Here is Intel’s approach to the 760p almost a bit more interesting.
Intel advertises the 760p with a high performance but also with a very low power consumption.
Sounds especially for notebook owners very exciting. But what about performance and power consumption in practice? Let’s find out in the test!
The Intel SSD 760p in the test
The 760p is Intel’s end-user SSD in the upper middle class. This one should play a step above the 600p or 660p, but one stage below the Optane models.
Accordingly, Intel also relies on classic flash memory and not its 3D XPoint technology.
The Intel 760p is a classic SSD in M.2 2280 format, which of course relies on the NVME protocol and the PCIe x4 interface.
Optically, Intel has done a lot right with the SSD. The 760p is not aimed at gamers, but still has a chic and high-quality black PCB and a simple black sticker.
One notices immediately that the SSD does not quite play in the lowest price range.
Unfortunately, Intel does not use any form of cooling. Many high-end SSDs opted for copper stickers. If the sticker is on the top is a thin copper disc, which helps to distribute the heat a little better.
Maybe this is not necessary for the 760p, because Intel promotes the SSD especially for its supposedly half the power consumption compared to the Intel 600p.
This would be impressive! One should not underestimate how even an SSD can affect the running time of a notebook.
At the time of this test, the Intel 760p is available in pretty much all capacities, starting at 128GB, over 256GB up to 2TB!
Priced, however, makes sense primarily the 256GB to 1TB versions.
(Best price for miser, as of 07.12)
In terms of speed, Intel gives up to 3230MB / s reading and writing 1625Mb / s, but only on the 512GB and larger models.
The smaller 256GB version is still reading and reading very well at 3210MB / s and writing 1315MB / s. The 128GB version works with its 1640MB / s read and 650Mb / s write but very limited.
As far as the controller and the basic flash memory are concerned, all versions naturally use the same basis. For the controller, Intel uses the Silicon Motion SM2262.
The Silicon Motion SM2262 is a high end 8 channel PCIe Gen3 x4 controller that supports the NVMe 1.3 standard.
The manufacturer Silicon Motion promotes the SM2262 as particularly powerful, but at the same time with a particularly low power consumption. Allegedly, the Silicon Motion SM2262 should offer a “best-in-class” power consumption. This coincides with Intel’s promise.
The memory is 3D TLC NAND from IMFT. IMFT is a partnership between Intel and Micron (IM Flash Technologies = Intel Micron Flash Technologies).
The life of the SSDs is relatively conservative to Intel. For example, the 512GB version will endure 288TB, the larger versions twice as much, and the smaller versions half as much.
Other manufacturers usually give a bit more durability with their SSDs. In practice, however, this does not mean much anyway. Here, the SSDs usually hold the X times the manufacturer’s information.
The manufacturer’s specification is really important only for the warranty, which either expires up to the 288TB (at the 512GB version) or expires after five years.
By the way, you can easily read how much your SSD has already written with tools like CrystalDiskInfo.
The test system
The following test system comes for the following and was also used for all SSD comparison values:
Tested here was the 1TB version of the 760p!
Let’s start with the theoretical benchmarks. Of course, Crystal Disk Mark is number one here.
At first glance, the values of the Intel 760p look very solid! At least reading. Here, the 760p can be placed at or above the level of a Toshiba RD400 or Corsair MP500.
The Intel 760p does not come close to the big Samsung 970 PRO and EVO, except for very small file sizes, where the 760p performs extremely well.
It becomes significantly more mediocre when writing data.
Here, the 760p ranks at the lower end of the high-end NVME SSDs. This is not surprising if you look at the technical data.
The values of Crystaldiskmark are to a certain extent also confirmed by AS SSD.
Reading we have a very good performance, writing rather average. This also applies to the access times.
Many current SSDs have a so-called SLC write cache. This is a kind of fast area on the SSD, which has a higher write speed than the rest of the SSD.
Just TLC and QLC memory can be relatively slow without such a write cache.
Of course, the write cache will be shoveled again when the SSD goes into idle and there is enough free space. This turbo is therefore always available to you.
Only when writing large amounts of data in one go is it also important to have good performance outside the cache.
What about the Intel 760p?
Yes, it also has a cache! If the cache of + – 20GB is full, the writing speed is reduced to around 550MB / s.
The reading performance is not affected by the way.
Let’s go from the benchmarks to some practice closer testing.
Let’s start with a WinRAR test here. For this test was copied to the Intel 760p two .rar archive, with once 41GB and 47,000 files and once with 25GB and 2,000 files. Archive NR.1 is my packed Lightroom Library, and Archive NR.2 is Bioshock Infinite.
