Intel 750 Series NVME SSD Review

tinytomlogan

The Guvnor
Staff member
31094630253l.JPG


If you find that SSDs aren't quite fast enough for you, then Intel have unleashed a drive with speeds beyond our wildest dreams. If 500MB/s doesn't quite cut it, welcome to the world of NVM Express.


Intel 750 Series NVME SSD Review
 
Last edited:
Ha ha love it dude, KB, Kb, MB, Mb I used to get confused too. :lol:

KB, MB, GB - A kilobyte is 1,024 bytes. A megabyte (MB ) is 1,000 kilobytes (KB ). A gigabyte (GB ) is 1024 megabytes. A terabyte (TB ) is 1024 gigabytes.
Kb, Mb, Gb - A kilobit is 1,024 bits. A megabit (Mb) is 1,024 kilobits (kb). A gigabit (Gb) is 1024 megabits. A terabit (Tb) is 1024 gigabits.
Don't forget! There are 8 bits in a byte, so to translate from one to the other you can multiply or divide by 8. For example, if you want to transfer 1MB across a 1Mbps connection it will take 8 seconds.

Should someone do a small helpful guide..
 
with PC sales lagging it would be nice to see Intel sell these off cheap to drive sales....

buuuutttt nooooooooooooooooo
 
pc sales arent something i pay any attention too..
if dell hp and compaq arebnt selling pc's that means nothing to me.. all that tells me is more people are building their own.
with the pc gaming industry growing at an ever expanding rate. you cannot believe that no one is buying computers.
you just have to believe that no one is buying pre built computers that cost more than the component parts.
 
Ha ha love it dude, KB, Kb, MB, Mb I used to get confused too. :lol:



Should someone do a small helpful guide..


And that's only a part of it. Because computers work in bits. So 1Byte is 8bits.
Thing is that companies who make memory and storage products use Decimal values, meaning that 1KB for them is 1000Bytes not 1024Bytes for what is true for binary. Thing is that windows uses the binary system. That's why, while (for example) I have a 32GB flash drive from Kingston, windows detects only 28GB.
 
And that's only a part of it. Because computers work in bits. So 1Byte is 8bits.
Thing is that companies who make memory and storage products use Decimal values, meaning that 1KB for them is 1000Bytes not 1024Bytes for what is true for binary. Thing is that windows uses the binary system. That's why, while (for example) I have a 32GB flash drive from Kingston, windows detects only 28GB.

Not entirely accurate. It's because when creating the drives companies use the power base of 10 and enter it in decimal notation. So 1MB would equal 1,000,000 bytes(decimal notation would be 1,000,000 bytes as well). However windows uses the binary power base of 2. So the real translation from binary in 1MB would equal 1,048,576 bytes. So in order to find out the storage capacity in binary form, you take the decimal notation/1,048,576= Binary in MB capacity.

Alternatively you can use GB or TB
Decimal capacity / 1,073,741,824 = Binary GB capacity
Decimal capacity / 1,099,511,627,776 = Decimal TB capacity

So for example, my 1TB ssd in reality is only 931GB because of the conversion(also windows format takes a tiny bit too) due to taking 1TB(1,000,000,000,000)/ 1,073,741,824=931GB of usable capacity.
 
Last edited:
I am trying to understand how you guys got Write speeds faster than read speeds.

Write speeds are slower because the values have to be written, then checked for accuracy, before switching to next values.
Read speeds should be higher at every test than write speeds. Yet it doesn't do in the graphs.
Is it a firmware problem?
 
I wonder how much loss you would get using those PCI card extenders...
Would make a mount and have it up against the window at 90 degrees so you can see its gorgeousness lol
 
How long does it take for Windows 7 to load, compared to a classic SSD?

Don't get too excited it doesn't change much.

Sadly Windows 7 and Windows 8 have a set routine which is on a timer, so no matter how fast the hard drive there is little to no difference once you hit a certain speed.

There is a way to disable the flashing glow in Windows 7 but it saves you about a second or two and nothing more.

In my big PC I have a RAID set up that does a gb on both R and W and I use it to store games on as it makes very little difference to boot times.
 
Bleeding edge will cut you

My only gripe with PCI drives is that they take away a precious slot that you could be using for a GPU. Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan of performance. But 4 GPU's in 4-way SLI for me trumps any SSD performance gains.

Here's where Sata Express unceremoniously drops the ball, since two Sata Express drives in RAID 0 would in theory push 20Gb/sec. or around 2048MB/sec. Intel should have been more aggressive and incorporate Sata Express better into their current chipsets, and offer drive manufacturers more incentive to produce SSD's. I would have cheerfully plunked down cash on a Sata Express variant of the Samsung 850 Pro, for example, to use with my X99 motherboard.

