Skip to main content

Intel SSD DC P3700 800GB and 1.6TB Review: The Future of Storage

Results: 4 KB Random Performance and Latency

At all capacities, the SSD DC P3700 is rated for at least 450,000 read IOPS, which is right where our samples top out. While Intel's drive hangs out in elite company at lower queue depths, it doesn't match pace with the Micron drives as the commands stack up. The P420m and P320h hit an astounding 750,000 IOPS at a queue depth of 256.

Still, the P3700 doubles the read performance of Intel's SSD 910. Micron may appear to be a clear winner, but the real victor depends on your application. It takes specific tasks to hit such lofty queue depths.

Just like Micron's P420m, the SSD DC P3700 doesn't see much performance variation across queue depth settings.

Put it all into perspective: while the P420m is nearly 5,000 IOPS better than the 800 GB Intel SSD, the company's 1.6 TB model enjoys an almost-50,000 IOPS advantage. Only the more expensive OCZ and Micron P320h drives beat the big SSD DC P3700, and it takes large queue depths to do so. Presented with smaller command queues, the Intel hardware appears more balanced.

We were hoping for lower maximum latency results, but Intel's SSD DC P3700 doesn't quite match Micron's P320h, which continues to serve as our gold standard.

  • blackmagnum
    A large heat sink on an SSD? This thing is too hot to touch!
    Reply
  • saturn85
    will this kind of ssd suffer from write wear out/reduce lifespan?
    Reply
  • xback
    In the 1st table on page 1, the "4k random write IOPS" are reversed :)

    (3500 scores highest, while the 3700 scores lowest)
    Reply
  • redgarl
    OCZ already went there and even made their own connector for providing more bandwith to SSD... just a shame that now Intel try to remove the carpet from beneath the feet of OCZ. Well, old tech is new tech.

    By the way, OCZ revodrive was priced similarly, I don't see that big fuzz from Toms here.
    Reply
  • Nuckles_56
    "Intel's 2 TB model purportedly needs 650 LFM across the drive"

    What the hell is LFM?
    Reply
  • JeanLuc
    The active power consumption numbers on first table are wrong (I hope!) 35,000 watts active?

    Edit:
    It's not actually wrong it might just be my out of date browser I'm using in the office but for me the numbers aren't lining up correctly.
    Reply
  • pjmelect
    "Intel's 2 TB model purportedly needs 650 LFM across the drive"

    What the hell is LFM?

    Linear Feet per Minute of airflow
    Reply
  • pjmelect
    "Intel's 2 TB model purportedly needs 650 LFM across the drive"

    What the hell is LFM?

    Linear Feet per Minute of airflow
    Reply
  • Nuckles_56
    13947314 said:
    "Intel's 2 TB model purportedly needs 650 LFM across the drive"

    What the hell is LFM?

    Linear Feet per Minute of airflow

    Ah that makes sense now
    Reply
  • xXXGamesmasheRXXx
    These Expensive Numbers!
    Reply