Review Index:

Intel SSD 600p Series 256GB Full Review - Low Cost M.2 NVMe

Subject: Storage
Manufacturer: Intel

Mixed Burst R/W Throughput, Load Times, and Latency Percentile

In an attempt to better represent the true performance of hybrid (SLC+TLC) SSDs and to include some general trace-style testing, I’m trying out a new test methodology. First, all tested SSDs are sequentially filled to 100%. Then the first 8GB span is pre-conditioned with 4KB random workload, resulting in the condition called out for in many of Intel’s client SSD testing guides. The idea is that most of the data on an SSD is sequential in nature (installed applications, MP3, video, etc), while some portions of the SSD have been written to in a random fashion (MFT, directory structure, log file updates, other randomly written files, etc). The 8GB figure is reasonably practical since 4KB random writes across the whole drive is not a workload that client SSDs are optimized for (it is reserved for enterprise). We may try larger spans in the future, but for now we’re sticking with the 8GB random write area.

Using that condition as a base for our workload, we now needed a workload! I wanted to start with some background activity, so I captured a BitTorrent download:

View Full Size

This download was over a saturated 300 Mbit link. While the average download speed was reported as 30 MB/s, the application’s own internal caching meant the writes to disk were more ‘bursty’ in nature. We’re trying to adapt this workload to one that will allow SLC+TLC (caching) SSDs some time to unload their cache between write bursts, so I came to a simple pattern of 40 MB written every 2 seconds. These accesses are more random than sequential, so we will apply it to the designated 8GB span of our pre-conditioned SSD.

Now for the more important part. Since the above ‘download workload’ is a background task that would likely go unnoticed by the user, we also need is a workload that the user *would* be sensitive to. The times where someone really notices their SSD speed is when they are waiting for it to complete a task, and the most common tasks are application and game/level loads. I observed a round of different tasks and came to a 200MB figure for the typical amount of data requested when launching a modern application. Larger games can pull in as much as 2GB (or more), varying with game and level, so we will repeat the 200MB request 10 times during the recorded portion of the run. We will assume 64KB sequential access for this portion of the workload.

Assuming a max Queue Depth of 4 (reasonable for typical desktop apps), we end up with something that looks like this when applied to a couple of SSDs:

View Full Size

In the above example, the OCZ Trion 150 (left) is able to keep up with the writes (dashed line) throughout the 60 seconds pictured, but note that the simultaneous read requests occasionally catch it off guard. Apparently, if some SSDs are busy with a relatively small stream of incoming writes, read performance can suffer, which is exactly the sort of thing we are looking for here.

When we applied the same workload to the 4TB 850 EVO (right), we see an extremely consistent and speedy response to all IOs, regardless of if they are writes or reads. The 200MB read bursts are so fast that they all occur within the same second, and none of them spill over due to other delays caused by the simultaneous writes taking place.

Here is our new workload applied to a batch of SSDs including the 600p. I've added and pushed the NVMe / PCIe parts to the top of the list for easier comparison:

View Full Size

From our Latency Percentile data, we are able to derive the total service time for both reads and writes, and independently show the throughputs seen for both. Remember that these workloads are being applied simultaneously, as to simulate launching apps or games during a 30 MB/s download. The above figures are not simple averages - they represent only the speed *during* each burst. Idle time is not counted.

The bottom half of the chart (starting with the 850 EVO) represents the SATA bunch tested here. I've removed the smallest (120/128GB) capacities as they are not comparative with the tested group (those are included here if you need to look back at/for them). While the SATA results are all fairly consistent with eachother, the PCIe parts are more of a mixed bag. Moving up to the subjects of this review, we see the 600p turn in respectable read performance, approaching the SSD750 in read throughput. We also witnessed a surprising result in write speeds, as the 600p's SLC cache helped it beat out both the Samsung 950 Pro and the Kingston HyperX Predator! The Plextor M6e is historically known to turn in poor performance, and here we see it mixing in with the SATA parts.

