The Intel Optane SSD 900P 280GB Review
by Billy Tallis on October 27, 2017 9:30 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.
The Intel Optane SSD 900P completes the Heavy test with a higher average data rate than any flash-based SSD. Curiously, it performs even better after being filled than it does right after a low-level format. Even the best flash-based SSDs lose a bit of performance when operating with minimal spare area. The Optane SSD by contrast seems to require an extra initialization phase after the format to reach full performance.
As with The Destroyer, the Optane SSD sets records for both average and 99th percentile latency on the Heavy test. The margin for the 99th percentile latency is more significant, with about a 43% improvement over the previous record.
The average write latency of the Optane SSD 900P on the Heavy test comes in as a close second place, while the average read latency sets a new record that is less than half the previous best score.
The Optane SSD's new record for 99th percentile read latency on the Heavy test is 70% lower than the fastest flash-based SSD. The record for 99th percentile write latency is a less impressive 30% improvement over the previous record.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
205 Comments
View All Comments
Lolimaster - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
Optane seems like a Joke not only in endurance, performance, but not power consumption too. Right now it's basically a bot for random 4K, you don't really need that, get the 960EVO/PRO.Lolimaster - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
*now.AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
Why are you saying get the 960 PRO? It costs double a normal SSD and performs the same in real-world. Please enlighten me.SunnyNW - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
Would system start-up be any faster?Lolimaster - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
Probably yes since it has higher random 4k read and latency. Wanna check the limit, search those old ramdisk booting times. Above that we would need a boot disk of L3 cache memory class, then one made up of L2 cache memory class, edram, etc.Lolimaster - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
Till you reach L1 cache memory class or sram."Bullwinkle J Moose" - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
That depends....How fast is Fast?
I've seen people bragging on youtube that their new 90+ Watt Quadcore Intel CPU will boot Win 10 to an M.2 EVO drive in 17-20 seconds....
But my 35 Watt dualcore Sandy bridge will boot Windows 10 Fall Crappers Edition (Sept 2017) to an 850 Pro in 5.35 seconds.....
or, the same machine will boot Windows XP-SP2 to the same 850 Pro in 3 - 4 seconds (Varies sleightly every boot)
So, how fast is fast?
jabber - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
Good luck to the couple of dozen or so that will be able to make proper use of this and notice a difference over a 850 EVO .Pork@III - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
Do fast? Yes it is fast. Has volume? - Nope.I maked install of operation system and come to install FM7 on 128GB SSD and instalator say me: "not enough space". :(
nOOky - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
The 280 gig drive is priced similarly to the Samsung 830 Pro 256 gig when it came out if you're thinking the price is outrageous...