Trending

Intel 750 Series 400GB Versus Samsung SM951 512GB

We're pitting Intel's 400GB SSD 750 against Samsung's 512GB SM951 because they're the fastest PCIe-based drives in their respective categories today.

By

Random Read

Image 1 of 3

Image 2 of 3

Image 3 of 3

When we benchmark SATA devices, we consider low queue depths to be the range between one and four. PCIe-based storage scales much higher. Our own Paul Alcorn's enterprise tests routinely scale out to QD256. The SSD 750 can run that high, but it's well outside what any of us would ever encounter. We stop client PCIe workloads at QD128, and even then we're beyond the range of usable performance.

At high queue depths, the Intel SSD 750 really shows its datacenter pedigree. Even as you dip down into more realistic workloads, the SSD 750 operates at nearly identical levels. If I were to guess, I'd say that Intel limited both the 400GB and 1.2TB models through firmware to keep their performance under what the DC P3x00 family can do.

Samsung's SM951 delivers the exact same performance curve between QD1 and QD8. It's remarkable how close these three drives are in this very important metric.

24 Comments Comment from the forums
  • dark_wizzie 25 May 2015 18:06
    Hey, I would love to see a new article about trace-based analysis of hard drive load. I've got some money to splurge on storage I don't strictly NEED, but actually I have no idea what to buy. Just a thought. :)
    Reply
  • Arabian Knight 25 May 2015 20:29
    agaiiiin

    How about testing the Intel 750 card in Raid 0 ?

    please add another Card and try software raid .
    Reply
  • PaulBags 25 May 2015 20:56
    RE: Sequential Steady State, what is the percent scale in that graph? I assume one end is writes and one read, but which? Graph needs to be properly labeled.
    Reply
  • PaulBags 25 May 2015 21:01
    Sequential steady state vs random steady state, switching between IOPs and MB/s, yay that's comparible. Bah, I'm done with this article. Bppppppt.
    Reply
  • jedimindtriks 25 May 2015 21:54
    flexxmemory.co.uk has the sm951 for 350$
    Reply
  • Blueberries 25 May 2015 23:10
    I'd take a 750 over the SM951 any day, you just can't beat the latency and random read/write performance. The SM951 is probably hands down the best SSD right now for the typical PC user, all things considered; having neck-and-neck or better performance at low queue depths and of course a much faster boot time.

    Get the 750 if you're an enthusiast and you can afford it. Otherwise the SM951 is going to be the best performance you've experienced in your life.
    Reply
  • Osiricat 26 May 2015 02:03
    Hi! Anything about temps? I read in earliers reviews that SM951 warms up to 70-75ºC, for some reason intel added passive cooling over theirs memory chips!
    Reply
  • CRamseyer 26 May 2015 03:47
    The industry standard is to measure random performance in IOPS and sequential performance in throughput. Why would you want to compare sequential IOPS to random IOPS or sequential throughput to random throughput?

    The sequential steady state shows read percentage. 100% read to 0% read. It's mainly an enterprise test I imported a few years ago in my testing to see the bathtub curve of the devices under test.

    As for RAID with these drives. I'm not sure if a RAID Report is really needed. You can't boot from devices in Windows software RAID. If 5% of the market cares about these premium parts to start with then RAID performance has to amount to 5 to 10% of those readers. I don't think there are enough readers to justify the time and expense for that level of testing. If Intel wants to provide the parts I don't mind testing and writing the article.

    Chris
    Reply
  • PaulBags 26 May 2015 04:43
    15929620 said:
    The industry standard is to measure random performance in IOPS and sequential performance in throughput. Why would you want to compare sequential IOPS to random IOPS or sequential throughput to random throughput?

    ...

    Chris
    So that I can see the difference? How much of a performance drop is there with random vs sequential? Yes I don't get to decide how my data travels, but is random throughput significantly above the sata 6gb ceiling or does interface not _really_ matter yet unless you have a lot of sequential reads/writes to do? Additionally, what kind of performance is there when there is mixed sequential and random; somewhere in between the two or would comparing the two be completely irrelevant?
    Reply
  • CRamseyer 26 May 2015 05:13
    Random performance is never higher than the limits of SATA 6Gbps unless you have a product like the Memblaze or P320H that can deliver full PCIe bandwidth random 4K reads and writes. Those are both enterprise products that cost more than a used Honda.

    Measuring 4K data in throughput is like telling someone the length of a dollar bill in miles.
    Reply