View Full Size

Now we are going to focus only on reads, and present some different data. I’ve added up the total service time seen during the 10x 200MB reads that take place during the recorded portion of the test. These figures represent how long you would be sitting there waiting for 2TB of data to be read, but remember this is happening while a download (or another similar background task) is simultaneously writing to the SSD.

The 600p wasn't the fastest PCIe part in this comparison, but it was reasonably close to the SSD 750, and came in nearly twice as fast as the M6e and all SATA parts in this comparison.

Below are the Latency Percentile data that the above charts were derived from. Note how the 600p (light blue) comes very close to the performance of the SSD 750 (orange) and the 950 Pro (grey) in these results.

View Full Size

View Full Size

For a budget SSD, the 600p did very well here. Such a sharp contrast to how poorly it performs in saturated (legacy) benchmarks. Here are a few Latency Percentile comparisons at saturated (non-paced) levels:

View Full Size

View Full Size

View Full Size

Moral of the story: The 600p is a great drive so long as you don't hit it with sustained writes at >120 MB/s. Good thing we had these new tests on hand to show more realistic performance!

Video News

September 1, 2016 | 01:32 PM - Posted by Stefano from Italy (not verified)

Considering the low price of this ssd nvme vs normal sata ssd , could I put it in my motherboard z77-a ( via an pci express adapter ) ?

It might not seem like a serious question , but my i7 2600k is still going strong; especially considering the cost of a new system that supports PCI3 nvme natively .

Sorry for my bad English ;

Thank for the excellent job Allyn

September 1, 2016 | 01:54 PM - Posted by Chaitanya Shukla

There is an old article done by PCPer regarding usage of PCI-E SSDs on old systems. Do check t out, if I remember correctly that Z77 might support PCI-E SSD (NVME) as storage drive but won't boot off it.
Edit: here is the link to that article, I hope it helps you.

September 7, 2016 | 08:59 AM - Posted by CB (not verified)

You may be able to get boot functionality.

Here is a site that tells you how to add NVME boot modules to your bios:

Pretty slick.

September 9, 2016 | 08:31 AM - Posted by Stefano from Italy (not verified)

Very very interesting thank you for the replay

September 1, 2016 | 02:31 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I just got my 600p 256GB yesterday, put into empty laptop and clean installed Win 10 Pro onto it. After updating fully(no other installs) i ran bitlocker but was only able to get software encryption. uefi only mode, csm/legacy off, secure boot on.

Also, the Intel SSD Toolbox cant read the SMART info for the drive.

Is the drive too new? Their FAQ said not to install Intel NVMe drivers but to use what came with Windows.

"manage-bde -status c:" shows "Encryption Method: XTS-AES 128" isntead of Hardware...

I got this drive because their plastered all over that active power usage is 100mW, but it was burning hot to touch while encrypting. The 4W listed on back sticker seems more the truth. Not sure point versus Samsung 950 Pro except Intel firmware and cheaper.

September 1, 2016 | 02:50 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

We likely need a new version of SSD Toolbox to read SMART.

For hardware encryption, you likely need the Pro 6000p.

September 1, 2016 | 03:09 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It lists "AES 256-bit self-encryption" under its product brief. Half reason i got it. Besides the low power usage.

So sad. thanks for reply.

September 3, 2016 | 05:31 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

self-encrypting is enabled with a HDD BIOS Password
For Bitlocker e-drive you need the pro version

September 5, 2016 | 11:20 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

What's new in Windows 10: Warning: Self-Encrypting Hard Drives and Encrypted Hard Drives for Windows are not the same type of device. Encrypted Hard Drives for Windows require compliance for specific TCG protocols as well as IEEE 1667 compliance; Self-Encrypting Hard Drives do not have these requirements. It is important to confirm the device type is an Encrypted Hard Drive for Windows when planning for deployment.

September 6, 2016 | 02:40 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Yeah, 'self-encryption' implies that all data is stored to flash in an encrypted manner, which means that data is secure if the drive is locked with something like a BIOS password. This is different than what is needed to enable hardware encryption via OS (i.e. Bitlocker). Intel passed me a note further clarifying this, and I've appended it to the specs section of the first page in this review.

