Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel 600P Series SSD NVMe M.2 Linux Tests

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Intel 600P Series SSD NVMe M.2 Linux Tests

    Intel 600P Series SSD NVMe M.2 Linux Tests

    Phoronix: Intel 600P Series SSD NVMe M.2 Linux Tests

    Last month Intel introduced the 600P Series solid-state drives as the most competitively-priced NVMe SSDs launched to date. Here are a few Linux comparison benchmarks from my initial testing of the SSDPEKKW256G7X1 M.2 SSD on Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=23541

  • damian101
    replied
    Before buying you should know that SMART/S.M.A.R.T. data can only be accessed when the (Windows only) driver for the SSD is installed.
    On Linux it is not possible to read the SMART data of a 660p SSD.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by jburgess777 View Post
    I was comparing some of the consumer versus enterprise Samsung drives (PM963) earlier and it looked like the consumer drivers were writing faster but the long term endurance is compromised. You take your choice depending on your priorities.
    You can usually over-provision for better write performance and longevity. Most drives seem to support host-protected-area (see hdparm -N), although I didn't get it to work on a Crucial MX200 and I don't know that it'll help with Intel 600P's TBW limit.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by chuckula View Post
    Stop spreading outright lies because you are some sort of fanboy tool with bigoted axe to grind against the single largest contributor to the Linux kernel.
    Seriously? This has nothing to do with their Linux contributions. Complaints about the drive (and there are valid ones, based on its features, endurance, and performance) should stand or be refuted on their own merits.

    I suggest you review the data. This is one low-performing drive, with the lowest endurance rating around:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,4738-2.html

    Even the 1TB model is rated for only 72 TBW and writes no faster than a SATA 3 drive. Not until 512 GB does the random read IOPS begin to exceed what a SATA 3 drive could do. And those are all Intel's own numbers:

    http://ark.intel.com/compare/94917,94921,94924,94926

    Not to mention its complete lack of features (no encryption, no secure erase, no power loss protection, and no end-to-end data protection).

    If your goal was to quell criticism of this drive, it just backfired on you. I wasn't even going to post until I saw your overreaction. I am neither a hater nor a fanboy. I own two 500-series Intel SSDs, about which I have no complaints. But I would neither buy nor recommend the 600P.
    Last edited by coder; 09-25-2016, 10:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LeJimster
    replied
    I just recently built a machine for my mom and slapped Arch with Gnome on there and she transitioned to Linux from Windows effortlessly.... Anyway lol..

    I installed a 128gb sm951 m.2 nvme drive just for the hell of it as I thought $83 was reasonable. The performance is crazy overkill, but should never have to hear complaints about "my PC is slow" ever again. Hehe.
    ​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • jburgess777
    replied
    Originally posted by hajj_3 View Post
    the samsung 960 evo and 960 pro were announced a few days ago, they bring major performance improvements. The 960 evo is faster than the 950 pro yet much cheaper.
    It makes me wonder whether the trade off is endurance versus write performance. I was comparing some of the consumer versus enterprise Samsung drives (PM963) earlier and it looked like the consumer drivers were writing faster but the long term endurance is compromised. You take your choice depending on your priorities.

    Leave a comment:


  • hajj_3
    replied
    the samsung 960 evo and 960 pro were announced a few days ago, they bring major performance improvements. The 960 evo is faster than the 950 pro yet much cheaper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tomin
    replied
    This made me thinking. It would be interesting to see comparison (benchmark) of a few different SSDs in bcache configuration for hard drives. I mean like cheap SATA vs. more expensive SATA vs. NVMe drive and show what kind of difference that makes. Of course there is an option to use write-through or write-back mode for more data safety (is that correct term here, I don't know) or for more speed respectively, so that should be considered as well. I've been using just a cheap SSD (120 GB for 1 TB), but I could go for better drive when updating my workstation next time, if it's worth it. I don't know how much slower the bcache is vs. all SSD setup or somehow manually organizing stuff, but it's very convenient and fast enough for my daily use. This is just an idea for Michael if he is looking for something to benchmark.

    Leave a comment:


  • ddriver
    replied
    BTW pricing in Europe is different, usually higher, especially in Eastern Europe. The SM951 is 146$, the 600p is 136$, both for the 256 GB version.

    Leave a comment:


  • ddriver
    replied
    Damned forum doesn't post my proof that the price difference is indeed 10$.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X