The Intel SSD 540s (480GB) Review
by Billy Tallis on June 23, 2016 9:00 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
The random read test requests 4kB 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, which is filled before the test starts. 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 random read speed of the Intel 540s is a significant improvement over both SM2256 drives and Phison S10 TLC drives, but isn't quite as fast as the MLC drives or SanDisk and Samsung TLC.
Power usage of the Intel 540s was slightly higher than the SP550, but given the performance increase their efficiency is similar and good overall.
 |
|||||||||
The Intel 540s drew more power and delivered more performance than the SP550 at every queue depth until QD32, where the SP550 performed slightly better.
Random Write Performance
The random write test writes 4kB 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 is limited to a 16GB portion of the drive, and the drive is empty save for the 16GB test file. 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 shows almost double the performance on the random write test that the SM2256 drives did. This puts it well ahead of the Phison-based TLC drives and close to SanDisk's TLC drives.
The Intel 540s had relatively high power draw during the random test, but it certainly wasn't the least efficient drive.
 |
|||||||||
The random write performance of the Intel 540s increases moderately from QD1 to QD2 and only very slightly after that. The SM2256 drives started out slower and stayed there, though the BX200 drew more power with higher queue depths. Most budget TLC drives show relatively little scaling with queue depth here, with a few exceptions like the OCZ Trion 150 jumping up from QD4 and QD8.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
cbjwthwm - Tuesday, June 28, 2016 - link
I'll pay a premium vs a generic like the SP550 because:1. Intel will undoubtedly manufacture the drive to reliable standards
2. it will be supported by a decent toolbox utility (eg: ADATA's is buggy junk)
3. Intel will rake SMI's controller firmware over the coals, like it did with Sandforce--an update has already been released since this review
4. its firmware update process will be simple & reliable
I picked up an SP550 for eval which eventually needed a firmware update. After experiencing the SP550's nasty firmware update process (a disorganized DIY mess), I now use BX200's as the cheapest drive choice simply because firmware updates are competently packaged. I've also had scenarios where fully updated OCZ Trions had terrible stuttering, and imaging to a BX200 solved the issue as well.
I see Intel's 540s as the combination of what the SMI-based TLC products like the SP550 and BX200 should be, if you combine their positive attributes (beyond price)--and for light load applications those benefits could sway me away from equivalently priced MLC-based drives with similar support issues and potential reliability compromises.
Samsung also has crappy firmware support (eg: the repeated 840 EVO performance fixes, and the 850 series update bricking issues which were pulled) so I rarely ever use them. Samsung may have an engineering lead, but they have a well established history as a consistently reckless company when it comes to support.
vladx - Tuesday, June 28, 2016 - link
Another idiot spreading FUD about Samsung. 840 EVO works great and as new after applying the fix. Stuff like the trash you posted starts stupid myths that average joes keep repeating.cbjwthwm - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link
Myths? There is an established track record with them, widely reported and easy to find.1. Multiple rounds of 840 EVO firmware: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9196/samsung-release...
2. 850 firmware pulled, and the ISOs were never re-released: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/after-samsung-840...
fanofanand - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link
The evo issue was legitimate. That said, it isn't like Intel hasn't released a few turds in their day as well. Between broken AVX and numerous other problems, Intel is not the holy grail of perfection and quality control. Samsung has at least as strong a track record for reliability with their drives as Intel, so it makes no sense to purchase this over the comparatively priced Samsung drive. You reference "premium vs generic" but line this up in the premium vs premium space and you will find this drive underperforms and is overpriced. You are either an Intel shareholder, employee, or don't use critical thinking when it comes to your beloved brand.vladx - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link
There were issues which they fixed. I call that great support from Samsung. It's FUD to say Samsung has a bad history based on fixed issues.Prof-Q - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link
If Intel 540 and Adata SP550 used the same NAND, then why Intel's performance is so much better in UsersBenchmark?I was about to buy Intel but this article made me reconsider the options
SeanJ76 - Tuesday, October 4, 2016 - link
Intel will still be the king of SSD's, their top tier is no 1 in speed and reliability(Pci-e) version, their mid tier is holding their own as well, and their entry level tier, 540 series, is so damn affordable for the reliability who wouldn't buy them? I own 4 Intel 520/535 series currently, 2 of them are over 5 yrs old and they are still at 100% life span according to Intel's Toolbox. The main difference in brands is reliability, now that they're all pretty much on par with speed, you should go with the reliability winner which is none other than INTEL!