January 4, 2017 | 01:11 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

For others reading this tread. You need to change windows bitlocker default encryption method from 128 to 256 to support hardware encryption. It works on 6000p for sure but they almost same.

September 1, 2016 | 05:10 PM - Posted by Jann5s

Did you happen to measure temperatures?

September 4, 2016 | 03:13 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

I didn't break out the FLIR, but the heat spreader on the controller was very warm to the touch during the continuous load benchmarks. It was barely warm during the mixed (more realistic) workload test. I couldn't get it to throttle with no direct airflow, but this is an open testbed. Things may be different in a cramped mobile housing, but again, it's unlikely to see that much heat production unless you're intentionally trying to heat it up (continuous workloads seen in benchmarks).

September 1, 2016 | 11:19 PM - Posted by phillychuck

Some of those tests looked really bad, do you think a firmware could fix some of it?

September 4, 2016 | 03:08 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

I'm convinced that firmware can fix it, but Intel has to decide if it is something that actually needs fixing (since the issue doesn't show up in typical use, and this is a budget SSD after all). If they do, then it will still be a few months for the new firmware to get through their validation process, and then there's the whole issue of there not yet being NVMe firmware update utilities that are 'easy'...

September 2, 2016 | 03:50 AM - Posted by dragosmp (not verified)

This looks like a great drive for regular users, top on my NVMe recommended list from now on. Thanks for the good perspective Allyn

Can I ask for some power figures? If anyone has the equipment and expertise it's you

September 2, 2016 | 06:27 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

I did a few quick checks, and it was roughly similar to a 950 Pro when active. Sustained heavy writes can likely cause it to throttle, but then we're into workloads that don't typically happen. Intel claims 100mW average in typical use (MobileMark).

September 2, 2016 | 09:42 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

On the sequential performance page it says "After ~6TB of file creation, the 600p's SLC cache was saturated..." should this not be 6GB?

And in reality, a regular consumer looking at a 512GB drive which is now almost the same price as a mid range SATA3 SSD of the same capacity would surely have more than enough with a 16GB SLC cache? Apart from copying 16GB+ worth of files across >120MB/s drives, which in itself is rare enough, what is going to saturate that? This seems like the sweet spot right now.

September 2, 2016 | 05:50 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Thanks - fixed. Totally agree on the 512GB's 16GB cache. Also note that since that model has 2x the number of dies, its 'low' sustained speed should double to 300 MB/s, meaning you'd have to write that 16GB at an even faster rate to saturate that cache.

September 3, 2016 | 01:59 AM - Posted by biohazard918

I can think of a consumer workload that would saturate that. Steam download on the really fast connections you can get in some areas. Gigabit connections are appearing in various areas of the us and even multi gigabit like comcast's 2gig service is out there. Not to mention whats going on in areas of the eu and asia with fiber.

September 3, 2016 | 12:55 PM - Posted by Spunjji

2Gb fibre still wouldn't saturate the 512GB model's continuous write rate, though - and with 1Gb fibre it wouldn't even saturate the 256GB model. That's also assuming a home network fast enough to deliver those rates to a single client, which doesn't exist. So you're talking about the edgiest of edge cases here.

September 2, 2016 | 05:43 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I just installed the 512 GB version and I have to say I'm a little disappointed. About my system, XPS 8900, i7-6700 with 32 GB of memory. I performed a clean install of W10, which installed in under 10 minutes (nice), but after getting everything setup I ran some benchmarks. The highest read speeds in getting is barely over 700 and about 650 seq. Advertising is 1800 read and I'm not even getting half that. Maybe time to return and go with sammy.

September 2, 2016 | 05:53 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Not sure what benches you are running, but in ATTO this one hits 1.6GB/s, and it hit 700 MB/s in our mixed burst test, which measures that read speed during simultaneous writes.

September 4, 2016 | 08:57 AM - Posted by Tristan (not verified)

I can confirm this, I just got installed mine yesterday and it's working as advertised.

I'm coming from an older x58 SATAII platform. Faster storage was really the one of the only reasons I could justify the upgrade, this did no disappoint for the money!

