Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
Corsair H100i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
Corsair K95 RGB PLATINUM XT review
AORUS Radeon RX 5700 XT 8G review
Endgame XM1 gaming mouse review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - December 2019
Intel Releases 665p SSD with QLC NAND and increased lifespan
Yeah, that's a contradiction in the title right there as you would not expect longer lifespan with QLC based NAND. Intel launches its 665p, the successor of the SSD 660p which uses a new generation of QLC nand based on more layers.A 1TB model will be introduced, a 2TB will follow and 512 GB is even released.
Intel will be making use of 96-layer 3d QLC nand, 64-layer was used in the previous generation. Intel rates the lifespan to be increased from 200 TBW to 300 TBW. The same Silicon Motion SM2263 nvme controller is being used combined with a small dram cache and slc cache. The 1 TB model offers up to 2000 MB/s sequential reads and 1925 MB/s sequential writes, up to 160,000 IOPS random reads, and up to 200,000 IOPS random writes.
Prices are TBA, but expected to hover at a 125 USD range for the 1 TB version.
Intel reportedly reserved $ 3 billion in 2019 to competitively block AMD - 10/14/2019 08:53 AM
Intel has been reserving 3 billion dollars aside to offer 'discounts' to its customers, and there actually is a photo to back that claim. The recent official unveiling of Cascade Lake X might alread...
Intel reduces prices for Core 9000 series F (no IGP) range + Xeon W 2200 Range - 10/07/2019 02:10 PM
Last week you've already seen the many-core Core X announcements, however intel ahd another surprize left, as they are lowering prices for the 9000 series. ...
Intel Rendering Framework and Intel Xe architecture poised to advance studio workflows - 05/01/2019 09:00 AM
Xe architecture roadmap for data center optimized rendering includes ray tracing hardware acceleration support for the Intel Rendering Framework family of API’s and libraries....
Intel Reports First-Quarter 2019 Financial Results - 04/26/2019 07:34 AM
Intel Corporation today reported first-quarter 2019 financial results. "Results for the first quarter were slightly higher than our January expectations. ...
Intel releases Core i9-9980HK laptop processor with eight cores - 04/23/2019 03:34 PM
Intel today launches their ninth generation of Core H processors for laptops, the top end model has been fitted with 8-cores running one or two threads up-to 5 GHz.. ...
coth
Senior Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 2005-02-23
Senior Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 2005-02-23
#5735342 Posted on: 11/26/2019 09:18 PM
2 TB 660p is cheaper than 1 TB 970 EVO+.
760p was also nearly 1,5 times cheaper just 2 months ago. But recently Intel bumped 760p prices 1.5 times up to 970 EVO+ level.
2 TB 660p is cheaper than 1 TB 970 EVO+.
760p was also nearly 1,5 times cheaper just 2 months ago. But recently Intel bumped 760p prices 1.5 times up to 970 EVO+ level.
Dwwolf
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 2017-10-01
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 2017-10-01
#5735370 Posted on: 11/27/2019 12:21 AM
2 TB 660p is cheaper than 1 TB 970 EVO+.
760p was also nearly 1,5 times cheaper just 2 months ago. But recently Intel bumped 760p prices 1.5 times up to 970 EVO+ level.
Adata XPG SX8200 pro is the new TLC king.
2 TB 660p is cheaper than 1 TB 970 EVO+.
760p was also nearly 1,5 times cheaper just 2 months ago. But recently Intel bumped 760p prices 1.5 times up to 970 EVO+ level.
Adata XPG SX8200 pro is the new TLC king.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5735517 Posted on: 11/27/2019 01:40 PM
So it is almost as fast as the old 600p now for a lot less money and almost the same durability. I know some don't like the idea of QLC but this is a nice product for the price. Any time you are getting faster than SATA6 speeds at almost $100/TB that is good.
So it is almost as fast as the old 600p now for a lot less money and almost the same durability. I know some don't like the idea of QLC but this is a nice product for the price. Any time you are getting faster than SATA6 speeds at almost $100/TB that is good.
wavetrex
Senior Member
Posts: 734
Joined: 2008-07-16
Senior Member
Posts: 734
Joined: 2008-07-16
#5735645 Posted on: 11/27/2019 11:22 PM
No you don't.
You can fill an entire TLC SATA drive at 500+ MB/s with no drops in speed.
Crappy QLC goes down to under 100MB/s when the buffer fills up, and that happens quite fast !
These are drives for people that don't do anything useful with their PCs... just watch youtube, spin the mouse-wheel on facebook and talk with their grandma on skype.
