랩터 인터내셔널에 오신걸 환영 합니다
>

logo

  • head
  • news
  • product
  • mobile
  • benchmark
  • analysis
  • computing
  • multimedia

760p_drive_575px.jpg


 


Intel SSD 760p Specifications
Capacity128 GB256 GB512 GB1 TB2 TB
Form FactorM.2 2280 single-sidedM.2 2280 double-sided
ControllerIntel-customized Silicon Motion SM2262
NANDIntel 256Gb 64-layer 3D TLC
Sequential Read1640 MB/s3210 MB/s3230 MB/sTBATBA
Sequential Write650 MB/s1315 MB/s1625 MB/sTBATBA
4KB Random Read 105k IOPS205k IOPS340k IOPSTBATBA
4KB Random Write 160k IOPS265k IOPS275k IOPSTBATBA
Idle Power25 mWTBATBA
Endurance72 TBW144 TBW288 TBW576 TBW1152 TBW
Warranty5 years
Price$72.99 (57¢/GB)$108.99 (43¢/GB)$198.99 (39¢/GB)TBA (Q1 '18)TBA (Q1 '18)

 

인텔 SSD 760p

메인 컨트롤러 : Intel-customized Silicon Motion SM2262

낸드 : Intel 256Gb 64-layer 3D TLC

폼 팩터 : M.2 2280 single-sided / double-sided

시퀀셜 읽기 : 1640 MB/s ~ 3230 MB/s

시퀀셜 쓰기 : 650 MB/s ~ 1625 MB/s

4KB 랜덤 읽기 : 105k IOPS ~ 340k IOPS

4KB 랜덤 쓰기 : 160k IOPS ~ 275k IOPS

파워 : 25 mW

워런티 : 5년


ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The Intel SSD 760p falls on the good side of a big gap in average data rate scores on The Destroyer. Scoring far below the 760p are SATA drives and most earlier entry-level NVMe SSDs. The 760p is a bit slower than some of the drives using planar MLC NAND or 3D TLC NAND, but it is clear that the 760p is capable of handling The Destroyer better than any previous SSD in its price range.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores don't provide the clear separation that the average data rate shows, so the Intel 760p simply looks a bit below average for a NVMe SSD. Given the relative pricing and the poor performance of the Intel 600p, that's a good result for the 760p.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

Breaking down the average latency by reads and writes, the Intel SSD 760p ranks about the same either way. It is roughly on par with the slower (read: not Samsung) MLC NVMe SSDs.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency of the Intel SSD 760p on The Destroyer is rather poor, and the 99th percentile write latency isn't great either. The 760p doesn't seem to have serious problems with garbage collection pauses, but The Destroyer definitely does stress the 760p.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The energy consumption of the Intel SSD 760p during The Destroyer is almost as low as Samsung's best NVMe SSDs, but nowhere near the SATA-like efficiency of the Toshiba XG5. Overall, the 760p is much more efficient than Intel's previous NVMe SSDs, but there's still room for improvement.


ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

The average data rate of the Intel SSD 760p on the Heavy test makes it clear that the 760p is not a high-end NVMe drive, but it does perform much better than SATA SSDs and previous low-end NVMe SSDs. The 760p also handles being full relatively well, so its SLC caching strategy seems well done.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the 760p aren't great, but they're still a big improvement over most earlier low-end NVMe SSDs. The 99th percentile latency has more room for improvement, since it is no better than a good SATA SSD.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (Average Write Latency)

The average read latencies of the Intel SSD 760p on the Heavy test are not quite as good as a high-end NVMe SSD but are definitely close enough for a product this cheap. The average write latencies are more in line with some of the better previous budget NVMe SSDs, and are close to the level of SATA SSDs.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latencies from the Intel 760p don't particularly stand out, and are reasonable for this product segment. The 99th percentile write latency scores are rather high, but not to egregiously like the Intel SSD 600p and a similar ADATA drive.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

As with The Destroyer, the Intel SSD 760p shows very good power efficiency by NVMe standards, but the SATA drives and the Toshiba XG5 show that there's still room for much improvement.


ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The Light test reveals bigger performance differences for full and empty drive states than the Heavy test, but the 760p doesn't suffer as much as most drives. The average data rates from the 760p are slightly higher than from the Intel SSD 750, and much higher than the 600p or the SATA drives. On the other hand, the TLC-based Samsung PM981 is almost twice as fast.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

The average latency scores of the Intel SSD 760p are twice those of the fastest NVMe SSDs, but this isn't enough to amount to a noticeable difference on a light workload. The 99th percentile latencies are much higher than those of Samsung's NVMe drives, but are still faster than SATA SSDs.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

The average read latencies from the Intel 760p fall into the middle of the range for NVMe SSDs, but the average write latencies are clearly on the high side of normal.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latencies of the 760p on the Light test are acceptable for a low-end NVMe SSD, but the full-drive score is actually slightly worse than the Intel 600p. On the write side, the 99th percentile latency is actually very slightly worse than good SATA SSDs, but the 760p doesn't get noticeably worse when full.

ATSB - Light (Power)

The two SM2260-based NVMe SSDs join the Toshiba XG5 this time as the most efficient NVMe SSDs ahead of the Intel 760p, but the SM2260-based 600p and GAMMIX S10 fall behind when the test is run on a full drive. The Samsung drives mostly use slightly more power than the 760p, but the PM981 ends up near the bottom of the chart.


Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst random read performance of the Intel SSD 760p is great, even when compared against MLC-based NVMe SSDs. Samsung's 960 PRO is the only flash-based consumer SSD that currently beats the read latency of the 760p. The 760p has more than doubled the QD1 random read performance of the Intel SSD 600p, and is 17% faster than the Intel SSD 750.

Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

With a longer test runtime and some higher queue depths involved, the Intel SSD 760p no longer stands out from the crowd. Its sustained random read performance is reasonable given its pricing and the current field of competitors, but in a few months time it may be looking rather sluggish. The 760p is about 5% slower than the Intel SSD 750, but on the other hand it is 54% faster than the 600p.

Sustained 4kB Random Read (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Intel SSD 760p during random reads is about average. Samsung's SSDs dominate the top half of the chart, and the two SATA SSDs hold the top two spots, showing that the performance of NVMe SSDs still doesn't offset their increased power consumption. Intel's previous consumer NVMe SSDs are tied for last place in power efficiency: the 750 is reasonably fast but power hungry, while the 600p has more modest power requirements but is quite slow.


Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst random write performance of the Intel SSD 760p is second only to the Intel SSD 750. Since the 750 is based on an enterprise SSD platform with MLC NAND, this regression isn't at all surprising. That the 760p manages to beat the Samsung 960 PRO is quite an accomplishment. The 760p is also 73% faster than the Intel 600p on this test.

As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

On the sustained random write test that involves some higher queue depths, the performance of the Intel SSD 760p is good but not outstanding. Several of Samsung's drives and the Intel SSD 750 are faster. However, the 760p is on par with some of the slower MLC-based competitors and is almost twice as fast as the Intel SSD 600p.

Sustained 4kB Random Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Intel SSD 760p during random writes is a bit above average, and is substantially better than any previous Intel consumer SSD. The Toshiba XG5 and most of Samsung's recent drives are far more efficient.


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.


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.


Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write

The overall performance of the Intel SSD 760p on the mixed random I/O performance is quite high for a TLC-based drive. Samsung's PM981 is much better, but the 512GB 760p is almost as fast as the 1TB Samsung 960 EVO. The 760p is clearly a viable competitor to the non-Samsung drives that use MLC NAND flash.

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write (Power Efficiency)

The Intel SSD 760p does not score quite as well for power efficiency as it does for raw performance on the mixed random I/O test, but it is still above average and far better than previous Intel SSDs.


Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write

The average performance of the Intel SSD 760p on the mixed sequential workload test does not exceed the limits of a SATA link, but it does clearly beat the best speed achieved by a SATA drive on this test. Previous budget NVMe SSDs have failed to even match the fastest SATA SSDs due to the use of slow TLC NAND.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Intel SSD 760p on the mixed sequential I/O test is not great. It only beats drives that were notably slow (600p, WD Black) or unusually power-hungry (Intel 750, Plextor M8PeY). Samsung and Toshiba have set a much higher standard.