Test package 1 has a lot of small data, package 2 is a bit mixed. The time was stopped until the unpacking process was completely completed.
In this test you can see very nice if an SSD has a write cache, especially if it is not very big.
The Intel 760p is a bit behind the big models like the Toshiba RD400, Samsung 970 Pro and so on.
The unpacking of an archive is quite a writing-intensive process, but what about a read intensive use? For example, with an AV scanner? For this test, I scanned the previously unpacked Lightroom folder using Windows Defender and stopped the time.
Here I was a little surprised, because the 760p scores slightly worse in this test than I would have expected in the good reading performance actually.
This is still a bit better than all SATA SSDs, but worse than the big high end models.
Although reinstalling Windows 10 is not commonplace, it is an interesting test. For this I reinstalled Windows 10 from an original Windows 10 USB stick on the test PC.
In doing so, I stopped the time from resuming in the partition settings to the first forced user interaction.
Amazingly, the Intel 760p offers a very good result here again! Windows is not a very big “program” and will therefore probably always remain in the cache of the SSD during installation. This combined with the good reading performance will probably have ensured the good result.
Last but not least, a Windows Start test should not be missing.
Another good result! Here is finally the good reading performance of the SSD in practice!
This good result remains even if we put a few programs such as Firefox, Libre Office, the VLC player in the auto start.
Power consumption of the Intel 760p
Intel promotes the 760p especially with a low power consumption. Compared to the Intel 600p, this should be reduced by a whopping 50% and over 90% compared to a HDD.
Unfortunately, measuring the power consumption of NVME SSDs is not that easy. Therefore, I have to use a trick here, I use an external NVME SSD housing and measure the power consumption of this including the SSD.
This of course falsifies the absolute values somewhat, but 1. The case itself requires little power 2. The case always needs the same amount of energy for all SSDs.
So pay less attention to the absolute values and much more to the values compared to other SSDs.
Let’s start with the most important finding, Intel’s statement about a 50% reduction in power consumption compared to the Intel 600p!
This is primarily due to the fact that the Intel 600p has consumed a lot of energy.
But even apart from the Intel 760p is one of the most economical SSDs I had in the test so far. It needs a good deal less than the Samsung High End SSDs and less than the Toshiba RD400 or Corsair MP500.
Depending on the situation, only the Toshiba XG5 and the Crucial P1 are a bit more economical, but the difference is minimal.
But brings the lower power consumption really a longer battery life? After all, we are talking about a few watts here.
Let’s take a short demo account, a Dell XPS 13 9370 has a 52Wh battery, which normally lasts about 8 hours.
52/8 = the entire notebook requires 6.5W! Here is + -1W but a significant difference, which can cost an hour of running time.
With a comparably economical SSD like the Intel 760p one must also assume that this runs quite cool.
To test this I load the SSD with Crystaldiskmark, which is set to 9 test runs and 32GB file size. I repeat this test again and again until the SSD reaches a maximum temperature. So many passes Crystaldiskmark on the most stressful setting is quite a worst case.
When it comes to temperature, I rely not only on the values that can be read out via software, but also on a hardware temperature sensor, which I attach to the controller of the SSD.
The controller is always the warmest part of all SSDs.
At first glance, the temperatures look okay under load. These are not super low, but also by far not the worst thing I’ve seen so far.
However, with the Intel 760p thermal throttling I was able to achieve the third repeat of the test! So the SSD throttled its performance to about 400-800MB / s, so as not to overheat.
Throttling seems to start comparatively early in the SSD.
So if possible I would recommend a slight airflow or heat sink! However, even if this is not available you will hardly have any problems with the temperature in practice.
Such an extreme load usually does not occur in practice. The SSD landed with me after the test in my Dell XPS 13, where this did not cause any problems.
The Intel 760p * is a very fast SSD, which I would recommend primarily to notebook owners, especially from Ultrabooks!
Why? Reading the performance of the Intel 760p is beyond doubt. When it comes to starting programs or windows, there are hardly any faster models on the market.
Writing the performance is generally okay. As long as you stay in the SLC cache this is good and then acceptable. But if you copy a lot of data back and forth, there are clearly better SSDs.
Generally I would rather recommend a Toshiba OCZ RD400 or Samsung NVME SSD from a pure performance perspective. The Toshiba RD400 costs little to nothing more than the Intel 760p, but still has a touch more performance, just writing.
The true quality of the Intel 760p is the power consumption! This is comparatively economical even for an SSD.
This makes the Intel 760p ideal for notebooks where good performance and low power consumption are usually better than the absolute maximum speed, which in practice usually brings little more.
Also priced the Intel 760p is absolutely fair! In short, thumbs up for the Intel 760p *.