September 3, 2016 | 12:59 PM - Posted by Spunjji

Sounds like you're hitting a chipset limitation - probably not getting full bandwidth to the slot you've installed the drive into. If so, the Samsung won't fix that.

September 6, 2016 | 11:15 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Maybe, your PCIE bandwidth is limiting the drive. I had a problem with my 950 Pro where my sound card was sharing PCIE lanes with the M.2 slot on the motherboard. I just had to move my sound card to a different slot that didn't share lanes and it fixed the problem.

September 17, 2016 | 11:02 PM - Posted by rickyli99 (not verified)

If you plugged the drive into the built in M.2 slot, you're hitting some kind of hardware limitation of the slot. I bought a 950 pro and was disappointed with the speeds I was seeing until I saw this forum post and bought the recommended PCIE to NVME adapter. It was really lame installing a 950 and only getting 800MB/s speeds.

October 20, 2016 | 12:54 PM - Posted by CNote

I installed mine into the m.2 slot and got just above 700, switched to a x4 pcie adapter and got the same. Updated the BIOS, which I thought I already did, and now I get more like 1400.

September 2, 2016 | 08:38 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Does Intel or IMF enter joint venture with SMI? How is Marvell left out in the controller development?

September 4, 2016 | 02:58 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Intel always tends to jointly work with whichever third party controller maker they are currently using in their products. They have worked with Marvell in the past.

September 3, 2016 | 12:25 AM - Posted by manskitojr (not verified)

If one was to put two (or more) of these drives in RAID 0 would that mean that it would be less likely you would run into the issue of saturating the cache?

Also would two of these drives out preform 1 Samsung 950? It seems like two lower capacity Intel drives are roughly the same price as 1 higher capacity Samsung.

September 4, 2016 | 03:02 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

So long as your motherboard supports NVMe RAID, yes, generally the specs will all double (up to the point of saturating the DMI bandwidth). More info about all of that in my triple M.2 RAID review.

September 3, 2016 | 06:35 PM - Posted by Tony (not verified)

Hopefully Allyn can start measuring power draw on SSD. Been looking for hotswap bays for ssd and wondering if a single 5v is enough for 4 SSD on write cycles.

September 4, 2016 | 03:00 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Hot swap bays for M.2 NVMe? Single 5V what? If you mean a single 5V line of a SATA power connector, that is more than sufficient for four SATA SSDs.

September 4, 2016 | 09:57 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

You dont seem to like the 850 pro (my ssd) :( instead only showing evo sata models.

September 6, 2016 | 02:42 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

The 850 EVO and PRO are *very* similar in performance so long as the EVO is in a 500GB or higher capacity, which is why the 850 EVO 500GB is a staple in our results.

September 5, 2016 | 06:37 AM - Posted by brothergc (not verified)

from looking at this review I see little that would intice me to buy one , looks like it gets wooped bad by most all the other drives or am I reading the data wrong ?

September 6, 2016 | 02:43 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

It's about the use case, and that this drive is nearly half the cost/GB of the competing units. It doesn't like sustained writes, but it's fine for anyone that won't be beating on the drive constantly.

September 5, 2016 | 06:43 PM - Posted by Danny (not verified)

The Intel 600p M.2 NVMe SSD is designed to compete SATA SSD, and yes it does use TLC to increase capacity, but slower performance to keep the cost down.

September 5, 2016 | 06:45 PM - Posted by Danny (not verified)

It would've been nice to have 2-bit MLC 3D NAND Flash Memory and it should come with heatsink to prevent thermal throttling; in other words, better performance w/ heatsink attached to SSD itself.

September 6, 2016 | 02:44 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

M.2 SSDs are not going to come with heatsinks as it makes them too large for the physical spec (they wouldn't fit in a laptop, etc).

September 6, 2016 | 01:26 AM - Posted by jarablue (not verified)

So I was tinkering with my Intel 600p nvme ssd tonight, running crystal disk mark for benchies. I noticed that when disabling write cache buffer flushing in device manager, on the ssd, it gave me me almost 300mb/s on my 4KQ31T1 scores in CDM. Now I have always read the dangers of disabling that setting for a drive. But is this something that nvme drives should have disabled? That is a pretty big boost to get.

