Intel 660p Series M.2 2280 1TB PCI-Express 3.0 x4 3D NAND Solid State Drive (SSD) 1800MB/s Read/Write - £148.69 Delivered @ Overclockers
893°Expired

Intel 660p Series M.2 2280 1TB PCI-Express 3.0 x4 3D NAND Solid State Drive (SSD) 1800MB/s Read/Write - £148.69 Delivered @ Overclockers

£148.69£209.9929%Overclockers Deals
37
Found 3rd Dec 2018
3127943.jpg
660P 1TB M.2-2280 PCI-E 3.0 X 4 NVME QLC 3D NAND SOLID STATE DRIVE (SSDPEKNW010T8X1)


Finally, PCIE & Intel QLC 3D in One SSD
Meet today’s storage needs and prepare for the growing demands of tomorrow with the Intel SSD 660p Series built on Intel QLC 3D NAND technology.

The Intel SSD 660p is the first QLC-based client PCIe SSD in the industry, continuing Intel’s leadership in flash cell technology and quality manufacturing. The SSD 660p finally fits low-cost and high-capacity into one drive.

Features:
PCIe Performance at an Affordable Price
Empowered by Intel’s innovative QLC technology, the Intel SSD 660p offers higher capacities at a lower cost than TLC-based options. With PCIe, the new SSD 660p skips SATA and its limitations to offer up to 2TB in one drive.

2x the Capacity in Identical Footprints
These client SSDs pack more data than TLC-based storage, allowing up to 2x more capacity in identical footprints. The thin M.2 80mm form factor make sit perfect for notebooks, desktops, and mobile devices that need storage for everyday computing.

QLC Technology
The architecture of Intel QLC technology in the SSD 660p is made to intelligently boost performance. QLC and SLC “spans” on the drive adjust bi-directionally based on used capacity for the life of the product. Increases in capacity usage trigger the SLC span to decrease, and decreases in capacity usage trigger the SLC span to increase.

Performance & Price That Matter
The SSD 660p hits the marks that matter for client SSDs. This drive is tuned to deliver capacity optimised NVMe performance as an intelligent storage option for mainstream & entry-level computing. Available in 512GB, 1TB, & 2TB capacities at affordable price-points.

Why Intel?
Intel has a foundation in innovation leadership, our complete product life cycle support that extends from the exosystem enabling design, post-sales support, and the quality of our supply chain.

Our foundation results in drives with robust and lasting data integrity, reliably effective performance, and increased platform confidence through our unique position as a platform provider. Intel knows workloads, and we architect our products to excel in real world use.

Specifications
  • Capacity 1.02TB
  • Lithography Type 3D2 QLC
  • Sequential Read (up to) 1800 MB/s
  • Sequential Write (up to) 1800 MB/s
  • Random Read (8GB Span) (up to) 150000 IOPS
  • Random Write (8GB Span) (up to) 220000 IOPS
  • Power - Active 0.1 W
  • Power - Idle 0.040W
  • Vibration - Operating 2.17 GRMS
  • Vibration - Non-Operating 3.13 GRMS
  • Shock (Operating and Non-Operating) 1000 G
  • Endurance Rating (Lifetime Writes) 200 TBW
  • Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) >= 1.6 million hours
  • Uncorrectable Bit Error Rate (UBER) <1 sector per 10^15 bits read
  • Warranty Period: 5 Years


Advanced Technologies
  • Enhanced Power Loss Data Protection No
  • Hardware Encryption AES 256 bit
  • High Endurance Technology (HET) No
  • Temperature Monitoring and Logging No
  • End-to-End Data Protection Yes
  • Intel® Smart Response Technology Yes
  • Intel® Remote Secure Erase No
  • Intel® Rapid Start Technology Yes
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
Once the SLC cache is saturated the speed on this drive drops right down to well below that of even a normal hard drive.

Don't waste your money here, even a normal sata 3 drive will end up being generally faster.
For those interested, note that QLC has the quickest degradation. If you're fine with that tradeoff, buy away.
Edited by: "frish" 4th Dec 2018
pothole25 m ago

Please clarify on lowest degradation. You mentioned trade off which makes …Please clarify on lowest degradation. You mentioned trade off which makes it sound as if it degrades faster?


