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
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.