Any time you are getting faster than SATA6 speeds at almost $100/TB that is good.
No you don't.
You can fill an entire TLC SATA drive at 500+ MB/s with no drops in speed.
Crappy QLC goes down to under 100MB/s when the buffer fills up, and that happens quite fast !
These are drives for people that don't do anything useful with their PCs... just watch youtube, spin the mouse-wheel on facebook and talk with their grandma on skype.
Chastity
Senior Member
Posts: 2095
Joined: 2015-11-28
Senior Member
Posts: 2095
Joined: 2015-11-28
#5735659 Posted on: 11/28/2019 12:16 AM
No you don't.
You can fill an entire TLC SATA drive at 500+ MB/s with no drops in speed.
Crappy QLC goes down to under 100MB/s when the buffer fills up, and that happens quite fast !
These are drives for people that don't do anything useful with their PCs... just watch youtube, spin the mouse-wheel on facebook and talk with their grandma on skype.
You also forgot those of use who need big storage for game installs in our laptops. RDR2 being 150+ GB, for example. And no, I haven't overrun the SLC cache on my 2TB 660p except when I originally copied over the partition.
No you don't.
You can fill an entire TLC SATA drive at 500+ MB/s with no drops in speed.
Crappy QLC goes down to under 100MB/s when the buffer fills up, and that happens quite fast !
These are drives for people that don't do anything useful with their PCs... just watch youtube, spin the mouse-wheel on facebook and talk with their grandma on skype.
You also forgot those of use who need big storage for game installs in our laptops. RDR2 being 150+ GB, for example. And no, I haven't overrun the SLC cache on my 2TB 660p except when I originally copied over the partition.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5735670 Posted on: 11/28/2019 12:55 AM
No you don't.
You can fill an entire TLC SATA drive at 500+ MB/s with no drops in speed.
Crappy QLC goes down to under 100MB/s when the buffer fills up, and that happens quite fast !
These are drives for people that don't do anything useful with their PCs... just watch youtube, spin the mouse-wheel on facebook and talk with their grandma on skype.
Linus had to use raw 8k footage to fill the buffer in his tests. The average user and even some light power users will rarely or never fill the TLC cache. And people that are using a computer for that level of power usage are not going to buy this drive to begin with due to the speed is relatively low in the best case scenario.
Unless you are trying to write the entire drive in one go this drive is a great budget drive. It's the perfect game drive.
No you don't.
You can fill an entire TLC SATA drive at 500+ MB/s with no drops in speed.
Crappy QLC goes down to under 100MB/s when the buffer fills up, and that happens quite fast !
These are drives for people that don't do anything useful with their PCs... just watch youtube, spin the mouse-wheel on facebook and talk with their grandma on skype.
Linus had to use raw 8k footage to fill the buffer in his tests. The average user and even some light power users will rarely or never fill the TLC cache. And people that are using a computer for that level of power usage are not going to buy this drive to begin with due to the speed is relatively low in the best case scenario.
Unless you are trying to write the entire drive in one go this drive is a great budget drive. It's the perfect game drive.
HeavyHemi
Senior Member
Posts: 6387
Joined: 2008-10-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6387
Joined: 2008-10-27
#5735671 Posted on: 11/28/2019 01:08 AM
I don't know why the first sentence of this article exists. It is not a contradiction, it is an increase over the previous gen. Not a comparison to TLC as your is your inference. I don't know, maybe slow down a bit and give more thought.
Someone has to be the critic/editor. :p
I don't know why the first sentence of this article exists. It is not a contradiction, it is an increase over the previous gen. Not a comparison to TLC as your is your inference. I don't know, maybe slow down a bit and give more thought.
Someone has to be the critic/editor. :p
toyo
Senior Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 2008-10-15
Senior Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 2008-10-15
#5735687 Posted on: 11/28/2019 03:22 AM
Linus had to use raw 8k footage to fill the buffer in his tests. The average user and even some light power users will rarely or never fill the TLC cache. And people that are using a computer for that level of power usage are not going to buy this drive to begin with due to the speed is relatively low in the best case scenario.
Unless you are trying to write the entire drive in one go this drive is a great budget drive. It's the perfect game drive.
If the TLC 600p from 2016 is an indication, I'm actually more worried about the endurance. If their TLC drive barely lasted 100TBW or so for a 256GB drive, the QLC might be worse.
I mean, I have 2 SSDs in my main PC, and I'm not writing much, yet I still accumulated 20TB on my 850Evo just from some games and browsing the web over 1 year or so. If this was to last for 80TB, I would barely make it to the 5 yrs warranty.