My bad, yes it degrades faster. For example Samsung evo 860 or 970 options have 600TBW for 1TB compared to 200TBW here. Though the NVMe option will cost more. It's not an apples to apples comparison since the 970 is rated faster and the 860 being sata. I just wanted to put out a basic message. As someone who had an SSD that basically died, lifespan concerns me, particularly when there's already been compromises on lifespan and price from SLC to MLC and then again to TLC. This may make me somewhat biased. Others may feel like 200TBW is fine and maybe even upgraded by the time it runs out. The old favourite samsung evo had 150 TBW for the 1TB drive for example.
Edited by: "frish" 4th Dec 2018
37 Comments
No USB C and no USB 3.1, cold
For those interested, note that QLC has the quickest degradation. If you're fine with that tradeoff, buy away.
Edited by: "frish" 4th Dec 2018
frish17 m ago

For those interested, note that QLC has the lowest degradation. If you're …For those interested, note that QLC has the lowest degradation. If you're fine with that tradeoff, buy away.



Please clarify on lowest degradation. You mentioned trade off which makes it sound as if it degrades faster?
pothole25 m ago

Please clarify on lowest degradation. You mentioned trade off which makes …Please clarify on lowest degradation. You mentioned trade off which makes it sound as if it degrades faster?


My bad, yes it degrades faster. For example Samsung evo 860 or 970 options have 600TBW for 1TB compared to 200TBW here. Though the NVMe option will cost more. It's not an apples to apples comparison since the 970 is rated faster and the 860 being sata. I just wanted to put out a basic message. As someone who had an SSD that basically died, lifespan concerns me, particularly when there's already been compromises on lifespan and price from SLC to MLC and then again to TLC. This may make me somewhat biased. Others may feel like 200TBW is fine and maybe even upgraded by the time it runs out. The old favourite samsung evo had 150 TBW for the 1TB drive for example.
Edited by: "frish" 4th Dec 2018
frish30 m ago

My bad, yes it degrades faster. For example Samsung evo 860 or 970 options …My bad, yes it degrades faster. For example Samsung evo 860 or 970 options have 600TBW for 1TB compared to 200TBW here. Though the NVMe option will cost more. It's not an apples to apples comparison since the 970 is rated faster and the 860 being sata. I just wanted to put out a basic message. As someone who had an SSD that basically died, lifespan concerns me, particularly when there's already been compromises on lifespan and price from SLC to MLC and then again to TLC. This may make me somewhat biased. Others may feel like 200TBW is fine and maybe even upgraded by the time it runs out. The old favourite samsung evo had 150 TBW for the 1TB drive for example.


What was the model of drive that died and do you know the number of writes it accumulated?
charlie1234 m ago

What was the model of drive that died and do you know the number of writes …What was the model of drive that died and do you know the number of writes it accumulated?


Crucial m4. I did reinstall the OS 2-3 times during its lifespan because I had a bsod issue every month or so that I still haven't been able to diagnose, albeit I did have to send RAM back several times due to defects. It technically didn't entirely die, it just got to the point where I reinstalled the OS for a new GPU and after a couple of days the OS got corrupted and wouldn't boot properly. Tried reinstalling again at that point was ok for a couple of days then same issue. Other than that I tried to be decent for the SSD keeping downloads and other unnecessities on on HDD (though it was only 120GB iirc so it wasn't like I was spoiled for choice, prices were higher back then). No idea on the number of writes.
frish10 m ago

Crucial m4. I did reinstall the OS 2-3 times during its lifespan because I …Crucial m4. I did reinstall the OS 2-3 times during its lifespan because I had a bsod issue every month or so that I still haven't been able to diagnose, albeit I did have to send RAM back several times due to defects. It technically didn't entirely die, it just got to the point where I reinstalled the OS for a new GPU and after a couple of days the OS got corrupted and wouldn't boot properly. Tried reinstalling again at that point was ok for a couple of days then same issue. Other than that I tried to be decent for the SSD keeping downloads and other unnecessities on on HDD (though it was only 120GB iirc so it wasn't like I was spoiled for choice, prices were higher back then). No idea on the number of writes.


Did you firmware upgrade it ? I remember there was a firmware but where files would corrupt after a certain amount of run hours. I think it was called the 5200 hours bug.
Edited by: "kester76" 4th Dec 2018
kester762 m ago

Did you firmware upgrade it ? I remember there was a firmware but where …Did you firmware upgrade it ? I remember there was a firmware but where files would corrupt after a certain amount of run hours. I think it was called the 5200 hours bug.


Yeah I made sure it was up to date.
Once the SLC cache is saturated the speed on this drive drops right down to well below that of even a normal hard drive.

