The First 64 Layer 3D NAND SSD, the Intel SSD 545s, Reviewed... A Good 850 EVO Alternative?

[DocSwag]

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11571/the-intel-ssd-545s-512gb-review-64layer-3d-tlc-nand-hits-retail

Quote

Today Intel is introducing their SSD 545s, the first product with their new 64-layer 3D NAND flash memory and, in a move that gives Intel a little bit of bragging rights, the first SSD on the market to use 64-layer 3D NAND from any manufacturer.

 

The Intel SSD 545s is a mainstream consumer SSD, which these days means it's using the SATA interface and TLC NAND flash. The 545s is the successor to last year's Intel SSD 540s, which was in many ways a filler product to cover up inconvenient gaps in Intel's SSD technology roadmap. When the 540s launched, Intel's first generation of 3D NAND was not quite ready, and Intel had no cost-competitive planar NAND of their own due to skipping the 16nm node at IMFT. This forced Intel to use 16nm TLC from SK Hynix in the 540s. Less unusual for Intel, the 540s also used a third-party SSD controller: Silicon Motion's SM2258. Silicon Motion's SSD controllers are seldom the fastest, but performance is usually decent and the cost is low. Intel's in-house SATA SSD controllers were enterprise-focused and not ready to compete in the new TLC-based consumer market.

Intel SSD 545s Specifications Comparison
Model		545s 512GB	540s 480GB
Controller		Silicon Motion SM2259	Silicon Motion SM2258
NAND Flash		Intel 256Gb 64-layer 3D TLC	SK Hynix 16nm TLC
Sequential Read		550 MB/s	560 MB/s
Sequential Write	Burst	500 MB/s	480 MB/s
	Sustained	475 MB/s	40 MB/s
Random Read IOPS		75k	78k
Random Write IOPS		90k	85k
TCG Opal Encryption		No	No
Power Management		Slumber and DevSleep	Slumber and DevSleep
Form Factor		2.5" 7mm (M.2 later this year)	2.5" 7mm and M.2 2280
Write Endurance		288 TB (0.3 DWPD)
Warranty		5 years	5 years
Launch MSRP		$179	$174

Quote

The most significant performance improvement Intel cites for the 545s over the 540s is in sustained sequential transfers where writes exceed the size of the drive's SLC cache. In the briefing for the 545s Intel claimed the 480GB 540s would drop to 40MB/s while the 512GB 545s is capable of maintaining 475MB/s. The numbers given for the 540s are lower than what the full product specifications from last year list (125 MB/s). Without access to the comparable document for the 545s we can't entirely explain this discrepancy, but the most plausible reason is that Intel is no longer measuring sustained write speed restricted to an 8GB span of the drive and that they are now instead using a more sensible test where the drive is full or nearly so. Either way, the 545s should be able to perform much better after its SLC cache is full.

Quote

The 512GB Intel 545s debuts with a MSRP of $179. This is slightly higher than the launch MSRP of $174 for the 480GB Intel 540s, but on a price per GB basis the 545s is cheaper, and since its launch the MSRP of the 540s has been driven up to $189 by the onset of an industry-wide NAND flash shortage. In this narrow context the MSRP for the 545s may seem reasonable, but its true street price will need to be substantially lower. Intel's 600p NVMe SSD is currently only $175 on Newegg. Since the 600p outperforms any SATA SSD for typical real-world desktop use, the 545s needs to do better than 35¢/GB. The competition based on Micron's 32L 3D TLC includes the Crucial MX300 for around 30¢/GB, and the Samsung 850 EVO 500GB happens to be on sale on Newegg today for $165 (33¢/GB).

Anandtech Storage Bench-The Destroyer Results

Spoiler

Here, the 545s actually manages to beat the 850 evo and come close to the 850 pro all while consuming significantly less power. This is quite impressive, as the 850 evo has long been the king of sata tlc SSDs, but now it's looking like the 545s wants that name.

Anandtech Storage Bench-Heavy Results

Spoiler

Here the 545s doesn't have quite as good performance as in the Destroyer, but it's still pretty good. While the 850 evo is still definitely ahead, when the drive is full we see the 545s doing a lot better than the mx300 and su800. Power consumption isn't as amazing as in the Destroyer but it's still not bad, with the 545s consuming a similar amount of power to the 850 evo.

Anandtech Storage Bench-Light Results

Spoiler

In the Light test we see a similar result to the Heavy test. The 545s is performing close to but not quite at the level of the 850 evo while consuming about the same amount of power.

Quote

Our first look at the Intel SSD 545s with Intel's new 64-layer 3D TLC NAND flash memory has been very promising. Compared to its predecessor based on 16nm planar TLC NAND, the 545s is a big leap forward in performance. Where the Intel 540s was really only suitable as an entry-level consumer SSD, the 545s is a much better all-around performer.

Quote

However, it's too soon to determine whether the Intel 545s will actually be competing in the right price range. Based on the testing so far, the Intel 545s should be targeting a price near the Crucial MX300, which has spent most of the past year as one of the cheapest SATA SSDs available despite offering performance a step up from the entry-level planar TLC SSDs. The MSRP of $179 for the 512GB model is significantly higher than that target, but a fair price comparison will have to wait a few weeks for broader availability of the Intel 545s.

 

Intel has successfully launched a new generation of flash memory and a new mainstream consumer SSD. They haven't completely upended the SSD market like some of their SSD launches in the past and the impact will be muted at first due to limited supply, but this is still clearly a step forward. The bar has been raised a bit higher for the upcoming 3D NAND from Toshiba and Western Digital, and by the end of the year Samsung's SSD division should be feeling a lot more pressure than they have in a long time. Even if the NAND shortage will be keeping prices elevated into 2018, the market is moving forward in ways that will benefit consumers.

