Intel 545s 512GB SSD Benchmark On Linux

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Intel 545s 512GB SSD Benchmark On Linux

Intel announced their 545s series SSD last month and it's been making plenty of rounds on Windows. Curious about the Linux performance, I picked up the Intel 545s 512GB SATA 3.0 SSD for benchmarking on Linux.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=24947

[tildearrow]

Typos:

With the random reads via FIO there were around 76k IOS

(should be IOPS)

in stock viaNewEgg.com.

(missing space)

[Jabberwocky]

This product is placed well IMHO. SSDs with SATA interfaces need to prioritize capacity and cost.

I don't know if it's just my country where there is not a big difference in price between a 512GB Samsung 850 evo (SATA) and a 960 evo(NVMe). I still have an Ivy bridge system, so I opted for the 960 and bought a PCI-E 3.0 x4 to M.2 adapter. I am upgrading from my 3 year old 256GB Crucial M550 which uses SATA3 and uses Micron 64Gb 20nm MLC NANDs. Not sure if it's a good buy, but I just need more and faster right now. Optane is a joke and I can't wait for U.2 to become available for consumers.

[starshipeleven]

Optane is a joke and I can't wait for U.2 to become available for consumers.

For those wondering about U.2, see here http://www.tomshardware.com/news/sff...vme,29321.html


AFAIK U.2 is dead, and M.2 has replaced it in consumer space as it runs on laptops too, besides, who needs Sata and SAS compatibility?

[torsionbar28]

Why no mention of the abysmal 144 TBW endurance spec on these? Lots of pretty charts and graphs for these SSD reviews, but the endurance spec ought to be one of them, so we can see how they compare to one another. This one fares pretty poorly in this regard.

This intel 545s also has a pathetic MTBF rating, 1.6m hours, which is lower than many mechanical hard drives.

[franglais125]

abysmal 144 TBW endurance

Thanks for pointing this out! It is lower than some older models, but perhaps not "abysmal".
As an example, the Samsung 850 Pro 512 GB has an estimated endurance of 300 TBW [1], which is to say twice the endurance. I agree with you that this is very relevant information. The Samsung 850 Pro came out two (!) years ago already and it is, IMO, still a better drive.

[1] http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor...et_rev_2_0.pdf

[rene]

Nothing better than the performance of PCIe connected NVMe, even on decade old boxes, recently even tried it out on a MacPro2,1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Od0YNnZD_k, … and then I got really curious and plugged it into an even older G5 PowerMac: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6gftviaOp4

[caligula]

Why no mention of the abysmal 144 TBW endurance spec on these? Lots of pretty charts and graphs for these SSD reviews, but the endurance spec ought to be one of them, so we can see how they compare to one another. This one fares pretty poorly in this regard.

Even sucky SSD drives probably last over 10 years. Is this really a problem? I've used cheap SSDs for almost a decade and they aren't even close to their breaking point. All still in use.

[Jabberwocky]

For those wondering about U.2, see here http://www.tomshardware.com/news/sff...vme,29321.html


AFAIK U.2 is dead, and M.2 has replaced it in consumer space as it runs on laptops too, besides, who needs Sata and SAS compatibility?

M.2 replaced U.2 is like saying copper replaced fibre in low density residential zones. Just because U.2 is not being used in consumer space right now does not mean that it is dead and has been replaced.

Motherboards manufactures have been trying to push U.2 for a while, but SSD manufacturers are not following suit. It logically does not make sense to try and put large amounts of data in small places on your motherboards under your warm graphics cards. Generally speaking (hopefully not phoronix users) people are buying M.2 and slow SATA SSDs without knowing what they could be getting, a major aspect of consumer desktops have always been backwards compatibility and upgradability. M.2 does not cater for those needs, it is only being used because manufacturers are targeting mobile platforms only and people are "happy" with/support it. Imagine buying a mobile GPU and putting that into your desktop, paying more for less... sounds ridiculous right? I'm confident that as the desire for storage capacity increases so will some consumers recognise their mistake. People will probably (ironically) blame motherboard manufacturers when they are stuck with loads of M.2 drives that they can no longer use.

Most of the Threadripper (x399) and some of the i9 (x299) motherboards are shipping and marketing U.2. Hell some of them even makes a bigger scene of U.2 than the new onboard 10gbit LAN. IMHO those aquantia are much bigger deal, but I'm glad non the less that it's getting attention. Anyway here's a few brand new motherboards supporting U.2.

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/PRIME-X299-DELUXE/

https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/X299-AORUS-Gaming-7-rev-10

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X399%20Taichi/index.asp

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty%20X399%20Professional%20Gaming/index.asp

I hope the enthusiast users will be able to paint the way/subsidize the rest in terms of U.2, it does not look very great for the desktop consumer TBH.

[starshipeleven]

M.2 replaced U.2 is like saying copper replaced fibre in low density residential zones. Just because U.2 is not being used in consumer space right now does not mean that it is dead and has been replaced.

I wanted to say that the push for the "next best thing" in consumer space became M.2 pretty fast, while the push for U.2 outside of servers died pretty quickly.

It logically does not make sense to try and put large amounts of data in small places on your motherboards under your warm graphics cards.

It's not the main concern, the air flow from its fan is actually beneficial.

The main issue is retrocompatibility and board design. M.2 for SSD is basically a PCIe x4 port, plain and simple, and it is also placed in the same space where you find PCIe ports on the mobo.

U.2 is new stuff, large connector and is for storage only so they need to route PCIe lanes to the side of the board, and it's a pain in the ass already with Sata+USB 3.0

Also the same considerations apply to SSD manufacturers. M.2 is shared with laptops, so you can target both laptops and desktops with your "high end SSDs", while Sata is for lower end crap.

a major aspect of consumer desktops have always been backwards compatibility and upgradability. M.2 does not cater for those needs,

Huh? So it isn't retrocompatible with any pcie slot by just using a dumb passive adapter?
And can't be upgraded easily (as long as you have PCIe slots anyway)?

And I can't also find a buttload of adapters that take M.2 slots and convert them in MiniSAS connectors for U.2 SSDs on PCIe? https://www.amazon.com/ASRock-U-2-KI...ywords=u.2+ssd
https://www.amazon.com/Ableconn-PEXU...ywords=u.2+ssd

Really, U.2 is just a connector that bundles more bullshit useless lanes (Sata) for a SSD that will likely use only PCIe anyway.

M.2 instead uses the same lanes for PCIe, OR Sata OR USB 3.0, so it uses less lanes and is easier for board design.

I'm confident that as the desire for storage capacity increases so will some consumers recognise their mistake. People will probably (ironically) blame motherboard manufacturers when they are stuck with loads of M.2 drives that they can no longer use.

I don't see how desire for storage capacity can increase in consumer products. Most people are fine with relatively slow bulk storage devices (Sata SSDs), and a fast main drive in the 500GB or 1TB size.

Most of the Threadripper (x399) and some of the i9 (x299) motherboards are shipping and marketing U.2. Hell some of them even makes a bigger scene of U.2 than the new onboard 10gbit LAN.

Heh, just like they were trying to market hard tri or quad-channel memory, which is plain pointless for consumer workloads. Also lol at 10Gbit LAN. Good luck at making a home network at 10GBit, it's a feature that will see usage only in companies.

Also, lack of SSDs with that port is still ongoing.