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
melgross - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
You’re not as objective as you proclaim. If you were, you’d be more in line with what the conslucion says, which is that for many things there isn’t much of an advantage, but for others there is, and most of the reas\OSs aren’t the fault of this, but rather, old concepts in storage.ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
So in order to be objective, I will have to echo what AT - a heavily pro-intel biassed website says about it? Yep, that sounds legit :)It would seem you confuse objectivity for conformity.
r0gue6 - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
I can tell you are extremely bias simply because you use ignorant words like "hypetane" unironically.ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
Hypetane is perfectly suited. The product turned out to be 90% hype, and it also rhymes. What more could anyone possibly want?And calling things for what they are is the very essence of objectivity.
shabby - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
It is 1000 times faster... at die level, pcie and drivers show it down. /intel pr proddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
Sure, if you say so. I mean it is obviously saturating and exceeding the PCIE bandwidth and crippled by the PCIE latency.Oh wait, it isn't. Maybe it is intel's controller then. Who knows. I mean aside from you ;)
lmcd - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
Ironic, because you aren't the king of anything.voicequal - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link
It's pretty clear Intel's performance claims were speaking of the cell level (NAND vs 3D Xpoint), not the system level (SSD, SYSmark, etc).Drumsticks - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
Not that anybody will ever convince you that anything Intel can do is good, but here is a graph of how much endurance the 480GB Optane SSD has in terms of TBW compared to the other Pro SSDs.https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max...
ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
Cool, even if not real-world maxing out but intel's claim, I am willing to assume that intel won't lie on the spec sheet of an actual product.But then again, I am going to refer you to this little gem:
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storag...
The rated number is still almost 50 times less than what intel claimed officially. 45 times less is pretty significant IMO. Imagine getting a job where they promise you 20k $ a month, and end up paying you 450$ instead. Not cool. In light of that, I wouldn't say my criticism is ungrounded.
For me personally, 20 times better endurance than NAND is pretty good, good enough to justify the purchase even at the present price.
Now if only intel started out with a 20x claim instead of the 1000x claim, I wouldn't have any legit reason to bash that product. And maybe if more call intel on their BS, they just might cut it. And I don't think that will be a bad thing.