Don't waste your money here, even a normal sata 3 drive will end up being generally faster.
Boxrick2 h, 48 m ago

Once the SLC cache is saturated the speed on this drive drops right down …Once the SLC cache is saturated the speed on this drive drops right down to well below that of even a normal hard drive.Don't waste your money here, even a normal sata 3 drive will end up being generally faster.


The fact you know what an SLC cache is suggests you know what your talking about. But your second sentence suggests you don't understand the main performance advantage of an SSD comes from the near zero seek time and hence orders of magnitude faster small file performance than the sequential performance which is just a big number to impress people on the box and could generlaly be matched by RAID anyway...
Edited by: "targetbsp" 4th Dec 2018
frish18 h, 56 m ago

My bad, yes it degrades faster. For example Samsung evo 860 or 970 options …My bad, yes it degrades faster. For example Samsung evo 860 or 970 options have 600TBW for 1TB compared to 200TBW here. Though the NVMe option will cost more. It's not an apples to apples comparison since the 970 is rated faster and the 860 being sata. I just wanted to put out a basic message. As someone who had an SSD that basically died, lifespan concerns me, particularly when there's already been compromises on lifespan and price from SLC to MLC and then again to TLC. This may make me somewhat biased. Others may feel like 200TBW is fine and maybe even upgraded by the time it runs out. The old favourite samsung evo had 150 TBW for the 1TB drive for example.



While the endurance is lower, it should be noted that at my daily average of 20gb of writes, a 200tb TBW would last for almost 27 years. Another note is that this is the warrantied max, however based on testing (admittedly not of a QLC disk), most SSDs were able to far exceed manufacturers TBW. You would need to be writing almost 110gb per day to hit the TBW before the end of the warranty perioud.

(Comments below are assuming today's prices. If prices are closely matched, buy the highest quality drive available)

If you are a regular home user, this drive is going to be more than enough for you, any performance boost you get with the better drives likely won't be worth the price premium you will need to pay. Most people are also extremely unlikely to run into the kind of performance issues that benchmarking has revealed, as that is not simulating a realistic daily workload for the majority.

If you are a power user or a content creator, my advice would be to read the reviews and make an informed decision based on your anticipated use rather than listening to the QLC sucks chorus.
frish19 h, 30 m ago

My bad, yes it degrades faster. For example Samsung evo 860 or 970 options …My bad, yes it degrades faster. For example Samsung evo 860 or 970 options have 600TBW for 1TB compared to 200TBW here. Though the NVMe option will cost more. It's not an apples to apples comparison since the 970 is rated faster and the 860 being sata. I just wanted to put out a basic message. As someone who had an SSD that basically died, lifespan concerns me, particularly when there's already been compromises on lifespan and price from SLC to MLC and then again to TLC. This may make me somewhat biased. Others may feel like 200TBW is fine and maybe even upgraded by the time it runs out. The old favourite samsung evo had 150 TBW for the 1TB drive for example.


"SLC to MLC and then again to TLC."

SLC?, MLC?, TLC?.

I'm genuinely LOST!, hehehehe.

In English, what the hell does any of that mean?, lol, thanx.
amour3k4 h, 23 m ago

"SLC to MLC and then again to TLC."SLC?, MLC?, TLC?.I'm genuinely LOST!, …"SLC to MLC and then again to TLC."SLC?, MLC?, TLC?.I'm genuinely LOST!, hehehehe.In English, what the hell does any of that mean?, lol, thanx.


Bits (a 0 or 1) are written to Cells. Originally there was SLC which allows just 1 bit per cell. However prices were high and capacity was slim so then came MLC for those wanting more affordability which allows for 2 bits to be written (00, 01, 10 or 11), after that the same happened with TLC which allows 3 bits per cell and now QLC for 4. The cells themselves have a limited number of writes so the more data written to them, the lower the lifespan. To combat this flaw generally all SSDs will have features to move around data so that you don't wear out certain cells, this is why you have some unusable space reserved for overprovisioning and you get some odd storage sizes such as 480GB.
Edited by: "frish" 5th Dec 2018
Price went down to £139.99
silk1863 h, 5 m ago

Price went down to £139.99


Before delivery mate
Avatar
deleted65393
Considering the problems that emerged with some early generations of TLC drives I would avoid any of these first generation QLC drives if you are particularly risk averse.
I would avoid all QLC drives as they aren't even especially cheaper than a similar size TLC drive.
Bought one for my new build. It was between this (139.99 + postage) or the Crucial P1 (159.99 free postage).
Boxrick4th Dec

Once the SLC cache is saturated the speed on this drive drops right down …Once the SLC cache is saturated the speed on this drive drops right down to well below that of even a normal hard drive.Don't waste your money here, even a normal sata 3 drive will end up being generally faster.