출처 - https://www.anandtech.com






  1. [8086 40주년 기념판] The Intel Core i7-8086K Review

    Intel Core i7 Coffee LakeAnandTechCoresTDPFreqL3vProDRAM DDR4iGPUiGPU TurboCore i7-8086K$4256 / 1295 W4.0 / 5.012 MBNo266624 EUs1200Core i7-8700K$3596 / 1295 W3.7 / 4.712 MBNo266624 EUs1200Core i7-8700$3036 / 1265 W3.2 / 4.612 ...
    Date2018.06.11 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views1297
    Read More
  2. AMD 라이젠 7 2700X 공식 리뷰 : 라이젠을 재정의

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X AMD Ryzen 7 1800X AMD Ryzen 7 2700 AMD Ryzen 5 1600X AMD Ryzen 5 2600X AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Intel Core i7-8700K Intel Core i7-8700 Intel Core i5-8600K Intel Core i5-8400 MSRP $329 $349 $299 $219 $229 $199 $359 $303 $257 $182 C...
    Date2018.04.21 CategoryCPU Reply5 Views7082
    Read More
  3. 2세대 라이젠, 피나클릿지 2700X, 2700, 2600X, 2600 벤치마크

    AMD Ryzen 2000-Series CPUss Ryzen 7 2700XRyzen 7 2700Ryzen 5 2600XRyzen 5 2600CPU Cores/Threads8 / 168 / 166 / 126 / 12Base CPU Frequency3.7 GHz3.2 GHz3.6 GHz3.4 GHzTurbo CPU Frequency4.3 GHz4.1 GHz4.2 GHz3.9 GHzTDP @ Base Frequency105 W65 W...
    Date2018.04.21 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views2292
    Read More
  4. 웨스턴디지털 WD Black 3D NAND SSD Review

    Western Digital WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO SpecificationsCapacity250 GB500 GB1 TBWD Black ModelWDS250G2X0CWDS500G2X0CWDS100T2X0CSanDisk Extreme PRO Model-SDSSDXPM2-500GSDSSDXPM2-1T00Form FactorM.2 2280 Single-SidedInterfaceNVMe PCI...
    Date2018.04.15 CategorySTR Reply0 Views1219
    Read More
  5. 인텔 하데스캐년 카비레이크-G Core i7-8809G 벤치마크

    인텔 하데스캐년 탑재 누크 The Intel NUC8i7HVK 벤치마크 Intel NUC8i7HVK (Hades Canyon) SpecificationsProcessorIntel Core i7-8809G Kaby Lake, 4C/8T, 3.1GHz (up to 4.2GHz), 14nm+, 8MB L2, 100W Package TDPMemoryKingston HyperX Im...
    Date2018.04.01 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views1356
    Read More
  6. AMD 피나클릿지) Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600 벤치마크

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600XCPU SpecificationsRyzen 2700X Pinnacle RidgeRyzen2 2600 Pinnacle Ridge  Ryzen 1700X Summit Ridge i7-6700K SkyLake Original comments by SiSoftwareMemory Speed (MHz) Max 2400 / 29332400 / 29332400 / 2666253...
    Date2018.03.17 CategoryCPU Reply5 Views2552
    Read More
  7. 삼성 갤럭시S9 스냅드래곤 845 / 엑시노스 9810 성능 확인

    Samsung Exynos SoCs SpecificationsSoCExynos 9810Exynos 8895CPU4x Exynos M3 One Core : 2.704 GHz Two Core: 2.314 GHz Four Core: 1.794 GHz 4x 512KB L2 4096KB L3 DSU4x Exynos M2 @ 2.314 GHz 2048KB L2 4x Cortex A55 @ 1.95 GHz No L2 512KB...
    Date2018.02.26 CategoryETC Reply4 Views1112
    Read More
  8. AMD 레이븐릿지, 라이젠5 2400G/라이젠3 2200G 벤치마크

    AMD가 새롭게 발표한 라이젠 CPU + 베가 GPU로 구성된 레이븐릿지 벤치마크 입니다. 라이젠5 2400G SocketAM4 CPU Cores / Threads4 / 8 CPU Base/Boost Frequency (GHz) 3.6 / 3.9 iGPU CUs11 (704 ALUs) 170달러 라이젠3 2200G SocketAM4 CPU ...
    Date2018.02.17 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views1484
    Read More
  9. 인텔 SSD 760p 512GB 리뷰 : Mainstream NVMe Done Right

