Expired Hot Deals

[Memory Express] Intel 660p M.2 PCIe Solid State Drive, 1TB $129.99

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 12th, 2019 7:18 pm
[OP]
Newbie
Nov 2, 2002
53 posts
15 upvotes

[Memory Express] Intel 660p M.2 PCIe Solid State Drive, 1TB $129.99

24 Hr Daily Deal

Intel 660p M.2 PCIe Solid State Drive, 1TB $129.99

https://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX74174
37 replies
Deal Addict
Mar 27, 2003
1297 posts
608 upvotes
Vancouver
Was just about to order a 500gb WD Black SN750 For $99 off Amazon.

Would like some RFD opinions on whether I should choose this 1TB Intel over it. It'll mainly be used for storing photos and videos. Should I pick size over speed? I doubt I have more than 100gb of stuff to store at the moment.

Thanks!
Deal Fanatic
Nov 15, 2013
5144 posts
3185 upvotes
Toronto
dekay wrote: Was just about to order a 500gb WD Black SN750 For $99 off Amazon.

Would like some RFD opinions on whether I should choose this 1TB Intel over it. It'll mainly be used for storing photos and videos. Should I pick size over speed? I doubt I have more than 100gb of stuff to store at the moment.

Thanks!
If it's just storage, I'd get a cheaper SATA or even a mechanical disk. The price on the 660p is alright, SSD prices seem to have gone up recently but it has been cheaper in the past.
Newbie
May 12, 2012
71 posts
51 upvotes
CALGARY
dekay wrote: Was just about to order a 500gb WD Black SN750 For $99 off Amazon.

Would like some RFD opinions on whether I should choose this 1TB Intel over it. It'll mainly be used for storing photos and videos. Should I pick size over speed? I doubt I have more than 100gb of stuff to store at the moment.

Thanks!
Speed
Intel > WD

Size
Intel>WD

Price/GB
Intel>WD

Maybe I don't understand your question?
Newbie
Apr 11, 2015
28 posts
38 upvotes
Vanier, ON
dekay wrote: Was just about to order a 500gb WD Black SN750 For $99 off Amazon.

Would like some RFD opinions on whether I should choose this 1TB Intel over it. It'll mainly be used for storing photos and videos. Should I pick size over speed? I doubt I have more than 100gb of stuff to store at the moment.

Thanks!
According to their specs, both have similar write speeds but the WD has x2 read speed. Both are overkill for storing pics and vids. You could save yourself $50+ by getting a large HDD. Otherwise I'd vote on the Intel, also because these drives tend to slow down after they get half-full.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 15, 2013
5144 posts
3185 upvotes
Toronto
hojandu wrote: Speed
Intel > WD

Size
Intel>WD

Price/GB
Intel>WD

Maybe I don't understand your question?
The SN750 is absolutely faster than the 660p, it's not even remotely close.
Deal Addict
May 9, 2006
1725 posts
261 upvotes
hojandu wrote: Speed
Intel > WD

Size
Intel>WD

Price/GB
Intel>WD

Maybe I don't understand your question?
SN750 is at another level, which is on par with Samsung Evo Plus.
Sr. Member
Mar 21, 2012
506 posts
395 upvotes
Edmonton
in before a pile of people lecture us on how this is inferior QLC
Sr. Member
User avatar
Sep 26, 2018
998 posts
2352 upvotes
dekay wrote: Was just about to order a 500gb WD Black SN750 For $99 off Amazon.

Would like some RFD opinions on whether I should choose this 1TB Intel over it. It'll mainly be used for storing photos and videos. Should I pick size over speed? I doubt I have more than 100gb of stuff to store at the moment.

Thanks!
lol @ storing mainly photos and videos on an nvme ssd, unless you shit in gold toilets and wipe your ass with dollar bills, that's the most overkill application of this drive. You're trying to buy a lambo to drive it on a golf course
I have spoken
Avatar origins story
Deal Fanatic
Nov 15, 2013
5144 posts
3185 upvotes
Toronto
xblackdemonx wrote: STAY AWAY FROM 660p