Fake news, who is going to completely fill up a 1TB drive and not do anything about it?
ck_2 m ago

Fake news, who is going to completely fill up a 1TB drive and not do …Fake news, who is going to completely fill up a 1TB drive and not do anything about it?


Not fake news, the more you fill the drive the slower it gets, Whats the point of having 1TB if you have to keep it half full to maintain speeds.
blaine13 m ago

Not fake news, the more you fill the drive the slower it gets, Whats the …Not fake news, the more you fill the drive the slower it gets, Whats the point of having 1TB if you have to keep it half full to maintain speeds.



Reviews say there's only issues with performance on long sequential writes (e.g. 100gb+), and when the drive is full (not half-full). In other words, nothing to worry about in a real world scenario.
ck_3 m ago

Reviews say there's only issues with performance on long sequential writes …Reviews say there's only issues with performance on long sequential writes (e.g. 100gb+), and when the drive is full (not half-full). In other words, nothing to worry about in a real world scenario.


Exaclty I think people are being a bit over the top..
Edited by: "Libre11" 5th Dec 2018
Boxrick4th Dec

Once the SLC cache is saturated the speed on this drive drops right down …Once the SLC cache is saturated the speed on this drive drops right down to well below that of even a normal hard drive.Don't waste your money here, even a normal sata 3 drive will end up being generally faster.



This info is wrong and you and others should stop saying it.
What your doing is mis-quoting information in such a way that it's actually bad and non-useful.

So this is a 1TB drive. If your wanting to move 100+ GB at a time (to the drive) then expect a hit while the files are moving.
If your using it for a regular day to day type of drive then, even quite full, the drive will be just as good as a SLC, or TLC drive.

It's a bit like Mo Farah -vs- Usain Bolt. One is great at short sprints, one is great in distance running. Storage Drives are generally used for short sprints.

If your installing lots of huge games or downloading lots of illegal warez then opt for a mechanical drive. If your a average person doing typical things then there's nothing wrong with this drive at all.
This looks great and the price is hot
Good product. Low cost


Important data on raid / backed up. Never trust 1 thing with important stuff.
xyhz1234565 h, 54 m ago

This info is wrong and you and others should stop saying it....... If …This info is wrong and you and others should stop saying it....... If your a average person doing typical things then there's nothing wrong with this drive at all.


Exactly, QLC is a great buy for the majority of home users. If you are anticipating that you will be working the drive especially hard, you need to do the research and find the drive that will meet your requirements. The SSDs we use in VMware hypervisors at work are quite different to the SSD I use in my personal laptop due to the wildly different requirements, but we pay a hefty premium for them.

Muzzzzzzz3 h, 33 m ago

Good product. Low costImportant data on raid / backed up. Never trust 1 …Good product. Low costImportant data on raid / backed up. Never trust 1 thing with important stuff.


Always remember that RAID is not replacement for a backup. It can help you stay online in the event of a disk failure, but there are countless scenarios where you can have data loss with RAID.
Anyone know if this can do 4k sector size? Usually I only buy Toshiba/OCZ for that feature.
malhal45 m ago

Anyone know if this can do 4k sector size? Usually I only buy Toshiba/OCZ …Anyone know if this can do 4k sector size? Usually I only buy Toshiba/OCZ for that feature.


Why would you use 4k sector size?
taz002dev1 m ago

Why would you use 4k sector size?


For efficiency and for hackintoshing.
malhal5 m ago

For efficiency and for hackintoshing.


Care to expand, have a link where i can research? Have a XG5 from toshiba and always find it worse sometimes than any samsungs including ssds. You seem to regard it
taz002dev5th Dec 2018

Care to expand, have a link where i can research? Have a XG5 from toshiba …Care to expand, have a link where i can research? Have a XG5 from toshiba and always find it worse sometimes than any samsungs including ssds. You seem to regard it



The 512 size that Samsung use is legacy:
wiki.lustre.org/Opt…ves
seagate.com/gb/…ti/

I use this OCZ SSD Utility via a boot disk to format my Toshiba SSD as 4096.

