Report: Intel TLC SSD 760p and QLC SSD 660p on the way soon

TechPowerUp reported yesterday that Taiwanese e-tailer Autobuy had listings up for Intel's next-generation SSDs. The SSD 760p and 660p showed up on the site with full specifications. Autobuy has taken the listings down at this time, but the chart below—saved by TPU and reproduced with permission—has the full details on the new drives.

Image: Autobuy, via TechPowerUp

To start off with, the 760p looks to be intended to replace the Intel SSD 750. According to the chart, it will be an NVMe SSD in the M.2 form factor, based on IMFT's 64-layer 3D TLC flash memory. The 760p will come in capacities ranging from 128 GB on up to 2 TB. The given performance figures are impressive: 350K IOPS in 4K random reads, and 280K IOPS on random writes. The supposed sequential performance of the drives isn't bad either, at 3200 MB/s for reads and 1600 MB/s for writes.

Based on the information from Autobuy, the Intel SSD 660p is likewise an M.2 NVMe SSD, but it is purportedly based on QLC memory. That's right gerbils—quad-level cell flash memory. As a refresher, typical SSDs these days use TLC, or triple-level cell flash memory. TLC stores three bits per flash cell, which improves density over single- or multi-layer cells, but also worsens durability and performance compared to MLC.

Intel seems to want to maintain controller-level parallelism for performance, because the 660p will seemingly only show up in 512 GB, 1 TB, and 2 TB sizes. If we are to believe the numbers supplied by Autobuy, the 660p's performance isn't as bad as you might fear, either. The listing specs the SSD 660p for 150K IOPS in both 4K reads and writes. It puts down the drives' sequential performance at 1800 MB/s for reads and 1100 MB/s for writes.

Intel SSD 760p listed at TigerDirect

There isn't any pricing data available for the 660p, but TigerDirect has listings for the 760p series already. Currently the site is showing the 128 GB 760p for $96, the 256 GB drive for $130, the 512GB drive for $235, the 1 TB drive for $448, and the 2 TB 760p for $893. Those prices and the purported performance put the SSD 760p as a close competitor to Samsung's 960 EVO. We should hear more about these drives soon, so stay tuned.

Comments closed
    • LocalCitizen
    • 2 years ago

    time to start a new SSD endurance experiment?
    1100MB/s write + QLC = a short test

      • MOSFET
      • 2 years ago

      Although a subtle comment, this deserves not to get buried yet. Geoff’s series was interesting and entertaining, and had to generate a lot of clicks over the years. What with Intel’s artificial caps / user safety features, and the spread of TLC and the arrival of QLC, and the diminutive shrinking of MLC, when it’s seen – this could be a worthwhile update for the whole world, really.

      Just for fun, I have all manner of SSDs going back to 2010ish first-gen Sandforce Corsair Force F90 and F120s, and lots of 2nd gen Sandforce as well, like Intel 530/535. Quite a few Crucial , like m4, M500, MX100, MX200; and a spread of Samsungs, mostly m.2. None have reached 100TBW of user data, although the Intel Sandforce drives’ internal writes are almost there. The large-lithography MLC in the earlier drives seems to be extremely durable. I used a 128GB Samsung PM830 as a FreeNAS SLOG [i<]and[/i<] L2ARC simultaneously (not production, but tested vigorously, and partitioned to 8GB each) and it didn’t miss a beat or suffer any damage or even incur much more writing than Win10 causes.

    • RdVi
    • 2 years ago

    They should have released a few more models and named them as such:

    4K: 3D SLC
    1080p: 3D MLC
    720p: 3D TLC
    480p: 3D QLC
    480i: QLC
    240i: 4200rpm HDD

    • not@home
    • 2 years ago

    So that is why Newegg had a sale on the 600p two weeks ago and has not had them in stock since. Newegg’s “partners” still have them but not for $109.99 Like Newegg’s sale price. I should have bought one two weeks ago. There is no way that I will buy a QLC drive, especially after the teething problems TLC had. Or, at least I refuse to be an early adapter.

      • Waco
      • 2 years ago

      I don’t recall any real problems with TLC besides “poor” write performance in some workloads.

        • The Egg
        • 2 years ago

        You must’ve left the memory in your brain unpowered for too long.

          • HERETIC
          • 2 years ago

          NICE ONE-
          Whoever gave you that-1 obviously don’t have a clue either.

          • Waco
          • 2 years ago

          Feel free to remind me.

            • HERETIC
            • 2 years ago

            [url<]https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=96590[/url<]

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            Firmware bugs from one manufacturer?

            • HERETIC
            • 2 years ago

            It was a lot more than a firmware bug-some of the basics here-
            [url<]https://www.anandtech.com/show/8617/samsung-releases-firmware-update-to-fix-the-ssd-840-evo-read-performance-bug[/url<] TLC also needed a new and more robust method of ECC. Samsung was so far in front,most of this was worked out before others got TLC to market.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            Looks like firmware to me.

