The Intel Optane SSD 900P 280GB Review
by Billy Tallis on October 27, 2017 9:30 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
Our first test of random read performance uses very short bursts of operations issued one at a time with no queuing. The drives are given enough idle time between bursts to yield an overall duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is impossible. Each burst consists of a total of 32MB of 4kB random reads, from a 16GB span of the disk. The total data read is 1GB.
The Optane SSD 900P doesn't break the record for QD1 random reads, but only because we've also tested the 32GB Optane Memory M.2, which is about two microseconds faster on average for each 4kB read. The Optane SSD 900P is still about 7 times faster than any flash-based SSD.
Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.
When longer transfers and higher queue depths come into play, the Optane SSD 900P passes the Optane Memory M.2 and remains more than 6 times faster for random reads than any flash-based SSD.
 |
|||||||||
Both Optane devices more or less level off at queue depths of 8 or higher. The Optane SSD 900P saturates at about 1800 MB/s while the Optane Memory tops out around 1300 MB/s. The Samsung 960 PRO 2TB hasn't caught up by QD32, and doesn't surpass the QD1 random read performance of the Optane SSD until the Samsung reaches a queue depth of about 8.
Random Write Performance
Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.
The burst random write performance of the Optane SSD 900P is slightly higher than the Intel SSD 750 1.2TB, and about 14% faster than Samsung's fastest.
As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.
With higher queue depths in play, the Optane SSD 900P scales up faster than the Intel SSD 750 1.2TB, leaving the Optane SSD with a 7-10% lead over the Samsung 960s and Intel 750.
 |
|||||||||
Samsung's 960 PROs and the larger 960 EVO all trail slightly behind the Optane SSD's random write performance for queue depths 1 to 4, then the Samsung drives level off and leave the Optane SSD with a substantial performance advantage at high queue depths. The Intel 750 is slightly faster at QD1 and QD2, but saturates at an even lower performance level than the Samsung 960s.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
205 Comments
View All Comments
dbartley - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
This guy is just a troll and a clown.ddriver - how many Optane reviews in the past 6 months have you commented on making the same arguments? I have seen you on at least 3 other sites making the same nonsensical argument about SLC SSDs. How many times has it been communicated to you that the "1000x" claim is based on the theoretical performance of the 3d Xpoint technology, not the performance of the first rollout of the product.
Trust me, a good troll is fun every once in a while, but dude get a life.
royrkval - Thursday, December 7, 2017 - link
When a thread is blocking on IO it shows up as 100% utilized.Aymincendiary1 - Tuesday, May 8, 2018 - link
Anybody know how to get Windows to recognize this drive as a system drive? I get an error from Windows saying it cannot install onto this partition - I have 260 GB of unpartitioned space available. It is not anything in the motherboard as i already called ASUS on this issue for thier WS x299 PRO/SE board. I didn't have this problem three years ago with Intel's HHHL NVMe drive. Windows 10 Preview as well as a licensed copy installed right away with no fuss.extide - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
Well, damn that thing is fast! I want one!Flunk - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
Wow, after all the talk about the price I was expecting $1000+ for the 480GB. The pricing on this is definitely on the money and the performance is clearly on a whole new level.But... in most client loads you'll never see it. I'd probably buy one anyway, but there is a good argument to be made just to save some cash and get the Samsung 960 PRO, which is by far the best consumer flash drive currently available.
extide - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
I agree, the price is actually pretty decent. It's ~ 1/2 the price per gig than the first SSD I bought years ago.AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
WTF are you guys talking about. The 960 Pro is 2x the cost of an MX300! Probably worse reliability too, based on the "They're all dead" SSD review. I don't know why you guys and the author are so hung up on the stupid 960 Pro, a serious ripoff (unless you're a part of the 0.1% of users who would use it in a way to see superior performance).mapesdhs - Tuesday, October 31, 2017 - link
#include <troll.h>AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, November 12, 2017 - link
Again, WTF. The above 2 posters said the 960 PRO is a decent price and "by far the best consumer flash drive currently available". They are wrong, as it's 2x the cost of drives that perform the same. This is worth pointing out. That doesn't make me a troll. The 2 posters should thank me for the information. Wise people like information.BrokenCrayons - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
Optane's first consumer storage drive looks very promising. That endurance is crazy impressive and is the change the industry needs to get us moving in a better direction than NAND. The prices are reasonable for the capacity and performance, but I'd like to see reductions in power consumption and (probably) heat output so its realistic to get 3D XPoint inside laptops.