36387306-13cZm.jpg

Edited by: "malhal" 6th Dec 2018
ck_10 h, 25 m ago

Fake news, who is going to completely fill up a 1TB drive and not do …Fake news, who is going to completely fill up a 1TB drive and not do anything about it?


You misunderstand what I say and I know exactly what I am speaking about.

This drive is made up of a small amount of SLC cache which they do not even quote how much varying in size. Once this cache is filled during a single write then it hits the QLC storage and drops massively in speed to extremely poor levels.

anandtech.com/sho…ves

I just do not see why anyone would go to the hassle of fitting an NVME drive of when you can pick up a drive which performs better all the time and is basically the same price and a guarantees the driver for much higher writes.
Edited by: "Boxrick" 6th Dec 2018
this is a great drive to upgrade a macbook air with - i put this one one my MBA and the hibernate function still works!
heat added- i paid £50 more for this last month.
I see the main use for this drive being to replace your HDD games library - it offers noticeably faster speeds than SATA 3 SSDs at around the same price per GB. It's what I did with my Linux Steam library - I've used 800GB so far without any issues.

Since games are mainly reads rather than writes, the only time endurance would come into it is if you decided 1TB wasn't enough and kept deleting old games and copying in new ones on a regular basis (at least daily!). That's why there's also a 2TB version (I didn't buy it because it was at least twice the price and I didn't need the extra space).

BTW, I put the 660p onto a 5.49 quid PCIe adapter I got from Amazon, which works fine - my motherboard's only M.2 slot was taken up by the boot SSD I mention below.

For booting though, I'd recommend a smaller capacity and higher speed NVMe SSD instead. I use an Samsung SM961 256GB model that has over 3000 Mbytes/sec read speed but it wasn't all that much cheaper than this SSD.
Edited by: "rkl" 6th Dec 2018
If I take an image of my existing MSATA drive (128GB) and restore it to one of these, am I likely to experience any problems (drivers and suchlike)?
rkl6th Dec

I see the main use for this drive being to replace your HDD games library …I see the main use for this drive being to replace your HDD games library - it offers noticeably faster speeds than SATA 3 SSDs at around the same price per GB. It's what I did with my Linux Steam library - I've used 800GB so far without any issues.Since games are mainly reads rather than writes, the only time endurance would come into it is if you decided 1TB wasn't enough and kept deleting old games and copying in new ones on a regular basis (at least daily!). That's why there's also a 2TB version (I didn't buy it because it was at least twice the price and I didn't need the extra space).BTW, I put the 660p onto a 5.49 quid PCIe adapter I got from Amazon, which works fine - my motherboard's only M.2 slot was taken up by the boot SSD I mention below.For booting though, I'd recommend a smaller capacity and higher speed NVMe SSD instead. I use an Samsung SM961 256GB model that has over 3000 Mbytes/sec read speed but it wasn't all that much cheaper than this SSD.


Basically, this.

If you're buying for you main system drive, it MAY be a bad choice (depends on usage). For a replacement steam drive/similar (so something where your writes will be few and you basically want the read/access speeds of NVMe) it's absolutely fine.

The 1TB of SLC cache is what give it it's (write) speed. If this was used as your main system disk and you're writing a large file (1GB+) to this at the same time as there's the usual background small file read/writes occurring, those small file read/writes will slow RIGHT down too. Thus making your whole system a little more sluggish and temporarily removing the improvement SSD's bring to the table.

SSD storage is becoming increasingly tiered:

You have the likes of the samsung 970 and other "top tier" nvme drives at the top that have decent cache and otherwise good mechanics so making them ideal for the very fastest SSD's for system drives.

Next there's NVMe drives (like this deal here) that are able to leverage the masses of extra bandwidth nvme gives without having all the supporting tech to make them good at handling heavier mixed read/write workloads. These are good for enthusiasts/gamers who want to hold a lot of data (games/software/media) and have fast access to it/better load times.

Then there's good normal SSD's with decent cache that used to be the choice for system disks before the good NVMe drives and are now a more budget friendly choice or useful as a second main drive.

Then there's cheaper normal SSD's that again, leverage SSD's more modest additional bandwidth without all the supporting caching tech/etc and are becoming a replacement for media storage in higher end machines.

Finally below all this there's large mechanical drives for cheap mass storage.
Edited by: "llamaalarmallama" 11th Dec 2018
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text