            Again, what terrible problems? One line of drives with a performance bug isn’t very egregious. Perhaps owning too many SSDs in “the early days” of bricked drives, data loss, and total failures has shaped my perspective on what “bad” is.

            • HERETIC
            • 2 years ago

            As tech lovers we expect our CPU’s our GPU’s our RAM to be faster and more efficient
            every year,and generally this happens.
            We expect the same from our storage as well,but the moment planer TLC hit we went
            in to reverse-The race to the bottom had started,and was made worse with ram-less
            drives.
            3D came along and saved the day………………………………

            • just brew it!
            • 2 years ago

            Well, it was bad firmware, then months of foot-dragging to fully address the issue, and a “fix” that requires you to ensure the drive is powered up periodically in order for its “scrub” pass to rewrite fading cells (otherwise you’ll get a large performance penalty the next time you try to use the drive since the ECC is slow). The overall impression I got was that they had pushed planar TLC cell size past its practical limits (this was the last gen of planar TLC before they went 3D on everything), then rushed the product to market without adequate testing.

            • HERETIC
            • 2 years ago

            If we’re only looking at Samsung it was their first (840-21nm) and last (840EVO-19nm)
            planar TLC.They both had the same problem. EDIT(750 has 16nm)

            It’s probably a fine line-but my take is-Bad firmware-NO Faulty product-YES
            Saved from a recall (barely) by a firmware/workaround,and the nature of the
            problem-most drives coming to end of warranty when problems found.

        • HERETIC
        • 2 years ago

        Planar TLC was a bit of a stop-gap thankfully.
        It started with Samsung 840 and 840 evo, we all know how long it took to find and fix the problems there.By the time everyone else got their TLC out Dies had been shrunk, which
        caused more problems-Basically we were now in a “RACE TO THE BOTTOM” and to make
        matters worse we were seeing ram-less drives.IMO only a couple of drives managed to
        get a grip on planar TLC-Sandisk Ultra 2 and Samsung 750 series.
        Microns Planar TLC was so bad Intel went to Hynix for it’s cheapo 540.

        Samsung saved the day with it’s 850 EVO 3D TLC,and has been the benchmark other
        drives have aimed at for the last couple of years.Only catching up very recently.

        At least it seems that QLC is going to be 3D,so we might not end up with another race to the bottom.

    • Takeshi7
    • 2 years ago

    Those power numbers seem to be off by an order of magnitude. 0.1W active usage at the very top is extremely optimistic.

      • DavidC1
      • 2 years ago

      It says “Average Active Power”, which takes into account drive idling in most usage scenarios. If it said Peak Load Power you’d be correct.

      Average Power is an important figure for whether it can be used on Laptops. 600P is used on Laptops and the newer ones are rated the same.

    • Waco
    • 2 years ago

    Woo! Finally, QLC on the market. 🙂

      • JosiahBradley
      • 2 years ago

      And you can write to it at least 4 times!

        • Waco
        • 2 years ago

        It should be between 500 and 1000 overwrites (raw) before any trouble. Almost nobody does that (unless they like benchmarking or have odd non-consumer workloads), and they’ll make excellent game install drives. 🙂

          • Kougar
          • 2 years ago

          Going to be slooooow.

          The sustained read/write performance of TLC drives was terrible once the SLC cache filled. The TLC BX200 would post reads and writes [b<]below[/b<] 80MB/s in sustained workloads once the SLC cache filled. QLC can only get worse from there.

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        There’s finally an SSD with a Quad-Damage feature!

        Unfortunately it’s self-inflicted quad damage.

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        That’s a four-fold improvement over CD-R discs. Impressed.

      • Wirko
      • 2 years ago

      MOARLC!

      • jensend
      • 2 years ago

      Yeah, QLC going mainstream should really [b<]nibble[/b<] away at HDDs' cost/GB advantage.

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 2 years ago

        Did you look at the image in the article? $893 for a 2 TB SSD versus $76 for a 3 TB 7200 rpm hard-drive: That’s $446/TB versus $25/TB.

          • jensend
          • 2 years ago

          WHOOSH!

            • jensend
            • 2 years ago

            (none of the prices were for the QLC drive, and premature listings aren’t great indicators of eventual market price, and one drive being released != now it’s mainstream, so not only did you miss the real point of my post, but you also failed at responding seriously too)

        • Zizy
        • 2 years ago

        Optimistically assuming QLC costs 3/4 of TLC of the same capacity, there will be no nibbling, HDD is still 5-10 times cheaper.
        But such SSDs might become cheap enough people start buying just 500GB-1TB SSD for all their needs and ditch HDDs completely. But this will happen anyway due to slow but steady penetration of cloud storage.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This