Intel 600p 128 GiB SSD Review

[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
We tested the Intel 600p 128 GiB SSD, that uses M.2 form factor, PCI Express 3.0 x4 interface, and NVMe protocol. While 2.5″ SSDs are still the most popular ones, M.2 form factor is becoming more common. The main reason is that M.2 format allows, besides the SATA-600 connection, the PCI Express x4 standard, which has a far higher maximum transfer rate.
There is also a difference related to the protocol: while traditional SSDs use the AHCI (Advanced Host Controller Interface), which was developed for mechanical hard disk drives, the most recent drives, like the Intel 600p and the Samsung 960 EVO, use the NVMe (Non-Volatile Memory express) protocol, which was developed for SSDs, thus allowing higher speeds and lower latencies.
The Intel 600p SSD is different from most of the drives we already tested: besides using the NVMe protocol like some high performance SSDs, it is an entry SSD, being not significantly more expensive than entry SSDs with similar capacity like the WD Green, the Corsair Force LE, the Kingston SSDNow UV400, and the SanDisk SSD Plus.
Just like most new SSDs, the Intel 600p uses TLC (triple level cell) memories. This kind of memory stores not two, but three bits per cell. It allows a higher data density and, thus, a smaller manufacturing cost for a same capacity chip.
In the table below, we compared the tested units. Except for the 600p, all of them use SATA-600 interface and the 2.5” form factor, with 7 mm height.

In the table below, we compared technical specs of the tested drives.

[nextpage title=”The Intel 600p 128 GiB”]
Figure 1 shows the box of the Intel 600p 128 GiB.

Figure 1: the Intel 600p 128 GiB package

On Figure 2, we see the Intel 600p 128 GiB, which uses M.2 2280 form factor.

Figure 2: the Intel 600p 128 GiB

There are no chips on the solder side, as seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3: solder side

Removing the id sticker, you see the SSD components: the controller chip, a cache RAM chip, and two flash memory chips.

Figure 4: component side of the PCB

The Intel 600p 128 GiB uses the Silicon Motion SM2260 controller, in a specific Intel version. It is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: controller chip

There is a SKHynix H5TC2G63GFR 256 MiB DDR3L-1600 RAM chip that works as a cache.

Figure 6: cache memory chip

The flash memory chips are 3D TLC from Micron, but we were unable to find more information about them.

Figure 7: flash memory chip

[nextpage title=”How We Tested”] During our testing procedures, we used the configuration listed below. The only variable component between each benchmarking session was the SSD being tested.

Hardware configuration

• Processor: Core i7-6950X @ 3.8 GHz
• Motherboard: ASRock Fatal1ty X99 Extreme6/3.1
• Memory: 64 GiB DDR4-3000, four HyperX Predator 16 GiB modules
• Boot drive: Kingston HyperX Predator 480 GiB
• Video display: Samsung U28D590D
• Power Supply: Corsair CX750
• Case: Thermaltake Core P3

Software Configuration

• Operating System: Windows 10 Home

Benchmarking Software

• CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64

Error Margin We adopted a 3% error margin in our tests, meaning performance differences of less than 3% cannot be considered meaningful. Therefore, when the performance difference between two products is less than 3%, we consider them to have similar performance.
[nextpage title=”Compressible Data Test”] As you will have gathered from the previous page, we measured the performance of each drive using CrystalDiskMark.
First, we set CrystalDiskMark to “All 0x00 Fill mode” to evaluate the performance of the SSD when dealing with compressible data.

On the sequential read benchmark, the Intel 600p was 25% faster than the Kingston A400.

On the sequential write benchmark, the Intel 600p was 34% slower than the Kingston A400.

On the random read test with 512 kiB blocks, the Intel 600p was 15% faster than the Kingston A400.

On the random write test with 512 kiB blocks, the Intel 600p was 39% slower than the Kingston A400.

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Intel 600p was 77% slower than the Kingston A400.

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Intel 600p was 31% faster than the Kingston A400.

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the Intel 600p was 63% slower than the Kingston A400.

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the Intel 600p was 15% slower than the Kingston A400.
[nextpage title=”Incompressible Data Test”] For this test, we set CrystalDiskMark to the default mode, which uses incompressible data.

On the sequential read benchmark, the Intel 600p was 38% faster than the Kingston A400.

On the sequential write benchmark, the Intel 600p was 28% slower than the Kingston A400.

On the random read test with 512 kiB blocks, the Intel 600p was 70% faster than the Kingston A400.

On the random write benchmark with 512 kiB blocks, the Intel 600p was 32% slower than the Kingston A400

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Intel 600p was 18% slower than the Kingston A400.

And on the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Intel 600p was 59% faster than the Kingston A400.

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the Intel 600p was 57% slower than the Kingston A400.

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the Intel 600p was 8% slower than the Kingston A400.
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
Analyzing the data obtained on our tests, the first conclusion is that the Intel 600p 128 GiB has the same performance with compressible and uncompressible data, which means its controller does not use compression to speed up operations.
Compared to its competitors, we were expecting the 600p would be a lot faster on many tests, because PCI Express 3.0 x4 used by it supports a far higher bandwidth than the SATA-600 interface used by the other drives. It also uses NVMe protocol, which is usually found on high-performance SSDs.
However, we saw a performance that was faster only on the sequential read and random read with 512 kiB blocks. On the other tests, it performed similarly to most of the tested drives.
So, we can say the Intel 600p 128 GiB SSD presented a cost/benefit ratio that was similar to most SSDs of the same capacity: it costs a little more, and it is a little faster on some tasks. However, it has two advantages: the M.2 form factor, which is easier to install and avoids more cables inside the computer, and also its endurance (measured by its TBW) that is higher than the other tested models.