The large pseudo-SLC cache is quite good though. You could even install the bigger games without exiting the SLC, that is unless you fill the drive to about 75% from Intel's graphs. I have to say, considering the 600p died at around 75% of its lifetime, I am not putting much trust in the "increase endurance" claims.
Linus had to use raw 8k footage to fill the buffer in his tests. The average user and even some light power users will rarely or never fill the TLC cache. And people that are using a computer for that level of power usage are not going to buy this drive to begin with due to the speed is relatively low in the best case scenario.
Unless you are trying to write the entire drive in one go this drive is a great budget drive. It's the perfect game drive.
If the TLC 600p from 2016 is an indication, I'm actually more worried about the endurance. If their TLC drive barely lasted 100TBW or so for a 256GB drive, the QLC might be worse.
I mean, I have 2 SSDs in my main PC, and I'm not writing much, yet I still accumulated 20TB on my 850Evo just from some games and browsing the web over 1 year or so. If this was to last for 80TB, I would barely make it to the 5 yrs warranty.
The large pseudo-SLC cache is quite good though. You could even install the bigger games without exiting the SLC, that is unless you fill the drive to about 75% from Intel's graphs. I have to say, considering the 600p died at around 75% of its lifetime, I am not putting much trust in the "increase endurance" claims.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5736091 Posted on: 11/29/2019 01:40 PM
If the TLC 600p from 2016 is an indication, I'm actually more worried about the endurance. If their TLC drive barely lasted 100TBW or so for a 256GB drive, the QLC might be worse.
I mean, I have 2 SSDs in my main PC, and I'm not writing much, yet I still accumulated 20TB on my 850Evo just from some games and browsing the web over 1 year or so. If this was to last for 80TB, I would barely make it to the 5 yrs warranty.
The large pseudo-SLC cache is quite good though. You could even install the bigger games without exiting the SLC, that is unless you fill the drive to about 75% from Intel's graphs. I have to say, considering the 600p died at around 75% of its lifetime, I am not putting much trust in the "increase endurance" claims.
Did you read the article? Intel rated the 256GB drive at 72TBW. the drive failed at 144TBW literally twice its life expectancy. The higher the capacity the life span because of more sectors.
These are budget NVMe SSD's there is the old saying, "you get what you pay for."
I would never recommend any of the 6xxp SSD's as a main OS dive but game drive or a large storage drive yes i would recommend it for that.
If the TLC 600p from 2016 is an indication, I'm actually more worried about the endurance. If their TLC drive barely lasted 100TBW or so for a 256GB drive, the QLC might be worse.
I mean, I have 2 SSDs in my main PC, and I'm not writing much, yet I still accumulated 20TB on my 850Evo just from some games and browsing the web over 1 year or so. If this was to last for 80TB, I would barely make it to the 5 yrs warranty.
The large pseudo-SLC cache is quite good though. You could even install the bigger games without exiting the SLC, that is unless you fill the drive to about 75% from Intel's graphs. I have to say, considering the 600p died at around 75% of its lifetime, I am not putting much trust in the "increase endurance" claims.
Did you read the article? Intel rated the 256GB drive at 72TBW. the drive failed at 144TBW literally twice its life expectancy. The higher the capacity the life span because of more sectors.
These are budget NVMe SSD's there is the old saying, "you get what you pay for."
I would never recommend any of the 6xxp SSD's as a main OS dive but game drive or a large storage drive yes i would recommend it for that.
toyo
Senior Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 2008-10-15
Senior Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 2008-10-15
#5736136 Posted on: 11/29/2019 04:39 PM
Did you read the article? Intel rated the 256GB drive at 72TBW. the drive failed at 144TBW literally twice its life expectancy. The higher the capacity the life span because of more sectors.
These are budget NVMe SSD's there is the old saying, "you get what you pay for."
I would never recommend any of the 6xxp SSD's as a main OS dive but game drive or a large storage drive yes i would recommend it for that.
Yes, I did read the article. The way it's written is a bit confusing.
They tested the 256GB drive:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/94921/intel-ssd-600p-series-256gb-m-2-80mm-pcie-3-0-x4-3d1-tlc.html
Its endurance is 144TBW.
The drive failed at 106TBW or so, well below the 144TBW endurance rating, which is quite worrisome to me. Even the article says it clearly at the end, so I have no idea why you ask me if I read it when you seem not to have read it yourself.
When all was said and done, the Intel 600p 256GB wrote nearly 106TB of data. This is less than the revised endurance specification of 144TB TBW that Intel lists in the updated ARK product database.
