The Intel Optane SSD 900P 280GB Review
by Billy Tallis on October 27, 2017 9:30 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.
The burst QD1 sequential read performance of the Intel Optane SSD 900P falls in between the Samsung 960 PRO and 960 EVO. Samsung's fastest outperforms the Optane SSD by about 11%.
Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.
On the longer test of sequential read performance, the Optane SSD holds on to a commanding lead after the flash-based SSDs mostly slow down relative to their burst performance.
 |
|||||||||
Both Optane devices show a jump in performance from QD1 to QD2, after which their performance holds steady. Samsung's 960s show very minor performance increases with queue depth, and at the highest queue depths the Intel SSD 750 comes closest to catching up to the Optane SSD.
Sequential Write Performance
Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.
Samsung's 960 PRO and EVO drives all outperform the Intel Optane SSD 900P on the burst sequential write test, by up to 16%.
Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
On the longer sequential write test, the Optane SSD loses ground to Samsung's three fastest SSDs but everything else slows down even more.
 |
|||||||||
Almost all of the SSDs in this bunch reach their full sequential write speed at QD2, and they are mostly differentiated by their speeds once saturated. A few drives show some unevenness during the later portions of the test, but the Optane SSD has just a minor blip in its favor at the end of the test.
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.