Originally Posted by JackCY
Update to 12.3 did not change the temperature sensor reading, it stayed the same about 15C below what it should be.
Uploaded the 12.3 update to OP.
Thanks for the ideas! Btw, if you have any questions on anything or feel to chat, feel free to PM me or direct me to a post.
Originally Posted by ThrashZone
Got the samsung 970 evo
Didn't get a screen shot but read was just over spec's 3550 read CDM
Write was also just over spec's at 2350
Was a little toastier than the other
Get to return the 8200 pro's to Kohl's for free return trip
Once i get a 325.us gift card credit I'll pick up 1-970 plus 500gb and 1-970 evo 1b for storage maybe 2tb
Although 860 evo 1tb are stupid cheap I saw yesterday.
Sweet! I'd say to just get the biggest single drive you can get. I have gone through too many. Now I just have a 12Gb/s SAS SSD array, a broken 1.5TB Optane SSD 905P, and a random NVMe boot drive from my box of them. lol
Originally Posted by Omnidyne
Hey Sean, just wanted to say thank you for your coverage at Tom's and The SSD Review. You and Chris Ramseyer have provided some quality content over the years.
I have noticed there is a lot of confusion in this forum (and naturally, elsewhere) about QLC NAND. In particular, its performance, given endurance and "reliability". All reviews of the 660p, including yours, for example, gave favorable ratings of the 660p, going as far as to recommend it. As with other review sites, your only criticism being endurance:
"The 660p is a refined and welcome update to Intel's SSD 6 series. The 660p proves that Intel’s QLC NAND is ready for the mainstream and easily earns our top value recommendation for the low-endurance/budget segment. If you haven’t upgraded to an SSD yet and your workloads tend to be mundane, Intel’s SSD 660p is a good fit."
"The Intel SSD 660p offers high capacity, solid performance in real-world workloads, and impressive power efficiency. With prices at just $0.20-per-GB, nothing on the market comes close to it in value, but our recommendation comes with a caveat. You should select a drive with higher endurance if you commonly use productivity applications or have heavy workloads."
There are statements that the 660p suffers from "hard-disk like" performance or that the typical consumer (OS or gaming) would be better off purchasing a hard disk over the 660p or even that the 660p isn't suitable for OS usage. Are any of those statements accurate? I have been unable to find one metric where the 660p performs similar to a hard disk, even under Anandtechs extremely heavy testing conditions. I find nothing of the sort in your review. Every review shows the 660p far outpacing hard disks in every metric.
Thank you for the compliment!
To answer your Q: Yes and no. People who state that it is like an HDD or that you are better off with an HDD are one of two people i'd say. Elitists who just want to talk trash because it's not the best. Or, people who don't understand how their workloads really work and what is actually needed to satisfy it and just reiterate what those elitists say. (which is far too common)
An SSD has no moving parts, while HDDs do. This alone makes SSDs hundreds of times faster than HDDs, just look at the random latency differences. And, in addition to latency, HDDs also have seek time, which adds even more time to tasks.
Measured latency of a 2.5" SATA external HDD vs 2.5" SATA external SSD using iometer:
4K random QD1 read --> 8.2ms vs 0.16ms (some SSDs are as fast as 0.02-0.03ms)
4K random QD1 write -> 3.2ms vs 0.09ms (And that's with the HDD at its fastest. In use, they can be much more latent, although, so can some crappy SSDs)
Sure, direct QLC writes are horrible. But, with the pSLC cache in place, most daily tasks like I noted before only need up to 2-3GB MAX. And that QLC buffer empty within ~20 minutes of running TRIM or Intel's toolbox SLC cache clearing feature, that is if you filled it that is. Just restoring the static cache alone is much quicker than the dynamic cache. TLC SSDs with small static caches refill the buffer much faster that QLC drives too. Within a few minutes, sometimes within tens of seconds.
But now, let's refocus. This talk has just been about writes, right? A lot of what we need an SSD for in our applications is actually read performance. QLC can kinda keep up at that at all times. Although, as it's been said, TLC SSDs can be faster. Just depends on what you're doing.
6.5GB zip file read:
1TB Intel SSD 660P - ~1.25GB/s
1TB Samsung 970 EVO- ~2.25GB/s
1TB Crucial MX500 - ~500MB/s
Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark - total load time of 5 scenes/levels:
1TB Intel SSD 660P - 19.947s
1TB Samsung 970 EVO - 18.661s
1TB Crucial MX500 - 20.938s
Game load times are surprising. After speaking with Allyn from PC Perspective (now at Intel), he told me that he found that most games load via 4K sequential. So, usually, the drives with the fastest 4K read speed will have load the game (and applications) the fastest.
Originally Posted by Omnidyne
As for endurance, you state that the lower endurance of the 660p is a non-issue for most consumers:
"In reality, most consumers don’t need that much endurance if their average use case involves mostly office applications, web browsing, and content streaming."
My understanding is that the endurance rating of SSDs in general is a non-issue with the exception being enterprise or specific heavy workloads. Even the DRAM-less (without HMB) WD Blue SN500 carries a respectable endurance rating. I'm under the impression that the SLC cache buffer largely plays a role in increasing endurance significantly because pSLC enjoys higher endurance than TLC NAND but lower than true SLC. Essentially, 1GB of writes to an SSD does not equal 1GB of endurance lost/ used.
Hopefully, you can clear this up for everyone and again, thank you for your contributions.
Yeah, usually consumers will write ~5-10TB of data to the drive a year. So, you can typically just figure out what you need from that. Really, for most it isn't a factor to worry about too much. Sometimes its there it just to have an extra level of warranty limitation to reduce a company's RMA liability. Often times SSDs can exceed their ratings, it just takes a long time lol.
Write amplification (WA) varies as you stated, depending on the pSLC cache use and workloads (sequential vs random). Usually, WA for desktop usage usually isn't too high, especially with write caching enabled by default on Windows (helps make random writes more sequential). Thus, people will usually see maybe 1-3x actual writes, meaning 1GB of writes turns into 1-3GB of actual NAND writes. Sequential tasks =~1:1 while random can vary greatly 1:4 for example. Garbage collection and other background management tasks can also increase actual NAND writes too. Controllers that integrate real-time compression, like SandForce controllers of days past, can even hit negative WA values.