NVMe may be the future, but Intel needs to put connectivity on a motherboard PORT instead of cannibalizing a motherboard SLOT. Until then, I still believe Sata Express has a chance, more so if guys like Samsung begin to push some fast Sata Express drives in 2015.
 
Don't get too excited it doesn't change much.

Sadly Windows 7 and Windows 8 have a set routine which is on a timer, so no matter how fast the hard drive there is little to no difference once you hit a certain speed.

There is a way to disable the flashing glow in Windows 7 but it saves you about a second or two and nothing more.

In my big PC I have a RAID set up that does a gb on both R and W and I use it to store games on as it makes very little difference to boot times.

Uh sorry but that is just dumb. Timer? really? The reason why you don't boot faster with RAID is because the raid controller needs to load the RAID first and detect the drives. That's why it won't boot faster. After it does that the real speed kicks in and that's why it seems to make no difference. Now if you had something like a normal PCIe drive you would notice the speed increase since it would not need to load the raid array
 
It's definitely exciting to see a big leap in performance for storage - especially once we start to see M.2 drives using NVMe so we can have lightning-fast boot drives right on the motherboard. (Intel recently added NVMe support to the NUC which uses M.2 - so it's happening)

But at the same time, I bought the first and second-gen Intel SATA2 drives, the fastest first-gen SATA3 drives, and then recently an enterprise-grade 512GB SanDisk, and I never saw much of an improvement from any of these upgrades, compared to what I saw by moving applications off HDDs and onto any form of SSD.

Faster drives bench really well, but even if you try using a RAM Disk (much quicker than an NVMe drive) there's very little real-world performance improvement when you look at things like app launch times or game load times. transfer speed generally isn't the bottleneck any more with a decent SATA3 drive for much beyond file transfers between two SSDs.

I'd be a lot more excited at affordable drives with higher capacities (say 4TB+) so that I can start replacing hot, loud, and slow HDDs with an SSD, than ones which are 10x faster. Dealing with storage for large files is where I'm running into I/O limitations now.
The current prices for higher capacity SSDs are just ridiculous. Less ridiculous than they used to be, but it doesn't make sense to pay £400 for a 1TB SSD when I can get 16TB for the same price with those new Seagate HDDs.

Sure, not everyone needs 16TB of storage, but even if it was just for a gaming rig, 1TB would only store a fraction of my Steam library alone - especially with more and more games being 50GB downloads these days.

Most of the people that I know who are waiting to upgrade their SSDs are looking for something bigger, rather than something faster. Even though the prices are beginning to drop, 1TB just isn't enough to justify the cost of upgrading.

Now if Intel were to upgrade SRT from only using a 64GB cache to allowing 1TB and beyond, then it makes these big, though not big enough, SSDs a lot more attractive. 1TB is enough that most of what you'll want to use will already be cached on the drive and you'll get full SSD speeds, but you won't have to constantly be managing what files are/aren't on the drive.
Is that going to be the future for SSDs? Outside of enterprise-level drives that cost £5000+ we seem to have been stuck at 1TB for a while now.
 
Last edited:
Uh sorry but that is just dumb. Timer? really? The reason why you don't boot faster with RAID is because the raid controller needs to load the RAID first and detect the drives. That's why it won't boot faster. After it does that the real speed kicks in and that's why it seems to make no difference. Now if you had something like a normal PCIe drive you would notice the speed increase since it would not need to load the raid array

I have a PCIE drive. A Revodrive. It too needs to load drivers but even once they're loaded it still goes at about the same speed.
 
$1029... Well, isn't that cute... I love how SSD's and these are easier and cheaper to manufacture than conventional HDD's, yet, they still keep these prices ridiculously high. For how many years now? :rolleyes:

Moving right along.
 
Faster drives bench really well, but even if you try using a RAM Disk (much quicker than an NVMe drive) there's very little real-world performance improvement when you look at things like app launch times or game load times. transfer speed generally isn't the bottleneck any more with a decent SATA3 drive for much beyond file transfers between two SSDs.

I gotta disagree with you there, I've experienced what a RAMDrive can do to gaming and it's pretty darn cool to load levels nigh-on instantly :) (I imagine it's game dependent)

Edit: Also wraith, you had a stray 1000 in your first post, it should have been a 1024

I didn't know this until recently but the true value got kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte is infact in decimal
1000KB = 1MB, 1000MB = 1GB etc

The binary version is called kibibyte, mebibyte and gibibyte

This definition changed in 1998, it's just that no-one told us :P
 
Last edited:
Back
Top