The Intel Optane SSD 900P 280GB Review
by Billy Tallis on October 27, 2017 9:30 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.
The Intel Optane SSD 900P completes the Heavy test with a higher average data rate than any flash-based SSD. Curiously, it performs even better after being filled than it does right after a low-level format. Even the best flash-based SSDs lose a bit of performance when operating with minimal spare area. The Optane SSD by contrast seems to require an extra initialization phase after the format to reach full performance.
As with The Destroyer, the Optane SSD sets records for both average and 99th percentile latency on the Heavy test. The margin for the 99th percentile latency is more significant, with about a 43% improvement over the previous record.
The average write latency of the Optane SSD 900P on the Heavy test comes in as a close second place, while the average read latency sets a new record that is less than half the previous best score.
The Optane SSD's new record for 99th percentile read latency on the Heavy test is 70% lower than the fastest flash-based SSD. The record for 99th percentile write latency is a less impressive 30% improvement over the previous record.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
205 Comments
View All Comments
Hurr Durr - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
He desperately needs some CNC time to calm down, be merciful.Reflex - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
We need to compile a list of all the things you supposedly have been doing. I mean seriously, anything anyone brings up as a use case supposedly you've been doing forever at a professional level. And you use that imagined position to then attempt to clobber their own assertions about its applicability in the field they are discussing.ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
What can I say, I am a renaissance man. Also known as a polymath. I have scores of interests in all sorts of fields or science, arts and crafts, and I have employed many of those to make a living over the years. Where you collect pokemons, or postal stamps, or baseball hats or whatever, I collect skill and knowledge. Even the act of commenting here is part of my studies, social and psychological.Reflex - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
Not only have you pursued your 'scores' of interests, you are the expert in all of them! We are truly gifted by your presence, I cannot wait to read your memoirs....MarceloC - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
"What can I say, I am a renaissance man. Also known as a polymath. I have scores of interests in all sorts of fields or science, arts and crafts, and I have employed many of those to make a living over the years. Where you collect pokemons, or postal stamps, or baseball hats or whatever, I collect skill and knowledge. Even the act of commenting here is part of my studies, social and psychological."LOL LOL LOL!
sor - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
You clearly don’t care about immediate persistence, consistent performance, or random reads.The numbers make a clear argument that Optane won’t be all that helpful for light workloads, but we already expected that; there’s only so much super fast IO can do for you if you’re not using IO.
I’d say those insane random reads and improved latencies live up to 3D Xpoint. There may be some elements to improve on but it is clear we are looking at a different, superior tech at a cost that is surprisingly affordable. Much of the initial talk about Xpoint was around whether or not it was real, if it was a hyped twist on regular flash, it seems clear it is a different animal.
ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
You clearly didn't pay attention to what I've written. I did indeed acknowledge the random reads as an obviously strong point.Judging by the "destroyer", it won't be that helpful in heavy workloads either. In fact, contrary to what you say, where it shines the most is exactly light workloads, which is what low QDs are. Push higher queue depths and NVME catches up.
Lolimaster - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
With most work using big files, 4k random performance is meaningless, everything is linear so huge sustained write/reads are prefered. 960EVO/Pro wins.ionstorm66 - Sunday, October 29, 2017 - link
I wonder how much more performance that same test system would get if it had 128GB of ram. The 900P 280GB is 389 bucks, 64GB kit of ram is 500 bucks. I'd take 64GB of system memory over 280gb of ssd storage anyday, especially with a system with a 960 pro already.mapesdhs - Tuesday, October 31, 2017 - link
Unless of course you're doing something that needs ECC, in which case that cost comparison is rather wide of the mark.