Review Index:

Intel SSD 760p M.2 NVMe Series Full Capacity Roundup - Bang for the Buck

Subject: Storage
Manufacturer: Intel

Internals, Testing Methodology and System Setup


View Full Size

The front was uneventful, but the rear shows that a different PCB layout is used for the 512GB and higher models (2TB model will have packages installed at the rear).

View Full Size

Being M.2 SSDs, there is not much to take apart, but I can peel back a label or two for us to take a peek:

View Full Size

I only removed the label from the 512GB capacity as that one had completed testing at the time this photo was taken. I generally try to not disturb these labels as they contain a copper layer and disturbing the adhesive as originally applied may impact thermal performance.

To fill in some of the gaps not easily discernable from the above pictures, the 128GB model has a single NAND package installed, and the 128GB and 256GB both have a single package of DDR installed. The 512GB capacities, along with the different PCB design, actually push the NAND packages closer to the edge of the PCB to make room for the additional RAM / different RAM orientation.

The controller at play here is the Silicon Motion 2262 (datasheet). This is one of SMI's newer 8-channel PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe controllers, and as they are known for, Intel has customized the firmware to meet their own stringent quality control and testing specifications.

Testing Methodology

Our tests are a mix of synthetic and real-world benchmarks. IOMeter, HDTach, HDTune, Yapt and our custom File Copy test round out the selection to cover just about all bases. We have developed a custom test suite as off-the-shelf tests just no longer cut it for in-depth storage testing. More details on the next page. If you have any questions about our tests just drop into the Storage Forum and we'll help you out!

Test System Setup

We have several storage testbeds. A newer ASUS P8Z77-V Pro/Thunderbolt and a Gigabyte Z170X SOC Force (for RAID testing). Future PCIe and SATA device testing, including this review, take place on an ASUS Sabertooth X99, which comes equipped with USB 3.1, M.2, and can also handle SFF-8639 (U.2) devices with the proper adapter.

PC Perspective would like to thank Intel, ASUS, Gigabyte, Corsair, Kingston, and EVGA for supplying some of the components of our test rigs. 

Hard Drive Test System Setup
CPU Intel Core i7 5820K @ 4.125 GHz
Motherboard ASUS Sabertooth X99
Memory 16GB Micron DDR4 @ 3333
Hard Drive G.Skill 32GB SLC SSD
Sound Card N/A
Video Card EVGA GeForce GTX 750
Video Drivers GeForce Game Ready Driver 347.88
Power Supply Corsair CMPSU-650TX
DirectX Version N/A
Operating System Windows 8.1 Pro X64 (update)
  • PCPer File Copy Test
  • HDTach
  • HDTune
  • IOMeter
  • YAPT

Video News

January 25, 2018 | 11:55 PM - Posted by JoshD (not verified)

Finally, it crazy how long it's taken to get a reasonable competitor to the Samsung NVME juggernaut! At least it's competitive price and performance wise with the 960evo.

January 26, 2018 | 01:10 PM - Posted by bria5544

This is a very interesting NVMe M.2 drive but the 960 evo is barely any more expensive at this point. 10% cheaper isn't going to make up for the large performance delta.

January 28, 2018 | 06:58 AM - Posted by Foobar (not verified)

960 EVO offers only 3 year warranty which is quite a difference. Yet I will not buy a single intel product anymore unless the performance delta favours them immensely, good bye asshole corp.

January 28, 2018 | 07:03 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

That's why it didn't get Editor's Choice. It would need to have outperformed the 960 in more ways than it did for me to go that far in the recommendation. If the price delta is $10-20, I'd personally still buy the EVO today. Still a good showing from Intel through - the 960's needed some healthy competition.

January 26, 2018 | 06:10 PM - Posted by Mutation666

"I'm awarding gold to the 256GB and 512GB models of the 760p. These products nearly match the current M.2 NVMe class leader, and win in some of our more critical metrics, all while coming in at a lower cost."

Totally corrupt /s
Dude go get your tinfoil hat and play in the corner.

A white paper doesn't lie about a product, it put the strengths on display and show when it would make sense to choose one product over another. Allyn is one of the best storage editors out there, of course they would go to them to write a third party paper. You wouldn't go to LTT for this kind of in depth reporting, they aren't geared for that type of work. Also why duplicate work or not use work you gained in the research of a product in your own sites review?

January 26, 2018 | 07:00 PM - Posted by Disappointed Reader (not verified)

You seemingly don't understand how conflict of interest pertains to journalism. A conflict of interest exists regardless of whether this conflict ends up influencing Allyn's review at PCPer. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of any proper journalist to keep a professional distance (read: financial independence) from the subject of their coverage.

This has nothing to do with whether Allyn should have been chosen over some other youtube reviewer (hint: no reviewer should conduct paid work for a vendor whose products they review). If you are a journalist/reviewer, you have the responsibility to ensure that you are not in any position where you stand to personally benefit from your professional conduct. It is absolutely unacceptable to be paid by a company (for real work), and fail to disclose this financial relationship to your readers.

This is such a blatant example of COI that I'm shocked they thought it would go unnoticed. To answer your question: if you were paid by a company (Intel) to perform work for them, you stand to benefit from them continuing to pay you, or provide you with other benefits (like privileged access to products, or early access). Adored's video discussed how PCPer's access to optane did not reflect the relative size and reach of their outfit (read: they were given privileged access to hardware that was not available to the rest of the press). This (indirectly) has monetary value, since it allowed PCper to produce content that other outlets could not feasibly produce. Unique content results in views, and therefore money. Readers have the right to know that this relationship existed, and PCPer knowingly chose not to disclose any such relationship. It's extremely disappointing, and this is coming from a frequent consumer of PCPer content.

February 5, 2018 | 12:17 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

To be clear, we duplicate the work regardless. It would be extremely unlikely for any possible white paper work / other research work to use an identical test configuration as the test suite used for reviews, and even if it were, I'd do separate work for both sides anyway.

January 26, 2018 | 06:21 PM - Posted by WTF Ryan-Allyn? (not verified)

Shrout Research's commercial conflict of interest makes this site in best case questionable. Sorry Allyn and Ryan, your credibility is in the gutter for now. :(

January 26, 2018 | 08:19 PM - Posted by SkOrPn

PCPer is now dead to me. In nearly 35 years of IT work I have never seen such a serious conflict of interest as this one. Everything that now comes out of PCPer's so-called journalists mouths will be nothing but meaningless blablabla to me. PCPer needs to be served with a Class Action Lawsuit, at the very least.

January 26, 2018 | 08:33 PM - Posted by goaway_adoredTV (not verified)

The only surprise is that the AMD fanboy community still watches AdoredTV after all his BS from the previous two years. You guys are seriously in love with siege mentality.

February 22, 2018 | 05:20 PM - Posted by DanielSPb (not verified)

Error with results 256gb:
1. Saturated vs. Burst Performance (for 128 gb (two graphic)).

October 17, 2018 | 06:53 PM - Posted by Paulgj (not verified)

It doesn't appear there is any spare area on these drives. Would it be worthwhile to overprovision them to say 250GB, 500GB etc ?

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.