The 545s overall performs pretty impressively. Compared to the king of sata tlc SSDs at the moment, the 850 evo, the 545s performs worse in the light and heavy tests while consuming about the same amount of power. However, if we look at the Destroyer results, we see the 545s performing better than the 850 evo while consuming noticeably less power.

 

Overall, I would probably rate the 545s as comparable in performance to the 850 evo. As well, both drives come with a 5 year warranty, continuing the similarities.

 

The 512gb 545s will be available next week, and it looks like Intel plans on selling it for $179.99. This is the same price the 850 evo 500gb generally goes for, putting the two straight against each other. I personally would probably choose the 545s over the 850 evo purely because of the extra 12gb of space you get. Currently, however, the 850 evo is on sale in some places, including newegg, putting the 545s in a tough place.

 

What are your thoughts?

[Guest]

I wonder how it stacks up against SK Hynix SL308? 

[Zando_]

Looks nice!

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

I wonder how it stacks up against SK Hynix SL308? 

Probably better, I think the sl308 is noticeably behind the 850 evo which would put this ahead of it.

[potoooooooo]

m.2 version would be nice.

 

If sata cables and sata power connectors simply stopped existing i would be pretty happy

[DarkBlade2117]

6 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

m.2 version would be nice.

 

If sata cables and sata power connectors simply stopped existing i would be pretty happy

Why, leave M.2 for NVME not Sata.

[Notional]

Not bad, but seriously though. The 850 Evo is getting old now (even though prices has risen, wtf). Isn't it about time they phase out SATA and move to M.2/U.2? The flash is the same, only difference is the controller, and it simply cannot be that much more expensive to make. It feels like Intel has caught up with a market that moving towards EOL.

[potoooooooo]

Just now, DarkBlade2117 said:

Why, leave M.2 for NVME not Sata.

Why the fuck would i want that? NVME is basically pointless right now, sata is all that we need, and i want to get away from the pointless waste of space that is the 2.5" form factor. Have you ever opened a 2.5" SSD? It's a tiny little PCB in there, and it takes up so much space in cables that is entirely unnecessary. If it weren't for SSDs in my system my cable management would be so much easier. Literally 3 power cables in the entire system. 

 

M.2 SATA SSDs are great and should completely replace 2.5" SATA SSDs

[WereCat]

15 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

m.2 version would be nice.

 

If sata cables and sata power connectors simply stopped existing i would be pretty happy

Please no...

[DarkBlade2117]

1 minute ago, potoooooooo said:

Why the fuck would i want that? NVME is basically pointless right now, sata is all that we need, and i want to get away from the pointless waste of space that is the 2.5" form factor. Have you ever opened a 2.5" SSD? It's a tiny little PCB in there, and it takes up so much space in cables that is entirely unnecessary. If it weren't for SSDs in my system my cable management would be so much easier. Literally 3 power cables in the entire system. 

 

M.2 SATA SSDs are great and should completely replace 2.5" SATA SSDs

You are one in a thousand. Most mobos have 1-2 M.2s. Very few have 3. They take up minimum space, be creative with the cable management and it'll look fine. Those 1-2 M.2s Id rather not have occupied by drives that won't exceed Sata 3 speeds. What are you on where hiding some skinny ass black sata cables and a single Sata power cable to power 3 drives is enough to bother you

[potoooooooo]

3 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

You are one in a thousand. Most mobos have 1-2 M.2s. Very few have 3. They take up minimum space, be creative with the cable management and it'll look fine. Those 1-2 M.2s Id rather not have occupied by drives that won't exceed Sata 3 speeds. What are you on where hiding some skinny ass black sata cables and a single Sata power cable to power 3 drives is enough to bother you

You understand not everyone has a full tower, right? My system only has room for two drives, and the SATA cables take up literally half of the room for cable management. Not to mention that 99% of people only have one SSD anyway, so the fact that boards still only have 1 or 2 doesn't exactly matter, now does it.

[DarkBlade2117]

1 minute ago, potoooooooo said:

You understand not everyone has a full tower, right? My system only has room for two drives, and the SATA cables take up literally half of the room for cable management. Not to mention that 99% of people only have one SSD anyway, so the fact that boards still only have 1 or 2 doesn't exactly matter, now does it.

I've seen SFF cases with enough room for an HDD and 2 2.5" SSDs. Most mid towers easily have 4-8 bays for HDDs/SSD. And SSDd don't exactly need a mount, not like cable management needs to be perfect on the back end of the case. Yes it is nice but do you keep yourself up at night over a singular wires that was to short to be bundled up with everything else? I sure hope not

[The Benjamins]

I find the MX300 525GB at $165 a better deal.

[ivan134]

fix for dark theme

[mynameisjuan]

So....$5 extra bucks for extra performance in everything but power....oh and 12gb...

 

Why would I choose the 545 again? Am I missing something?

[DocSwag]

10 hours ago, Notional said:

Not bad, but seriously though. The 850 Evo is getting old now (even though prices has risen, wtf). Isn't it about time they phase out SATA and move to M.2/U.2? The flash is the same, only difference is the controller, and it simply cannot be that much more expensive to make. It feels like Intel has caught up with a market that moving towards EOL.

I would assume the controller might cost more due to R&D costs as well as potentially a larger die.

 

It's also possible that the flash used in NVMe drives usually have a bit higher performance which would also mean they cost more, but I'm not sure on that.

8 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

So....$5 extra bucks for extra performance in everything but power....oh and 12gb...

 

Why would I choose the 545 again? Am I missing something?

They're supposed to be priced the same. At the sale price the 850 evo is the better buy but the 850 evo is supposed to be $180 for the 500gb version.