The Intel SSD 600p (512GB) Review
by Billy Tallis on November 22, 2016 10:30 AM ESTMixed Random Read/Write Performance
The mixed random I/O benchmark starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. The queue depth is 3 for the entire test and each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. As with the pure random write test, this test is restricted to a 16GB span of the drive, which is empty save for the 16GB test file.
The 600p was slower than the Crucial MX300 on random writes but faster at random reads. On the mixed random I/O test, they average out to a tie.
Despite performing the same overall, the 600p used more than twice the power of the MX300. The SM2260 controller simply imposes far too much power overhead than is appropriate when paired with slow TLC NAND.
 |
|||||||||
The 600p performs better as more writes are added in to the mix, but it doesn't spike in performance for the final all-writes phase of the test. This means its performance is much more balanced than many other drives that simply run up the score at the end.
Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance
The mixed sequential access test covers the entire span of the drive and uses a queue depth of one. It starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. Each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The drive is filled before the test starts.
The faster-than-SATA read speeds of the 600p aren't enough to compensate for the poor write speeds, so it ends up scoring only slightly ahead of the budget SATA SSDs.
There is a clear separation in power consumption between the SATA and PCIe SSDs. For once, the 600p is the lowest power PCIe SSD, but it is still the least efficient due to its low performance.
 |
|||||||||
As expected, adding writes to the mix drags down performance, though there aren't enough writes in the 80/20 phase to have much of an impact yet. It is a hallmark of low-end SSDs to see performance stay low through the end of the test, while high-performance SSDs typically have a U-shaped performance curve here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
63 Comments
View All Comments
vFunct - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link
These would be great for server applications, if I could find PCIe add-in cards that have 4x M.2 slots.I'd love to be able to stick 10 or 100 or so of these in a server, as an image/media store.
ddriver - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link
You should call intel to let them know they are marketing it in the wrong segment LOLddriver - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link
To clarify, this product is evidently the runt of the nvme litter. For regular users, it is barely faster than sata devices. And once it runs out of cache, it actually gets slower than a sata device. Based on its performance and price, I won't be surprised if its reliability is just as subpar. Putting such a device in a server is like putting a drunken hobo in a Lamborghini.BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link
Assuming a media storage server scenario, you'd be looking at write once and read many where the cache issues aren't going to pose a significant problem to performance. Using an array of them would also mitigate much of that write performance using some form of RAID. Of course that applies to SATA devices as well, but there's a density advantange realized in NVMe.vFunct - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link
bingo.Now, how can I pack a bunch of these in a chassis?
BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link
I'd think the best answer to that would be a custom motherboard with the appropriate slots on it to achieve high storage densities in a slim (maybe something like a 1/2 1U rackmount) chassis. As for PCIe slot expansion cards, there's a few out there that would let you install 4x M.2 SSDs on a PCIe slot, but they'd add to the cost of building such a storage array. In the end, I think we're probably a year or three away from using NVMe SSDs in large storage arrays outside of highly customized and expensive solutions for compaines that have the clout to leverage something that exotic.ddriver - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link
So are you going to make that custom motherboard for him, or will he be making it for himself? While you are at it, you may also want to make a cpu with 400 pcie lanes so that you can connect those 100 lousy budget p600s.Because I bet the industry isn't itching to make products for clueless and moneyless dummies. There is already a product that's unbeatable for media storage - an 8tb ultrastar he8. As ssd for media storage - that makes no sense, and a 100 of those only makes a 100 times less sense :D
BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link
"So are you going to make that..."Sure, okay.
Samus - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link
ddriver, you are ignoring his specific application when judging his solution to be wrong. For imaging, sequential throughput is all that matters. I used to work part time in PC refurbishing for education and we built a bench to image 64 PC's at a time over 1Gbe with a dual 10Gbe fiber backbone to a server using, which was at the time the best option on the market, an OCZ RevoDrive PCIe SSD. Even this drive was crippled by a single 10Gbe connection let alone dual 10Gbe connections, which is why we eventually installed TWO of them in RAID 1.This hackjob configuration allowed imaging 60+ PC's simultaneously over GBe in about 7 minutes when booting via PXE, running a diskpart script and imagex to uncompress a sysprep'd image.
The RevoDrive's were not reliable. One would fail like clockwork almost annually, and eventually in 2015 after I had left I heard they fell back to a pair of Plextor M2 2280's in a PCIe x4 adapter for better reliability. It was, and still is, however, very expensive to do this compared to what the 600p is offering.
Any high-throughput sequential reading application would greatly benefit from the performance and price the 600p is offering, not to mention Intel has class leading reliability in the SSD sector of 0.3%/year failure rate according to their own internal 2014 data...there is no reason to think of all companies Intel won't keep reliability as a high priority. After all, they are still the only company to mastermind the Sandforce 2200, a controller that had incredibly high failure rates across every other vendor and effectively lead to OCZ's bankruptcy.
ddriver - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link
So how does all this connect to, and I quote, "stick 10 or 100 or so of these in a server, as an image/media store"?Also, he doesn't really have "his specific application", he just spat a bunch of nonsense he believed would be cool :D
Lastly, next time try multicasting, this way you can simultaneously send data to 64 hosts at 1 gbps without the need for dual 10gbit or an uber expensive switch, achieving full parallelism and an effective 64 gbps. In that case a regular sata ssd or even an hdd would have sufficed as even mechanical drives have no problem saturating the 1 gbps lines you to the targets. You could have done the same work, or even better, at like 1/10 of the cost. You could even do 1000 system at a time, or as many as you want, just daisy chain more switches, terabit, petabit effective cumulative bandwidth is just as easily achievable.