Write cache buffer flushing...enabled or disabled for nvme ssds? And is there Intel NVME drivers I should be using with the 600p? IRST are for sata based drives correct?

I have read a few forum posts that disabling it is a good thing for nvme drives. Recent posts, nothing dated.

What do you think?

September 6, 2016 | 02:47 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

It's more risky, as Windows will cache writes in RAM, and if you have a lot of RAM, that's potentially a lot of unwritten data to the SSD in case of an OS crash or power loss. If you're ok with the risks, yeah, it will help a lot with random write speeds. One note though - you can't disable buffer flushing on some vendor-specific NVMe drivers (like Intel's NVMe driver, for example). Also note that the Intel NVMe driver is only for their enterprise / SSD 750 and not for the 600p, which is meant to use the Windows Inbox driver.

September 7, 2016 | 09:53 AM - Posted by jarablue (not verified)

So when disabling WCBF, it uses system RAM as the buffer, instead of the buffer on the ssd? Even if I have a power loss or power off my system hard by pulling the plug, there is no difference right? Unless my drive itself has a separate power source? I don't understand why disabling this is extra bad in case of a power loss. Blue screens will write what is in the cache buffer if this setting is enabled vs not being enabled (I assume) but as for power loss, it doesn't matter correct? WCBF won't matter in that case?

September 7, 2016 | 11:01 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Buffer flushing disabled means Windows will cache writes *in addition to* the SSDs own SLC cache. The SLC cache is persistent and will survive a power loss, but the non-flushed Windows buffer (RAM) will be lost during a crash / power loss.

September 9, 2016 | 05:18 AM - Posted by drbaltazar (not verified)

Wouldnt disabling ssd or hard drive write cache take up more ressource .since ms write it in memory and hard drive or ssd write it in their own internal and the speed up would actually be false since its the indexing of the two that would speed up thing but write would slow down thing ?i am all for speed up tweak .but in a day and age of patreon .youtube and most importantly twich gamer streaming wouldnt write speed affect everything negatively . write tend to be slow no mather what .if your drive write to itself and your os write to ram . you gain performance in some place but wouldnt overall thing end up in a huge loss

September 6, 2016 | 05:38 AM - Posted by yoram pinhasi (not verified)

Intel normally very disappointed

I prefer the Samsung 512GB M.2

September 6, 2016 | 12:22 PM - Posted by yona (not verified)

Plextor M8Pe 512GB
up-to 2300 MB/s for reads and 1300 MB/sec (512GB) for writes.

September 6, 2016 | 12:23 PM - Posted by yona (not verified)

225 EURO

September 6, 2016 | 03:30 PM - Posted by yenic (not verified)

This is a slam dunk by Intel. I agree with updating the rating if they actually fix that write issue.

That said, this is a no brainer for 99% of users out there. Including the nerds reading this who think it's not good enough for them. Only heavy duty 3D rendering or video editing would write 32GB at over 120MB/sec (for the 1TB). There's no way the PC gamer nerd will need more than that. It's far more than enough even for moderate video editing.

You'd have to get to some seriously professional use cases to find the limits of the 600P. Namely, if you're not paid to do video editing or 3D content all day everyday- you don't need anything better. Even if you think you do. And if you do need more, you'll be stepping up to some serious stuff like the Intel 750 line, big old heatsink and all.

Just saying, real talk. Hopefully Intel does smooth out that usecase but I can see why they didn't even bother testing for it. If they do fix it, more reviews will show it and Samsung's 960 Pro lineup might be threatened by the low cost and frankly, overpowered performance of the 600P.

February 24, 2017 | 06:17 AM - Posted by MikVision (not verified)

With a 1tb drive you should have write of at least 300Mb/s or even 600 Mb/s to saturate the cash
Allyn said that the 512 has 2x the dies so it can handle about 300Mb/s in the comments. Assuming linear scaling for dies and speeds you should you will write at 600Mb/s to saturate the 32GB on the 1TB model (which currently sells at 33 (euro) cents per gig in my region)

September 7, 2016 | 04:36 AM - Posted by HERETIC (not verified)

Is this basically the same flash as Crucial MX300 ??
If so must be decent amount of OP going on.........

