The Intel Optane SSD 900P 280GB Review
by Billy Tallis on October 27, 2017 9:30 AM ESTMixed Random Performance
Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.
The mixed random I/O performance of the Intel Optane SSD 900P is completely unmatched. The small Optane Memory M.2 is the second fastest drive we've tested, and the fastest flash-based SSD is only a third as fast as the Optane SSD overall.
 |
|||||||||
At the very end of the test, when the workload shifts to pure random writes, Samsung's fastest SSDs are able to batch the writes and dramatically improve throughput, almost enough to catch up to the slowest speed the Optane SSD hits during this test.
Mixed Sequential Performance
Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.
The Intel Optane SSD 900P doesn't quite dominate the mixed sequential I/O test to the extent that it trounced the competition in the mixed random I/O test, but it still breaks the record with a 40% higher average throughput than the fastest flash-based SSD.
 |
|||||||||
The Optane SSD 900P's performance wavers a bit as the workload changes, but the general trend is a gradual reduction in performance as the proportion of writes increases. The flash-based SSDs tend to show an sharper decline in performance during the first half of the test, and the good ones recover most of that performance over the course of the second half. But the low performance in the middle of the test brings the averages way down and leaves the Optane SSD alone at the top.
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.