Intel Quietly Increases The 600p SSD Series Endurance Ratings

Intel quietly changed the endurance rating for three of the four 600p SSDs over the weekend. The first entry-level NVMe SSDs to come to market now share similar endurance ratings with other products shipping from other manufacturers.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell - Column 0 600p 128GB 600p 256GB 600p 512GB 600p 1TB
Old Endurance (TBW) 72 TB 72 TB 72 TB 72 TB
New Endurance (TBW) 72 TB 144 TB 288 TB 576 TB
Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Chris Ramseyer
Contributor

Chris Ramseyer was a senior contributing editor for Tom's Hardware. He tested and reviewed consumer storage.

  • captaincharisma
    hopefully next they will take the death timer off there value SSD drives
    Reply
  • jtd871
    I think you mean MWI (Media Wear Indicator) instead of WMI in the next-to-last paragraph. It is my understanding also that MWI is an Intel-specific SMART attribute.
    Reply
  • synphul
    I'm sure the new numbers are more in line with what we've come to expect but the statement seems a little odd. Makes sense, if you get x amount of write endurance from a given number of chips that it will increase as the amount of nand increases.

    "With further testing" seems like a load of bull lol. More like someone said yep, our numbers for 128gb were accurate. Ok, multiply it accordingly.

    I'm sure they knew ahead of time the write endurance for the 128gb or they wouldn't have just grabbed a number out of a hat. They just simply equated 72tbw = 128gb and every time capacity doubled so did tbw. Doesn't come off as 'further testing' but rather a quick stab with a calculator.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    18688417 said:
    It is my understanding also that MWI is an Intel-specific SMART attribute.
    Media Wear Indicator shows up as SMART register #230 on my SanDisk SSD and currently reports 5.26%.
    Reply
  • Paul Alcorn
    18688417 said:
    I think you mean MWI (Media Wear Indicator) instead of WMI in the next-to-last paragraph. It is my understanding also that MWI is an Intel-specific SMART attribute.

    Good eye, typo fixed. There are MWI-equivalents, such as the wear leveling count, that you can use to calculate wear on other SSDs.
    Reply
  • photonboy
    Patlmmm,
    I didn't follow most of what you said, but the "what does it matter?" point is that TBW related to WARRANTY.
    Reply
  • Uniblab
    ...nice to know that you go beyond "just enough information" to get an article out by testing products even though a review is posted. Please, since you have the 600p in the labs, let us know how it performed. Maybe even as the drive passes various milestones.

    I still like what samsung is doing with their ssd's better. Intel though, will always have a place in consideration - especially at a discount.
    Reply
  • CRamseyer
    I'm working on an update for the review.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    18690024 said:
    I still like what samsung is doing with their ssd's better. Intel though, will always have a place in consideration - especially at a discount.
    Intel has multiple price points and reliability/performance levels.

    The main reason I've bought Intel drives is the reliability features found in their 500-series and data center products. Crucial is the only brand in whose consumer drives I've found comparable features.

    Samsung offers great performance, but their reliability has traditionally been a step down (just going by product reviews on Amazon and Newegg, every time I've bought SSDs).
    Reply
  • velocityg4
    “Based on continued evaluation and review of the 600p, Intel has updated the write endurance specification to better reflect the endurance of the product at each of the capacity points. The initial specification was a conservative figure and with further testing we were able to prove we can increase the endurance limit on higher capacities.”

    You got caught trying to screw buyers of higher capacity models. Now you are backpedaling. It'll take many years until I trust an Intel SSD product again. Whomever thought this up should be fired along with any higher level executive who approved it.
    Reply