September 7, 2016 | 11:04 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Same flash, but not operating the same way. 600p has a fixed SLC cache portion of each die, while MX300 dynamically adjusts how much SLC is present on-the-fly.

September 7, 2016 | 10:43 AM - Posted by CNote

I picked up the 256GB version on newegg for $95 + free shipping.
My only question is whats the performance on a x2 slot?

September 7, 2016 | 03:45 PM - Posted by Dr. Poop (not verified)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, great pricing on some high end hardware!!!

I'm curious to CNote's question.... Plus any suggestions on how to get this to work on am3+ motherboard (more specifically msi 970a-g46) w the following setup:
2x PCIe 2.0 x16 slots
PCI_E2 supports up to PCIe x16 speed (when PCI_E4 is empty) or PCIe x8 speed
(when PCI_E4 is installed)
PCI_E4 supports up to PCIe x8 speed
2x PCIe 2.0 x1 slots
2x PCI slots, support 3.3V/ 5V PCI bus Interface

Allyn I believe you stated in last podcast something about a more cost friendly pci express adapter for m.2 that was for 2 channels. Would that be a good option for us with the gen2 pcie? What was the name of that thing?

September 7, 2016 | 11:08 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

That was the Phison E8. AMD support for NVMe boot is spotty, so definitely make sure anything you try has been tried elsewhere first (research forum posts, etc).

September 7, 2016 | 11:11 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

PCIe 3.0 x2 / PCIe 2.0 x4 will both cap throughputs at ~1.5 GB/s. For the 600p, it's not going to be impacted very greatly since its fastest speeds are only using roughly half of its native interface in the first place.

September 8, 2016 | 01:19 AM - Posted by CNote

Sweet thanks

September 8, 2016 | 11:37 AM - Posted by DiaperDanDoodied

Thanks for the info Allyn~!

September 8, 2016 | 01:19 AM - Posted by RUSSELL ROBINSON (not verified)

I agree int that I think the price is great for the performance one receives and covers most uses cases for most users out there.

Also this may be my first time and read on and I appreciated the feeling and feedback in the comments section.

I hope this particular feel of this community I just experienced is here for the long haul as it will keep me coming back to pcper for more.

Good write up too Allyn and love you involvement in the comments. Props to you and

September 8, 2016 | 03:42 PM - Posted by denstieg (not verified)

After seeing the podcast i'm happy to have gone for the plextor drive, 20 euro's more but faster and no stutters. Ok i probably won't notice it but still.

September 8, 2016 | 10:36 PM - Posted by quest4glory

Is a TPM device still required for optimal BitLocker support in Windows 10?

September 9, 2016 | 08:22 AM - Posted by jarablue

I use bitlocker with no problems in Windows 10 Pro. I do not have a TPM device only my 600p.

September 9, 2016 | 10:42 AM - Posted by Mark Schieldrop (not verified)

I installed the 512gb verson last night in my H170 board. Runs nicely. Have not seen any hiccups. Very, very fast for my normal use.

I now have this as my boot drive with apps and games and a 512gb Samsung 850 EVO sitting on the side ready to fill up with steam games and my OneDrive folder. Best of both worlds!


September 12, 2016 | 04:35 AM - Posted by Captain Slow (not verified)

Is this drive (512 GB model) compatible with h97 motherboard (to be specific, msi h97 gaming 3) and Windows 7 (64bit)?

If the answer is yes,is it require any additional setup as boot drive?

Is it ok to use this drive as mainstream/gamer?

In my country, the price for this intel drive is 10-15 percent cheaper than 850 EVO 500 GB which means i have to choose between this and 850 evo.

I appreciate for your help :D

September 21, 2016 | 07:42 PM - Posted by FrankM (not verified)

I installed the 600p 256GB M.2 in an HP 27 inch All-in-One. I am getting 1550 mb/sec read and 580-590 mb/sec write speeds.

