x8GB (9-10-9-27 2T)
Graphics	Intel HD Graphics 4600
Graphics Drivers	15.33.8.64.3345
Desktop Resolution	1920 x 1080
OS	Windows 8.1 x64

Performance Consistency

Steady-State 4KB Random Write Performance

Given the higher over-provisioning and an enterprise-oriented controller, it's no surprise that the SSD 750 has excellent steady-state random write performance.

Steady-State 4KB Random Write Consistency


Default	Intel SSD 750 1.2TB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - NVMe)Samsung SM951 512GB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - AHCI)Samsung XP941 512GB (PCIe 2.0 x4 - AHCI)Corsair Neutron XT 480GBCrucial MX100 512GBOCZ Vector 180 960GBSamsung SSD 850 Pro 512GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 480GB

At the initial cliff the performance drops to around 15K IOPS, but it quickly rises and seems to even out at about 22-23K IOPS. It actually takes nearly an hour for the SSD 750 to reach steady-state, which isn't uncommon for such a large drive but it's still notable.

I couldn't run tests with added over-provisioning because NVMe drives don't support the usual ATA commands that I use to limit the LBA of the drive. There is similar command set for NVMe as well, but I'm still trying to figure out how to use them as there's isn't too much public info about NVMe tools.


Default	Intel SSD 750 1.2TB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - NVMe)Samsung SM951 512GB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - AHCI)Samsung XP941 512GB (PCIe 2.0 x4 - AHCI)Corsair Neutron XT 480GBCrucial MX100 512GBOCZ Vector 180 960GBSamsung SSD 850 Pro 512GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 480GB

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

In terms of throughput, the SSD 750 is actually marginally slower than the SM951, although when you look at latency the SD 750 wins by a large margin. The difference in these scores is explained by Intel's focus on random performance as Intel specifically optimized the firmware for high random IO performance, which does have some impact on the sequential performance. As I've explained above, data rate has more emphasis on large IO size transfers, whereas latency treats all IOs the same regardless of their size.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)