The Intel SSD 540s (480GB) Review
by Billy Tallis on June 23, 2016 9:00 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
The sequential read test requests 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
Sequential read performance of SATA drives continues to be pretty boring. The Intel 540s scores better than any other planar TLC drive, but the spread of scores is still quite small.
Power consumption shows much more variability than performance for sequential reads, and the 540s is a little less efficient than the SM2256 drives here.
 |
|||||||||
For most drives, their ranking is determined by their QD1 performance as at higher queue depths almost all drives are saturating the SATA link. The Intel 540s has very good QD1 performance, but doesn't make it all the way to peak performance until the queue is at the full depth of 32.
Sequential Write Performance
The sequential write test writes 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
The Intel 540s manages to significantly improve on the greatest weakness of the SM2256 drives, but the sequential write speed it delivers is still much worse than any of the other competition.
The power usage of the Intel 540s is higher than the SP550 by enough that efficiency actually regressed a tiny bit, but they're both quite inefficient given how much slower they are than the competition.
 |
|||||||||
The Intel 540s shows essentially no dependence between sequential write speed and queue depth, which is not uncommon.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
redzo - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
About the same price as a 850 EVO. The 540s is not worthy of your $$.Anato - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
Why this is 540, not 340 or even 140?BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link
Apparently, their 300 series has fallen off of their roadmap. Someone please link me to a roadmap that counters this statement.pwil - Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - link
Because 140 would have 1y warranty, and 340 - 3y warranty.nismotigerwvu - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
The idea of Intel, owner of the most advanced foundries on the planet, buying chips from the open market is oddly humorous to me. I understand why, and honestly it makes logical sense, but it's still an interesting quirk in an industry where quirkiness has mostly vanished.bloodinmyveins - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
Why is it so hard to dethrone Samsung 850 EVO and PRO? :(redzo - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
They've just designed a product and are 100% sure that they are going to sell it overpriced based on brand name only. It's business.Vlad_Da_Great - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
That was a bummer. I bought that with the notion that inside was Intel parts. I guess, they are trying to bang on their name now. 540s has been great so far, but I could have saved about $20 for the 120GB, I bought. AnandTech you are late!cm2187 - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
With Samsung about to introduce 4TB SSDs, a 1TB max size seems to be behind...Ej24 - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
Wow. Not only would I not purchase one of these, but I'm now convinced I need to buy several mx200's as it seems crucial isn't going to release another MLC drive. TLC simply doesn't impress me. The bx200 I put in my mother-in-law's pc was a disaster (granted its a worst case scenario). It's enough to demonstrate the shortcomings of tlc though. They're only able to make up for it with black magic and sophisticated controllers. No thank you.