I have a Samsung 950 Pro 512 in another HP 27 inch All-in-one and it tests at 2550 read and 1100 write. I have i7 6700ts in both. When running drive intensive tests they both will reach a max of 70 degrees C.

Boot times with the 600p 256 M.2 NVMe versus the 2 TB 5400 RPM in the one AIO went from forever to 11-12 seconds to desktop and the 950 Pro 512 boots to desktop in 8-10 seconds which is 30 seconds faster than the other AIO that had a WD 1 TB 7200 RPM SSD cache Hybrid HDD in it. I have a Graphics station with a pair of 256 GB SSDs in a RAID 0 and this 600p does everything snappier that the RAID 0 does

Intel toolbox shows that S.M.A.R.T. isn't enabled. Hardware Info version 5.37 shows S.M.A.R.T., but shows drive failure although it is working fine, so I suspect that there is an issue with the firmware that is preventing it being read properly.

Considering that it is $100.00 less than the Samsung 950 Pro 256 GB, even though it falls behind in read and write speed, it is still head and shoulders above SATA SSDs, so I consider it a great affordable option, especially in laptops or All-in-Ones. Now you can use the M.2 slot for the system and the SATA port for storage.

I like it. Hopefully Intel has created a solid reliable NVMe drive, but until we know for sure I will keep my system image backups current.

September 21, 2016 | 08:53 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

title says full review, so where's the temperature test ?
how hot does this get ?

October 4, 2016 | 08:55 PM - Posted by Martin (not verified)

Can I install this 600p on a GIGABYTE G1 Gaming GA-Z97MX-Gaming 5 ???

October 29, 2016 | 02:20 PM - Posted by Nick (not verified)

I've get a less that half of advertised speed of Intel intel SSD 600p using m.2 port on MSI Z170A Krait Gaming 3X motherboard using Intel i5 6600k. I updated BIOS, all the motherboard drivers and running windows 10 pro and still get only 750 mb/s seq read . Does anybody has any ideas what i can do before return ssd back?

November 3, 2016 | 06:22 PM - Posted by Anusha

If I have a Z97 system with a M.2 port which supports only a PCI-E 2.0 x4 speeds, would I still be benefited by going with a 600P SSD over a regular 2.5" 850 Evo?

November 25, 2016 | 12:22 PM - Posted by Copenhagen (not verified)

How well does these m.2 NGFF drives manage when you suit them up in adapters, like an USB3 stickdrive, or if you put them in a sata3 adapter-plate to be used where m2 slot aint present-

any insight into what limitasions there will be in play?

January 12, 2017 | 06:16 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The 600p has had a firmware update since this review, was the write cache behaviour fixed?

January 15, 2017 | 03:19 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Could you add your test environment 20000x1kb file copy test benchmark.
because when see your 1mb test hdd and ssd gab getting very close.
I suspect, at about 1kb file transfer hdd and ssd will show same performance even nvme ssd.


January 27, 2017 | 03:28 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Is this M-Key or B-Key?

February 1, 2017 | 03:51 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I've got a 1TB M.2 version and probably the only time I'll ever write more than the SLC cache (32GB) sequentially to the drive was cloning what it replaced. It was going well over 300MBps until the 40Gb point then it dropped like a stone to average 120MBps with dips to 30MBps. I care not; as a big storage drive in a tiny M.2 form factor, it's perfect for what I wanted.

February 3, 2017 | 03:27 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Planning to put it on my MSI Z270 Gaming M5 motherboard and to have Windows 10 installed on this SSD, will it run smoothly?

February 18, 2017 | 12:00 PM - Posted by ciddo (not verified)

I just purchased a 512GB 600p on sale for $165 the other day. I wanted to try and hold out and save up for the Samsung 960 EVO because for the TLC Cache issue, but at $165 it was really hard not to get it.

I guess I'll try to refrain from doing 16GB data transfers

December 2, 2017 | 12:52 PM - Posted by Garga (not verified)

Is inconsistent / stuttery performance while operating with a full write cache fixed ?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.