Ironic that you link to a video where Linus says the opposite, even if he did so begrudgingly.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 7, 2014
1349 posts
1750 upvotes
Gud Ol' Ontariuh Boy
xblackdemonx wrote: STAY AWAY FROM 660p
LinusFace.mov
I swear Linus' video thumbnails get worse by the day lol nevertheless, love the guy.
Deal Addict
Nov 25, 2010
2489 posts
1635 upvotes
Montreal
Jep4444 wrote: Ironic that you link to a video where Linus says the opposite, even if he did so begrudgingly.
You clearly didn't watch the video because the drive sucks.
Last edited by xblackdemonx on Dec 12th, 2019 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sr. Member
Nov 18, 2017
998 posts
654 upvotes
xblackdemonx wrote: You clearly didn't watch the video because he says this drive sucks BIG TIME!
There is nothing wrong with this drive unless you are going to fill it, I have 2x 2TB and they work great and are plenty fast for 99.9% of people.
Deal Addict
Nov 25, 2010
2489 posts
1635 upvotes
Montreal
iamsiege wrote: There is nothing wrong with this drive
at 5:52m you can see the drive speed drop to lower than a HDD. this drive SUCKS
Deal Addict
Mar 27, 2003
1297 posts
608 upvotes
Vancouver
almasyseifer wrote: lol @ storing mainly photos and videos on an nvme ssd, unless you shit in gold toilets and wipe your ass with dollar bills, that's the most overkill application of this drive. You're trying to buy a lambo to drive it on a golf course
Thanks RFD community. I'll go with the WD Black just to experience all of the above for $99.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 15, 2013
5144 posts
3185 upvotes
Toronto
xblackdemonx wrote: You clearly didn't watch the video because the drive sucks.
I have watched the video, the drive is fine for what it is and Linus even admitted that, even if he didn't feel he'd be happy with it. 99% of consumers will never notice a difference between it and a Evo 970 Plus, no it's not great for professional workloads but the caching algorithm hides a lot of the drives flaws so it doesn't really have any problems handling day to day activities. My buddy's work laptop has a 660p in it and he even said he was surprised how well it ran and he has a WD Black in his desktop.
Newbie
Jun 30, 2019
75 posts
78 upvotes
iamsiege wrote: There is nothing wrong with this drive unless you are going to fill it, I have 2x 2TB and they work great and are plenty fast for 99.9% of people.
Fast while they last. And with such endurance, it won't be long...
Sr. Member
Nov 18, 2017
998 posts
654 upvotes
xblackdemonx wrote: at 5:52m you can see the drive speed drop to lower than a HDD. this drive SUCKS
Because it's been filled up, real word usage it works just fine.


From Anandtech... and read this all before you reply.

Conclusion
As the first SSD with QLC NAND to hit our testbed, the Intel SSD 660p provides much-awaited hard facts to settle the rumors and worries surrounding QLC NAND. With only a short time to review the drive we haven't had time to do much about measuring the write endurance, but our 1TB sample has been subjected to 8TB of writes and counting (out of a rated 200TB endurance) without reporting any errors and the SMART status indicates about 1% of the endurance has been used, so things are looking fine thus far.

On the performance side of things, we have confirmed that QLC NAND is slower than TLC, but the difference is not as drastic as many early predictions about QLC NAND suggested. If we didn't already know what NAND the 660p uses under the hood, Intel could pass it off as being an unusually slow TLC SSD. Even the worst-case performance isn't any worse than what we've seen with some older, smaller TLC SSDs with NAND that is much slower than the current 64-layer stuff.

The performance of the SLC cache on the Intel SSD 660p is excellent, rivaling the high-end 8-channel controllers from Silicon Motion. When the 660p isn't very full and the SLC cache is still quite large, it provides significant boosts to write performance. Read performance is usually very competitive with other low-end NVMe SSDs and well out of reach of SATA SSDs. The only exception seems to be that the 660p is not very good at suspending write operations in favor of completing a quicker read operation, so during mixed workloads or when the drive is still working on background processing to flush the SLC cache the read latency can be significantly elevated.

Even though our synthetic tests are designed to give drives a reasonable amount of idle time to flush their SLC write caches, the 660p keeps most of the data as SLC until the capacity of QLC becomes necessary. This means that when the SLC cache does eventually fill up, there's a large backlog of work to be done migrating data in to QLC blocks. We haven't yet quantified how quickly the 660p can fold the data from the SLC cache into QLC during idle times, but it clearly isn't enough to keep pace with our current test configurations. It also appears that most or all of the tests that were run after filling the drive up to 100% did not give the 660p enough idle time after the fill operation to complete its background cleanup work, so even some of the read performance measurements for the full-drive test runs suffer the consequences of filling up the SLC write cache.

In the real world, it is very rare for a consumer drive to need to accept tens or hundreds of GB of writes without interruption. Even the installation of a very large video game can mostly fit within the SLC cache of the 1TB 660p when the drive is not too full, and the steady-state write performance is pretty close to the highest rate data can be streamed into a computer over gigabit Ethernet. When copying huge amounts of data off of another SSD or sufficiently fast hard drive(s) it is possible to approach the worst-case performance our benchmarks have revealed, but those kind of jobs already last long enough that the user will take a coffee break while waiting.


'nuff said for me.

Top