Intel 760p NVMe SSD Variants' Performance Numbers Surface

[btarunr]

Earlier this week, we broke the story of Intel giving finishing touches to its new SSD 7-series 760p and 660p NVMe drives. Newer screenshots scored by Tom's Hardware put out the company's performance numbers for each of the five 760p series models, 128 GB, 256 GB, 512 GB, 1 TB, and 2 TB. The 128 GB variant is the slowest, and its numbers are the territory of the slower 660p series - up to 1500 MB/s sequential reads, with up to 650 MB/s sequential writes; and 4K random access numbers of up to 100,000 IOPS (both reads and writes).

The 256 GB variant is where the 760p really begins to come to life. With up to 2900 MB/s sequential reads, and up to 1300 MB/s sequential writes, this model begins to make use of the 32 Gb/s PCIe interface. Its 4K random access performance is rated at up to 210,000 IOPS reads, with up to 250,000 IOPS writes. The 512 GB, 1 TB, and 2 TB models have near-identical performance numbers, which are the speeds Intel vaguely advertises for the entire series. The three have the same sequential read speeds of up to 3200 MB/s, and 4K random access performance of up to 350,000/280,000 IOPS (reads/writes). The company didn't put out sequential write numbers of the 1 TB and 2 TB models. Intel reportedly launches the 760p some time early-February.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[TheLostSwede]

I posted that in the original news post two days ago...

 

[RejZoR]

I want to see the day when performance line between RAM and storage is blurred. Imagine storage that has same throughput and latency as RAM, all connected directly to CPU so that all 3 have same speed between each other. It's gonna be awesome.

 

[outlw6669]

I want to see the day when performance line between RAM and storage is blurred. Imagine storage that has same throughput and latency as RAM, all connected directly to CPU so that all 3 have same speed between each other. It's gonna be awesome.

You mean like an Optane SSD connected directly to your CPU's PCIe lanes?
Yeah, I hear it is pretty awesome...

 

[Ruru]

Meh, why even bother bringing a 128GB model.. Come on, it's 2018 already.

 

[Ferrum Master]

I want to see the day when performance line between RAM and storage is blurred. Imagine storage that has same throughput and latency as RAM, all connected directly to CPU so that all 3 have same speed between each other. It's gonna be awesome.

There will be a one little hurdle. Not enough CPU power. Mostly stupid process does decompression only on one thread and really you cannot put the Optane on their knees already. It applies to most game installers, program installers etc... you need to tailor the data ie be uncompressed and multithread to gain some action.

Otherwise, the latency it delivers is already something spectacular.

 

[Vya Domus]

I want to see the day when performance line between RAM and storage is blurred. Imagine storage that has same throughput and latency as RAM, all connected directly to CPU so that all 3 have same speed between each other. It's gonna be awesome.

Not going to happen I'm afraid. The problem is the way memory has to be accessed when the adress space is very large. That's such a big limiting factor that in order for that to be possible the memory cells would actually need to be way faster than those found in normal RAM modules.

 

[Reeves81x]

I want to see the day when performance line between RAM and storage is blurred. Imagine storage that has same throughput and latency as RAM, all connected directly to CPU so that all 3 have same speed between each other. It's gonna be awesome.

Like a RAMDisk. Yeah, something I want to see as well.