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
POST A COMMENT

205 Comments

View All Comments

  • BrokenCrayons - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Yup, there's the ddriver we all know touting yet another set of unverifiable qualifications that proclaim relevant experience. From getting first pick of hard drives off the pallet at the shipyard to system security and now a decade of multiphysics simulation experience, this shamless self-promoter has done it all and is a SME in everything.

    It's too bad you're so transparently trying to set a new record in rigged life experiences. Shame!
    Reply
  • ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    You make a persuasive argument :)

    I criticize intel, that is great, therefore I suck, regardless of how grounded that criticism is.

    You criticize me, who sucks, therefore you are great, like intel, regardless of how baseless your criticism is.

    I wish I had such lowly and trivially attainable goals in life as you do. That would make things so much easier. I'd basically have to cheer and clap hands at my own stupidity to feel accomplished. Must be nice...
    Reply
  • BrokenCrayons - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    The number of times you've replied in this article alone make it clear you serve no useful purpose to the world. Reply
  • ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    And I guess you responding to so many of my comments if just to whine about it makes you very useful, right? LOL Reply
  • CheapSushi - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Wouldn't be a AnandTech article without him. I pretty sure nearly every single one has some cynicism from him. Reply
  • ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Go and check and come back with the results. Reply
  • BrokenCrayons - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    I like the Optane articles the best when it comes to ddriver. They predictably draw him out and while in the context of Optane, he's even easier to manipulate than usual. Reply
  • ddriver - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    Oh wow, so you are manipulating me now. You mastermind you.

    Good thing I come out of my troll cave so you can ride that white steed of yours into glorious battle and once again find purpose in life, heroically championing for the dummies of mediocrity :)

    All hail the brave sir Dumb-a-lot.
    Reply
  • BrokenCrayons - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link

    I can tell you feel like you've lost by the way you're resorting to childish name calling. Reply
  • sonny73n - Tuesday, October 31, 2017 - link

    OMG ddriver. I've stopped reading your posts after page 3, but at page 8 now I'm still seeing your rantings. You definitely have serious issues. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now