Drive Features

Intel's strategy for developing the Optane SSD 900P is the same they used for the SSD 750 in 2015. Both products are consumer-oriented derivatives of the flagship enterprise SSD of their time. As with the SSD 750, this has resulted in the Optane SSD 900P being a physically large and power-hungry drive that can't come close to fitting in the M.2 form factor used by most other consumer PCIe SSDs. The controller alone on the Optane SSD 900P is too large to fit on a 22mm-wide M.2 module, and its idle power draw of 5W is more than most M.2 PCIe SSDs draw under load.

The Optane SSD 900P shares the same platform as the enterprise Optane SSD DC P4800X. It uses the same Intel controller with a PCIe 3.0 x4 link to the host system and a seven channel interface to the 3D XPoint memory. The P4800X is available as a 375GB drive that uses four dies per channel for a raw capacity of about 448GB. The 900P uses three or five dies per channel and similar overprovisioning ratios to offer usable capacities of 280GB and 480GB from raw capacities of about 336GB and 560GB. Because 3D XPoint memory supports direct read and in-place write operations with bit granularity instead of being constrained by the page and block structure of NAND flash memory, the Optane SSD 900P isn't using the extra capacity as spare area for any garbage collection process and is likely instead devoting most of it to error correction overhead and metadata.

The odd capacities and channel counts of the Optane SSD 900P aren't a requirement for using 3D XPoint memory so much as they are a consequence of Intel's performance and power targets for the drive. However, the use of 3D XPoint memory does lead to a few striking hardware design differences from flash-based SSDs. The Optane SSD 900P does not have any DRAM cache. On a NAND flash-based SSD, this would be a major red flag indicating reduced performance, even when mitigated by the NVMe Host Memory Buffer feature. Flash-based SSDs need quick access to the mapping tables that track which logical blocks are stored in which physical pages. 3D XPoint memory, on the other hand, is much simpler to manage, with no need for garbage collection and little or no need for wear leveling, and the storage medium itself is far faster. This makes the large DRAM buffer unnecessary.

The lack of buffers seems to also extend to the individual 3D XPoint chips themselves. NAND flash dies include page-sized RAM buffers as intermediate storage between the controller and the flash memory array. This allows the controller to transfer the payload data for a write command to the NAND die and then move on to issuing other commands to other dies on the same memory channel (or other planes on the same die) while the relatively long NAND program operation is happening. This multiplexing of operations within a single memory channel is a large part of why flash SSDs tend to be faster at higher capacities even within the same product line with the same SSD controller. The Optane SSD 900P accesses its 3D XPoint memory more directly and read and write operations are completed synchronously without an intermediate buffering stage. This means that the 280GB and 480GB models have essentially the same performance, and this same level of performance could in theory extend down to a one die per channel configuration that would offer 112GB raw capacity and 96GB usable capacity (and could be profitably sold for under $180).

While the lack of RAM buffers on the Optane SSD doesn't bring any major performance problems, it does have one minor downside. Flash-based SSDs are able to aggressively take advantage of their buffers to accept write operations almost as fast as the PCIe link allows for, so the Optane SSD 900P doesn't have much room to improve peak write speeds beyond what the 3D XPoint memory itself can sustain. However, the Optane SSD can continue providing those write speeds long after a flash-based SSD would have stalled to let the flash catch up to the controller.

The last major implication of the DRAMless design of the Optane SSD 900P is that large banks of capacitors are unnecessary to provide power loss protection. The Intel SSD 750 was one of the few consumer SSDs to offer enterprise-grade power loss protection, but those capacitors added to an already high BOM and were probably only kept to save the effort of more significant firmware changes relative to the enterprise SSDs it was based on. With the Optane SSD 900P, Intel gets to retain power loss protection on the consumer version more or less for free. This allows the Optane SSD 900P to avoid the consequences of Microsoft's stupid NVMe driver write cache policy defaults, which severely curtail the write performance of consumer NVMe drives that have volatile write caches. (Our client SSD test protocol uses the more reasonable but non-default write buffer policy for all Windows-based tests, so this advantage doesn't show up in out performance charts.)

When an SSD vendor makes consumer and enterprise drives based on the same controller platform, there are usually major firmware differences to optimize for different performance requirements. Consumer SSDs tend to use SLC write caching to offer better burst write performance while enterprise SSDs tend to avoid it to offer more consistent performance. There are few opportunities with the Optane SSD to tweak performance between the consumer and enterprise versions, but there are several features from the P4800X that have been omitted from the 900P. The only one that has any performance impact is the ability to reformat the P4800X to use a 4kB logical block size instead of 512 bytes; the 900P only supports 512B sectors and doesn't support end-to-end data protection. The 900P also omits the SMBus interface for out of band management and doesn't include the diagnostic LEDs.

The most significant functional difference between the P4800X and the 900P is the endurance rating, which has been reduced from 30 drive writes per day to 10 DWPD. That's still a very high figure for a consumer SSD, but Intel's policy of putting the drive into read-only mode when the rated endurance is reached can be a nuisance, and it'll be encountered sooner on the 900P. The difference in write endurance is proportional to the price difference between the 900P and the P4800X, so the de-rating isn't too unfair. Overall, the Optane SSD 900P is still the closest a consumer SSD gets to offering enterprise SSD performance and features, and the 900P will probably cannibalize some P4800X sales.