      Intel SSD 760p SpecificationsCapacity128 GB256 GB512 GB1 TB2 TBForm FactorM.2 2280 single-sidedM.2 2280 double-sidedControllerIntel-customized Silicon Motion SM2262NANDIntel 256Gb 64-layer 3D TLCSequential Read1640 MB/s3210 MB/s3230...
    Date2018.02.03 CategorySTR Reply0 Views749
    Read More
  10. EVGA 지포스GTX 1070 Ti FTW2 리뷰 : iCX Brings the Lights and Sensors

    GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Specification Comparison EVGA GTX 1070 Ti FTW2NVIDIA GTX 1070 Ti Founders EditionEVGA GTX 1070 Ti SC Black Ed.CUDA Cores243224322432Texture Units152152152ROPs646464Core Clock1607+MHz1607MHz1607+MHzBoost Clock1683+MH...
    Date2018.02.03 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views686
    Read More
  11. 삼성전자 860 PRO SSD 리뷰 : Replacing A Legend

    삼성전자 860 PRO SSD 리뷰 - https://www.anandtech.com Samsung 860 PRO SpecificationsCapacity256 GB512 GB1 TB2 TB4 TBForm Factor2.5" SATA 6 GbpsControllerSamsung MJXNANDSamsung 64-layer 3D MLC V-NANDLPDDR4 DRAM512 MB1 GB2...
    Date2018.02.03 CategorySTR Reply0 Views1225
    Read More
  12. 세계 1위 게임, 배틀그라운드를 통한 인텔 vs AMD CPU 성능 비교

    전 세계적으로 화제가 되고 있는 배틀 그라운드 게임을 통한 인텔 CPU와 AMD CPU의 성능 비교 벤치마크 입니다. 유튜브 채널 : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8iQa1hv7oV_Z8D35vVuSg 배틀 그라운드 게임에서 인텔과 AMD CPU...
    Date2017.12.30 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views51879
    Read More
  13. 인텔 옵테인 SSD 900p 480GB 리뷰 : Diving Deeper Into 3D XPoint

    인텔 옵테인 SSD 900p 480GB 스펙 컨트롤러 : 인텔 SLL3D 메모리 : 인텔 128Gb 3D XPoint 테크놀로지 인터페이스 : PCIe 3.0 x4 폼팩터 : HHHL Add-in card or 2.5" 15mm U.2 / HHHL Add-in card / HHHL Add-in car...
    Date2017.12.25 CategorySTR Reply0 Views1431
    Read More
  14. 삼성 PM981 SSD 리뷰 : Next Generation Controller And 3D NAND

    Samsung OEM Client PCIe SSD History ControllerNAND FlashNotesConsumer VariantXP941S4LN053X012D MLCPCIe 2.0, AHCI-SM951UBX2D MLCAHCI or NVMe950 PROPM9512D TLC -SM961Polaris2D & 3D MLC 960 PROPM9613D TLC 960 EVOPM971Photon3D TLCB...
    Date2017.12.25 CategorySTR Reply0 Views1418
    Read More
  15. 엔비디아 타이탄 V 리뷰 - Titanomachy: War of the Titans

    엔비디아의 인공지능 GPU - 타이탄 V 리뷰 NVIDIA GPU DirectX Graphics Feature Info Volta (Titan V)Pascal (Titan Xp)Direct3D Feature Level12_112_1Fast FP16 ShadersNoNoTiled ResourcesTier 3Tier 3Resource Bin...
    Date2017.12.23 CategoryGPU Reply2 Views1518
    Read More
  16. 애플 아이폰X vs 안드로이드 스마트폰 성능 대결.2

    아이폰X의 폰아레나(www.phonearena.com) 리뷰 입니다. 아이폰X 스펙 아이폰X 제스처 테스트 아이폰X 동영상 테스트 아이폰X, 아이폰8 CPU / GPU 성능 ...
    Date2017.11.18 CategoryETC Reply3 Views3943
    Read More
  17. 아이폰X vs 갤럭시 노트8 vs 픽셀2 성능 대결.1

