Random 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.

Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

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.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

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.

Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

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.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

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.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light Sequential Performance
Comments Locked

205 Comments

View All Comments

  • Billy Tallis - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    The main power meter failed before the Optane drive arrived. The whole-system power meter was unaffected.
  • lmcd - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    I can't trust your comments either anymore, @jjj. But who's counting?
  • wookie monster - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Why no write consistency test? I was able to experiment with a prototype Optane drive, and I found that running a long-haul randomly-ordered write test on the Optane drive was substantially faster than the fastest available flash-based SSDs.
  • Billy Tallis - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    I plan to do a lot more to this drive, including steady-state random write comparisons against consumer and enterprise SSDs. There just wasn't time to include more tests in this article. I've only had the drive for six days.
  • wookie monster - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    I look forward to the results, thanks!
  • willis936 - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    I also really like the performance over time plots. An investigation into power and thermals (and potential throttling) would be interesting.
  • takeshi7 - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    It's pretty obvious that once an SSD is installed in the system, game load times are limited by the CPU, not the storage. This is why this Optane drive won't load games significantly faster than a SATA SSD (especially when you consider the price increase). Can Anandtech please test how different CPUs affect game loading times?
  • Scannall - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    For the vast majority out there, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. As expensive as it is, you'd be better off raiding a couple nvme drives and calling it good.
  • ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Nope, raid-ing will in no way improve their weak spots - random and low queue depth access. It will only boost sequential and high QD performance, which is already superior to that of hypetane.
  • citrix13 - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Thank you ddriver for your objective, unbiased and logical observations.
    Many in here cannot comprehend what you have been saying which is unfortunate.
    Your core point is that Intel promised 1000x performance with Intel Optane
    Intel did not deliver 1000x performance, they gave orders of magnitude less
    Also, i take note that you praised the drives endurance and low queue depth performance and said you may buy it.
    Commendation on being able to call a spade a spade, but still being able to see it strengths

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now