Note that our usual set of power measurements is unavailable due to an equipment failure. The Optane SSD 900P will be re-tested once we have a new power meter, and the results will be posted to the SSD Bench database. In the meantime, rest assured that the Optane SSD 900P won't win any awards for efficiency.

AnandTech 2017 SSD Testbed
CPU Intel Xeon E3 1240 v5
Motherboard ASRock Fatal1ty E3V5 Performance Gaming/OC
Chipset Intel C232
Memory 4x 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR4-2400 CL15
Graphics AMD Radeon HD 5450, 1920x1200@60Hz
Software Windows 10 x64, version 1703
Linux kernel version 4.12, fio version 2.21
Who is the Optane SSD 900P for? AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
Comments Locked

205 Comments

View All Comments

  • ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Yeah, and now you will either get crucified for straying from the herd, or you will be labeled a fake account I made to compliment myself :)

    It is not really worth the trouble you know, I don't care about approval.
  • lmcd - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    I bet you also are advocating against future upgrades to Anandtech's comment system, with which even a crowd as small as Anandtech's would use to bury your unwanted, pointless, and untruthful comments.
  • Reflex - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Optane is a technology.
    Today's article is about a product, which happens to use Optane in combination with other technologies.

    Intel's statements about Optane were about the capabilities of the technology. And indeed, for those who know much about PCM they were reasonable statements.

    Actual products are not guaranteed to maximize the ultimate potential of a given technology, especially in their first revisions. In 1995 when most motherboards were transitioning from a BIOS ROM to a Flash BIOS, a company could have stated that the potential for Flash was 1000x the performance of the older ROM based technologies. And they would have been correct. Even though the earlier Flash devices achieved speeds only of a couple MB/sec.

    Flash BIOS chips were a product. Flash, NAND or NOR, are technologies. Those technologies had major potential which has been largely realized over the two decades since that time. Products have gotten better as supporting technologies have improved (such as controllers and bus interfaces) and predicted improvements in Flash were made (die shrinks, power optimization, parallelization, die stacking, etc). That does not make any of the early PR about the technology inaccurate, or even misleading. It was all true and over time it was demonstrated.

    Intel stated the potential of Optane. Two years later they have started releasing products based on it. None are yet capable of reaching its stated potential, after all a 1000x performance improvement would exceed the bandwidth of any connected bus, much less the controllers in their current state and likely the current manufacturing technologies. But they launched with what is undoubtedly the fastest storage device on the market by a significant margin, with reliability that is multiples of any competing technology, and a cost that is significantly lower than expected for such a halo product.

    That is a very successful launch. And given what they have stated Optane is capable of (all reasonable targets for PCM), I am optimistic about the future.

    And I am glad Samsung will have competition again. The market has stagnated both in price and capacity.
  • looncraz - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    I have a specific workload that can (at peak sustained) can read 3~4GB/s and write out about 1.5~2.0GB/s from storage (at the same time to different drives - some data to/from GPU, some to/from CPU). Optane would actually slow me down quite a bit.

    The 4KiB block size is simply not an issue that requires solving any more. Software adapted already.
  • Manch - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Out of 6 pages of comments that idiot rambles on and on for 5 of them. I'm pleading with the UK government to reevaluate and censure the internet usage of their crazies......JTMC.....just shut up.
  • Reflex - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    I miss the days when we had intelligent commentators on articles here.
  • ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    You mean the days you didn't have them and still had the idyllic, innocent, ignorant garden of tech Eden, where feeling intelligent was as easy as posting a "great review, great product, me want" comment.

    Funny story, I evidently didn't have a point of reference until recently, when I visited the comment section at wccftech. Now, after having see that, I do also see how you could cultivate the illusion that the AT comment section may appear to be intelligent, if only relative to that random offtopic pic trolling, but I can assure you, there is no intellect in "on-topic sucking up".

    You definitely have a problem with factual intelligence, and that problem has to do with realizing it is something that you do not posses. Which makes you cranky. You do have a choice thou, you can remain antagonistic to actual intelligence in order to protect your lack thereof and hold on to the much more easily attainable illusion of it, or you can take steps to acquire intelligence for real, but I warn you, it will change your world forever.

    And just to let you know, you can become intelligent without becoming an ass like me. Those are two different traits, not related to each other.
  • lmcd - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Honestly, if you've got so much experience in the field, you should spend more time in it. You're clearly excessively valuable and should not waste your talents talking to such unintelligent plebian commenters.
  • Reflex - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Yes, obviously prior to your arrival no one writing for or commenting on this site or its articles had any in depth knowledge of technology. Thank goodness you finally arrived to enlighten us all. I have no idea how the technology industry, writers and community even managed to invent the pocket calculator before you arrived.
  • mkozakewich - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

    When you see their names, just scroll past the entire message thread. It'll save you a lot of time and sanity.
    (I agree, though; it was annoying scrolling through four or five pages!)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now