Intel SSD 750 PCIe SSD Review: NVMe for the Client
by Kristian Vättö on April 2, 2015 12:00 PM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our sequential tests are conducted in the same manner as our random IO tests. Each queue depth is tested for three minutes without any idle time in between the tests and the IOs are 4K aligned similar to what you would experience in a typical desktop OS.
In sequential read performance the SM951 keeps its lead. While the SSD 750 reaches up to 2.75GB/s at high queue depths, the scaling at small queue depths is very poor. I think this is an area where Intel should have put in a little more effort because it would translate to better performance in more typical workloads.
 |
|||||||||
Sequential Write Performance
Sequential write testing differs from random testing in the sense that the LBA span is not limited. That's because sequential IOs don't fragment the drive, so the performance will be at its peak regardless.
The SSD 750 is faster in sequential writes than the SM951, but the difference isn't all that big when you take into account that the SSD 750 has more than twice the amount of NAND. The SM951 did have some throttling issues as you can see in the graph below and I bet that with a heatsink and proper cooling the two would be quite identical because at queue depth of 1 the SSD 750 is only marginally faster. It's again a bit disappointing that the SSD 750 isn't that well optimized for sequential IO because there's prcatically no scaling at all and the drive maxes out at ~1350MB/s.
 |
|||||||||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
132 Comments
View All Comments
kaisellgren - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link
Do not forget the Fiji 390x!dzezik - Saturday, May 7, 2016 - link
who needs chipset for PCIe if You have 40 lanes directly from CPU. it is step back in the configuration. it was big step ahead to put memory and PCIe to CPU. the chipset is useless.zrav - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
>It's again a bit disappointing that the SSD 750 isn't that well optimized for sequential IO because there's prcatically no scaling at allThat's a weird conclusion. I'd say it is quite impressive that the drive almost reaches peak throughput at QD 1 already. Requiring higher QD to achieve more throughput is a not a positive characteristic. But if that matters depends on the usage scenario ofc.
Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
It's impressive that the performance is almost the same regardless of queue depth, but I don't find 1.2GB/s to be very impressive for a 1.2TB PCIe drive.futrtrubl - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Unfortunately your use of un-normalised standard deviation for performance consistency makes them a barrier to understanding. A 1000 IOPS drive with 5% variance is going to have lower standard deviation and by the way you have presented it "better consistency" than a 10000 IOPS drive with 1% variance.Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Any suggestions for improving the metric? Perhaps divide by the average IOPS or its square root to take that into account as well?futrtrubl - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
Yes, I think dividing by the average IOPs would be perfect. You could even x100 to get it to a sort of percentage deviation.bricko - Saturday, April 4, 2015 - link
Here is test and review of the new 750, what is up with boot time...its SLOWEST of 14 drives. Everything else is great, but boot time. The Plextor M6 is 15 seconds, the 750 is 34 sec....ideashttp://techreport.com/review/28050/intel-750-serie...
Ethos Evoss - Saturday, April 4, 2015 - link
Plextor SSDs - BESTbricko - Saturday, April 4, 2015 - link
Its only slow on the boot time, otherwise it beats ALL other ssd on different loads and tests , by 2 - 3 times....odd it seems