Introduction, Specifications and Packaging
The 760p performs surprisingly well, especially for the price!
Intel has been doing great with their Optane / 3D XPoint products lately, but what about NAND? Samsung had been leading the pack with their VNAND for a few years now, forcing competitors to struggle to keep up on the capacity, performance, and endurance fronts. Intel's 3D NAND production (announced in 2015) is finally starting to come into its full stride, with 64-layer TLC NAND shipping in their 545S in mid 2017. With SATA essentially covered, PCIe NAND solutions have been a bit rough for Intel. The SSD 600p was their first M.2 PCIe product, launching over a year ago. While it was cost-effective, it was not a stellar performer. This left the now extremely dated SSD 750 as their flagship NAND product. It was great for its time, but was only available in HHHL and U.2 form factors, precluding any possibility of mobile use. With their 3D NAND finally in a good position, what Intel really needed was a truly solid M.2 product, and I'm happy to report that such a thing has finally happened:
Behold the Intel SSD 760p Series, currently available in 128GB, 256GB, and 512GB capacities, with 1TB and 2TB coming later in Q1 2018. Today we will be reviewing all currently available capacities.
This chart makes me happy. Finally, an Intel M.2 SSD with competitive specs! Note that the performance specs all come in at 2x the 600p, all while consuming half of the power of the older model. Endurance remains the same, but the 600p's problems were with performance, not endurance.
Packaging was very similar to that of the 600p and other Intel products. Simple and no frills. Gets the job done.
You know you want to see how these perform, right? Read on to find out!
|Review Terms and Disclosure
All Information as of the Date of Publication
|How product was obtained:||The product is on loan from Intel for the purpose of this review.|
|What happens to product after review:||The product remains the property of Intel but is on extended loan for future testing and product comparisons.|
|Intel involvement:||Intel had no control over the content of the review and was not consulted prior to publication.|
|PC Perspective Compensation:||Neither PC Perspective nor any of its staff were paid or compensated in any way by Intel for this review.|
|Advertising Disclosure:||Intel has not purchased advertising at PC Perspective during the past twelve months.|
|Affiliate links:||This article contains affiliate links to online retailers. PC Perspective may receive compensation for purchases through those links.|
|Consulting Disclosure:||Intel is a current client of Shrout Research for products or services unrelated to this review.|
Finally, it crazy how long
Finally, it crazy how long it’s taken to get a reasonable competitor to the Samsung NVME juggernaut! At least it’s competitive price and performance wise with the 960evo.
This is a very interesting
This is a very interesting NVMe M.2 drive but the 960 evo is barely any more expensive at this point. 10% cheaper isn’t going to make up for the large performance delta.
960 EVO offers only 3 year
960 EVO offers only 3 year warranty which is quite a difference. Yet I will not buy a single intel product anymore unless the performance delta favours them immensely, good bye asshole corp.
That’s why it didn’t get
That's why it didn't get Editor's Choice. It would need to have outperformed the 960 in more ways than it did for me to go that far in the recommendation. If the price delta is $10-20, I'd personally still buy the EVO today. Still a good showing from Intel through – the 960's needed some healthy competition.
“I’m awarding gold to the
“I’m awarding gold to the 256GB and 512GB models of the 760p. These products nearly match the current M.2 NVMe class leader, and win in some of our more critical metrics, all while coming in at a lower cost.”
Totally corrupt /s
Dude go get your tinfoil hat and play in the corner.
A white paper doesn’t lie about a product, it put the strengths on display and show when it would make sense to choose one product over another. Allyn is one of the best storage editors out there, of course they would go to them to write a third party paper. You wouldn’t go to LTT for this kind of in depth reporting, they aren’t geared for that type of work. Also why duplicate work or not use work you gained in the research of a product in your own sites review?
You seemingly don’t
You seemingly don’t understand how conflict of interest pertains to journalism. A conflict of interest exists regardless of whether this conflict ends up influencing Allyn’s review at PCPer. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of any proper journalist to keep a professional distance (read: financial independence) from the subject of their coverage.
This has nothing to do with whether Allyn should have been chosen over some other youtube reviewer (hint: no reviewer should conduct paid work for a vendor whose products they review). If you are a journalist/reviewer, you have the responsibility to ensure that you are not in any position where you stand to personally benefit from your professional conduct. It is absolutely unacceptable to be paid by a company (for real work), and fail to disclose this financial relationship to your readers.
This is such a blatant example of COI that I’m shocked they thought it would go unnoticed. To answer your question: if you were paid by a company (Intel) to perform work for them, you stand to benefit from them continuing to pay you, or provide you with other benefits (like privileged access to products, or early access). Adored’s video discussed how PCPer’s access to optane did not reflect the relative size and reach of their outfit (read: they were given privileged access to hardware that was not available to the rest of the press). This (indirectly) has monetary value, since it allowed PCper to produce content that other outlets could not feasibly produce. Unique content results in views, and therefore money. Readers have the right to know that this relationship existed, and PCPer knowingly chose not to disclose any such relationship. It’s extremely disappointing, and this is coming from a frequent consumer of PCPer content.
To be clear, we duplicate the
To be clear, we duplicate the work regardless. It would be extremely unlikely for any possible white paper work / other research work to use an identical test configuration as the test suite used for reviews, and even if it were, I'd do separate work for both sides anyway.
Shrout Research’s commercial
Shrout Research’s commercial conflict of interest makes this site in best case questionable. Sorry Allyn and Ryan, your credibility is in the gutter for now. 🙁
PCPer is now dead to me. In
PCPer is now dead to me. In nearly 35 years of IT work I have never seen such a serious conflict of interest as this one. Everything that now comes out of PCPer’s so-called journalists mouths will be nothing but meaningless blablabla to me. PCPer needs to be served with a Class Action Lawsuit, at the very least.
The only surprise is that the
The only surprise is that the AMD fanboy community still watches AdoredTV after all his BS from the previous two years. You guys are seriously in love with siege mentality.
Error with results 256gb:
Error with results 256gb:
1. Saturated vs. Burst Performance (for 128 gb (two graphic)).
It doesn’t appear there is
It doesn’t appear there is any spare area on these drives. Would it be worthwhile to overprovision them to say 250GB, 500GB etc ?