Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
James Buckwas

Intel 660p as main drive

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

I do realize that I am posting this again. However, I really need an answer and it seems that only the most recent posts end up getting replies from people. Feel free to delete this post if you think that is innapropriate.

 

I found an Intel 660p on Newegg for just over $70 (https://www.newegg.com/intel-660p-series-512gb/p/0D9-002V-003Y7#fullInfo)

 

In comparison to a similar Samsung drive, this is $30 cheaper. However, this Intel drive comes with no cache to speak of. And since I intend to run Windows 10 Pro off of this, I'm concerned with that fact.

 

Someone had told me that due to increased reliability of SSDs nowadays, I should be able to use this for 4+ years.

 

I just wanted to get an overall opinion on this SSD as a main OS drive, so I can know whether to get it or not. If not, what are some other SSDs I can get that are around 500 GB that would work as a boot drive?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, you do understand the drive you linked is an NVME drive and not your standard SATA SSD.  What motherboard do you plan on using?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, James Buckwas said:

In comparison to a similar Samsung drive, this is $30 cheaper. However, this Intel drive comes with no cache to speak of. And since I intend to run Windows 10 Pro off of this, I'm concerned with that fact.

This SSD uses a portion of its memory as SLC cache, which means if you fill up the drive to a certain point, you will notice it being slower.

The amount of SLC cache, it will vary between 6GB and 76GB (on the 512GB model).

It also has a lower endurance, as 'just' 100TB written to it. Not that most people will reach that amount, but that is quite a bit lower than the 300TB the 970EVO+/860EVO sports.

 

If you don't fill up the drive over the 70% mark, it will be fine.

 

This is a sheet I made one time to compare Crucial's, Samsung's and Intel's similar offerings (2.5" SATA, M.2 SATA and M.2 PCIE):

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.b12f283604e122a35ad25d33b2805ec9.png

 

The 660p is fine, but the 970 EVO+ (or ADATA SX8200 Pro) do have their place too.


I apologize for the way I am. If my post seemed rude, that was not my intention. Just my ineptness in forming a nice coherent message.

"those times will never come back :("

"I wish I could find a way to end the pain, other than the way I keep thinking of"

Link to post
Share on other sites

SATA Vs NVMe only matters if you are moving massive files. Talking over 100GB per file. For the average user, it's irrelevant. I'd personally get a larger SATA SSD over a smaller NVMe one

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, James Buckwas said:
However, this Intel drive comes with no cache to speak of.

Are you talking about DRAM-cache or SLC-cache? It does actually come with both, though on the 512GB-model the SLC-cache is a tad small. It'd be better if you could afford the 1TB-model. That said, even the 512GB-model will do just fine, it'll just slow down a lot and rather quickly, if you do something write-heavy. For reads, it's entirely a no-concern; these drives do actually give over gigabit-per-second read-speeds.

 

I have the 1TB-model and I'm getting about 1300Mbps read-speeds and similar write-speeds until the SLC-cache is full, at which point it drops to around 150MBps write-speed until the cache is empty again.

7 minutes ago, James Buckwas said:

Someone had told me that due to increased reliability of SSDs nowadays, I should be able to use this for 4+ years

Unless you're unlucky, you should be able to use it for a decade, easily.


Hand, n. A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody’s pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

I can either get an M.2 crucial M1 with no cache, or a Crucial MX500 that's the same 500 GB capacity with 512 MB cache, but at SATA 6 Gbps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 5x5 said:

I'd personally get a larger SATA SSD over a smaller NVMe one

Which is the better buy depends a lot on what you can find at what price-point. When I bought my 660p, it was cheaper than a similarly-sized SATA SSD. With the 660p being a lot faster, it was a complete no-brainer to buy that and not a SATA-one.


Hand, n. A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody’s pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, James Buckwas said:

I can either get an M.2 crucial M1 with no cache, or a Crucial MX500 that's the same 500 GB capacity with 512 MB cache, but at SATA 6 Gbps.

Personally, I'd look at a 1TB SATA Crucial BX model or a SanDisk drive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

I'd rather not spend close to $100. And as for getting a 1 TB SSD, I'm already getting a 4TB HDD, and I'd rather not spend more than what I need.

5 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Are you talking about DRAM-cache or SLC-cache? It does actually come with both

I saw on pcpartpicker that the 660p comes with no DRAM cache. Doesn't that make it a worse purchase?

If I'm running Windows 10 on this SSD, how important is the speed vs a DRAM cache? From what I found, I can either get a 500 GB SSD with cache at SATA 6 Gbps, or an M.2 SSD with no cache. As someone who doesn't particularly care about speed, I'd probably get the Crucial MX500

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×