    애플 아이폰X vs 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 vs 구글 픽셀2 스마트폰의 간단한 성능 비교 자료입니다. 2분짜리 4K 비디오 영상을 인코딩하며 CPU 성능 측정 결과 아이폰X는 42초에 완료, 픽셀2는 2분 55초, 삼성 갤럭시 노트8은 3분 3초가 소요...
    Date2017.11.11 CategoryETC Reply4 Views1138
    Read More
  18. 엔비디아 지포스 GTX 1070 Ti 심층 리뷰 : 수상한 시대에__

    Brad Chacos | PCWorld 지포스 GTX 1070 Ti 리뷰는 AMD의 라데온 베가 56이 없었더라면 하지 않았을 리뷰이다. 엔비디아의 GTX 10 시리즈는 2016년 5월, 그러니까 지금으로부터 1년 반쯤 전에 지포스 GTX 1070과 GTX 1080의 출시와 함께 첫선을 보였다. G...
    Date2017.11.06 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views2739
    Read More
  19. 커피레이크 i5 8600k, 8400, i3 8350K, 8100 vs AMD 라이젠 승부

    화제의 인텔 커피레이크 시리즈 벤치마크 입니다. 하단 게시물은 8700K 위주이기 때문에 i5 8600K, i5 8400, i3 8350K, i3 8100 성능이 포함된 자료를 링크해 드립니다. 벤치마크 출처 - https://www.computerbase.de 커피레이크와 AMD 라이젠 외형 ...
    Date2017.10.22 CategoryCPU Reply2 Views3811
    Read More
  20. 인텔 커피레이크 8700K 리뷰, 새로운 시대의 왕권 강화

    인텔이 마침내 프로세서 시장의 새로운 시대를 알리는 커피레이크 시리즈를 발표했다. 커피레이크는 물리 6코어를 i5 라인으로 투입함으로써 긴 시간동안 i5의 메인스트림이였던 4코어를 넘어선 본격적인 6코어 시대로 진입하는 중요한 이정표가 ...
    Date2017.10.06 CategoryCPU Reply5 Views8312
    Read More
  21. 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 리뷰, 안드로이드 최상급 스마트폰

    플레이웨어즈(http://playwares.com) 사이트에 V30 리뷰에 이어 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 리뷰가 업데이트가 되어 링크해 드립니다. 자세한 리뷰 내용은 아래 링크에서 확인하시기 바랍니다. 출처 - http://playwares.com/mobilereview/55266554 ---------...
    Date2017.09.30 CategoryETC Reply3 Views764
    Read More
  22. 인텔 18코어 Core i9-7980X, 16코어 Core i9-7960X 성능 확인

    Gordon Mah Ung | PCWorld 인텔이 다시 시장을 강타했다. 인텔은 몇 개월 동안 자사 영역을 잠식한 AMD 라이젠 쓰레드리퍼(Threadripper)에 대항할 강력한 18코어 코어 i9-7980X와 16코어 코어 i8-7960X를 출시했다. 불의의 일격을 당한 ‘골리앗’ 인텔이 ...
    Date2017.09.29 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views1739
    Read More
  23. LG V30 리뷰, 현존 안드로이드 최고 스마트폰

    플레이웨어즈(http://playwares.com) 사이트에 LG의 최신 스마트폰 V30 리뷰가 업데이트 되어 링크해 드립니다. 자세한 리뷰 내용은 아래 링크에서 확인하시기 바랍니다. 출처 - http://playwares.com/mobilereview/55206575 ----------------------...
    Date2017.09.23 CategoryETC Reply3 Views1314
    Read More
  24. 화제의 배틀그라운드 CPU 성능비교, 인텔 7700K vs 라이젠 1800X

    국내 커뮤니티 사이트의 회원이 실제 게임 영상과 캡처 화면으로 테스트한 세부적인 자료가 있어 소개합니다. 출처 - http://www.coolenjoy.net/bbs/27/1609823?page=4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------...
    Date2017.09.02 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views3357
    Read More
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23 Next
/ 23