Being a budget SKU does not excuse dying before the endurance rating, when we have antique SSDs like the 840 series lasting for 900 TBW.
I mean, I'm not saying don't buy, but with prices coming down so much, I would really try to score a cheap TLC drive instead on offer. Sure, if you're confident that you don't write much to the SSD, go for these QLC drives. There's a topic on another forum where people have SSDs from 5-6 years ago with just 20-30TBW.
By the way, there seems to be HUGE variability within the same SSD series. Might be caused by some sort of silicon lottery for NAND, or by manufacturers that changed the NAND/upgraded controller/firmware etc. without documenting it. A Russian website has a very comprehensive endurance test, and the 600p is there too.
This time, the 600p 256GB was able to write no less than 3800TB, which is crazy good, and also raises the question - how can we go from 106TB in one test, to 3800TB in another, for the same drive?
Did you read the article? Intel rated the 256GB drive at 72TBW. the drive failed at 144TBW literally twice its life expectancy. The higher the capacity the life span because of more sectors.
These are budget NVMe SSD's there is the old saying, "you get what you pay for."
I would never recommend any of the 6xxp SSD's as a main OS dive but game drive or a large storage drive yes i would recommend it for that.
Yes, I did read the article. The way it's written is a bit confusing.
They tested the 256GB drive:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/94921/intel-ssd-600p-series-256gb-m-2-80mm-pcie-3-0-x4-3d1-tlc.html
Its endurance is 144TBW.
The drive failed at 106TBW or so, well below the 144TBW endurance rating, which is quite worrisome to me. Even the article says it clearly at the end, so I have no idea why you ask me if I read it when you seem not to have read it yourself.
When all was said and done, the Intel 600p 256GB wrote nearly 106TB of data. This is less than the revised endurance specification of 144TB TBW that Intel lists in the updated ARK product database.
Being a budget SKU does not excuse dying before the endurance rating, when we have antique SSDs like the 840 series lasting for 900 TBW.
I mean, I'm not saying don't buy, but with prices coming down so much, I would really try to score a cheap TLC drive instead on offer. Sure, if you're confident that you don't write much to the SSD, go for these QLC drives. There's a topic on another forum where people have SSDs from 5-6 years ago with just 20-30TBW.
By the way, there seems to be HUGE variability within the same SSD series. Might be caused by some sort of silicon lottery for NAND, or by manufacturers that changed the NAND/upgraded controller/firmware etc. without documenting it. A Russian website has a very comprehensive endurance test, and the 600p is there too.
This time, the 600p 256GB was able to write no less than 3800TB, which is crazy good, and also raises the question - how can we go from 106TB in one test, to 3800TB in another, for the same drive?
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5736213 Posted on: 11/29/2019 08:24 PM
Considering Tom's had a sample size of exactly 1 dive and wrote a conclusion based on that it's in line with their poor journalism they've shown in the past years. They may have had a bad drive, and instead of opening an inquiry into it like the title of the article would suggest they left it at that.
If I were running a Tech site like Tom's Hardware and had a drive fail that early I would see if I could work with a vendor or even the manufacture to get a larger sample size and test further.
Tom's is more about sensationalism these days than actual tech journalism.
Considering Tom's had a sample size of exactly 1 dive and wrote a conclusion based on that it's in line with their poor journalism they've shown in the past years. They may have had a bad drive, and instead of opening an inquiry into it like the title of the article would suggest they left it at that.
If I were running a Tech site like Tom's Hardware and had a drive fail that early I would see if I could work with a vendor or even the manufacture to get a larger sample size and test further.
Tom's is more about sensationalism these days than actual tech journalism.
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 21139
Joined: 2008-07-14
Senior Member
Posts: 21139
Joined: 2008-07-14
#5736312 Posted on: 11/30/2019 07:32 AM
For those looking for faster budget NVMe drives from Intel.... You're welcome.... I just got my 660P a few weeks ago so this 665P had to be released....
What exactly is wrong with doing those things? Playing games isn't exactly "useless" either....
For those looking for faster budget NVMe drives from Intel.... You're welcome.... I just got my 660P a few weeks ago so this 665P had to be released....
These are drives for people that don't do anything useful with their PCs... just watch youtube, spin the mouse-wheel on facebook and talk with their grandma on skype.
What exactly is wrong with doing those things? Playing games isn't exactly "useless" either....
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2456
Joined: 2010-01-03
samsung's 970 is only like 30$ more, whats even the point with this 5 layer stuff?