Internals, Testing Methodology and System Setup
Internals
The front was uneventful, but the rear shows that a different PCB layout is used for the 512GB and higher models (2TB model will have packages installed at the rear).
Being M.2 SSDs, there is not much to take apart, but I can peel back a label or two for us to take a peek:
I only removed the label from the 512GB capacity as that one had completed testing at the time this photo was taken. I generally try to not disturb these labels as they contain a copper layer and disturbing the adhesive as originally applied may impact thermal performance.
To fill in some of the gaps not easily discernable from the above pictures, the 128GB model has a single NAND package installed, and the 128GB and 256GB both have a single package of DDR installed. The 512GB capacities, along with the different PCB design, actually push the NAND packages closer to the edge of the PCB to make room for the additional RAM / different RAM orientation.
The controller at play here is the Silicon Motion 2262 (datasheet). This is one of SMI's newer 8-channel PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe controllers, and as they are known for, Intel has customized the firmware to meet their own stringent quality control and testing specifications.
Testing Methodology
Our tests are a mix of synthetic and real-world benchmarks. IOMeter, HDTach, HDTune, Yapt and our custom File Copy test round out the selection to cover just about all bases. We have developed a custom test suite as off-the-shelf tests just no longer cut it for in-depth storage testing. More details on the next page. If you have any questions about our tests just drop into the Storage Forum and we'll help you out!
Test System Setup
We have several storage testbeds. A newer ASUS P8Z77-V Pro/Thunderbolt and a Gigabyte Z170X SOC Force (for RAID testing). Future PCIe and SATA device testing, including this review, take place on an ASUS Sabertooth X99, which comes equipped with USB 3.1, M.2, and can also handle SFF-8639 (U.2) devices with the proper adapter.
PC Perspective would like to thank Intel, ASUS, Gigabyte, Corsair, Kingston, and EVGA for supplying some of the components of our test rigs.
| Hard Drive Test System Setup | |
| CPU | Intel Core i7 5820K @ 4.125 GHz |
| Motherboard | ASUS Sabertooth X99 |
| Memory | 16GB Micron DDR4 @ 3333 |
| Hard Drive | G.Skill 32GB SLC SSD |
| Sound Card | N/A |
| Video Card | EVGA GeForce GTX 750 |
| Video Drivers | GeForce Game Ready Driver 347.88 |
| Power Supply | Corsair CMPSU-650TX |
| DirectX Version | N/A |
| Operating System | Windows 8.1 Pro X64 (update) |
PCPer File Copy TestHDTachHDTuneIOMeterYAPT- NEW TEST SUITE!!!
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:
1.
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 ?