first huge thanks to pcper.com. Iím building pc for the first time, and this site has been big help. I was thinking about using Intel 600p 512GB form y boot drive. I'm not a power user, so 16GB cache will be more than enough. However in review of 960 EVO there were some new comparison test, where 600p didn't do as good as I would expected. Specifically Client QD Weighted, which measures IOSP at low Qued Depths and TRIM speed test. In Burst 4KB Random Client QD Weighted 600p 512GB scores 13,937 IOSP on read compared to 850 EVO 16,628. In TRIM test it took 600p 0.51 s per GB to delete a file, whereas all Samsung , even SATA drives, were at least one order of magnitude faster (0.016 s for 850 EVO 250 GB, 0.051 s for 500 GB model, even MX300 which uses similar flash was 0.142 s)
How will those numbers demonstrate themselves in everyday use (gaming, occasional light video editing)? Should I rethink my purchasing decision?
I have seen 600p for around 150-160 euro, which is comparable to better SATA drives. I know 600p is super bad when its cache is full, but I donít see this happening in my use. However, if 600p is not notably faster than SATA drives because of this other stuff, I will just save some money and go for SATA drive, because 960 EVO is out of my budget.
That is an excellent question, unfortunately I'm not really qualified to answer it because I don't have any NVME drives,but I'll just give my perspective as a user and PC builder. I'd skip the 600p. Its a nice looking price for an NVME drive, but compared to well established SATA SSD's, it really offers nothing. If you can get more capacity at the same price in a SATA drive, or the same capacity & performance in a SATA drive for less money, I'd go for that instead. It doesn't look like low QD performance is anything to write home about. Thats not to mention the potentially odd behavior when the cache is full, which is yet another consideration even if it might be more of an edge case for most users.