The Intel Optane SSD 900p 480GB Review: Diving Deeper Into 3D XPoint
by Billy Tallis on December 15, 2017 12:15 PM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.
Despite having incredibly low access latency, the Optane SSD 900p doesn't beat the fastest flash-based SSDs in our burst sequential read test. The fastest flash SSDs make up for their slower initial response time through a combination of higher channel counts, prefetching and most likely larger native block sizes. The Optane SSD 900p still has a great score here, but it fails to stand out from the much cheaper flash-based drives.
Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.
With the test of higher queue depths and longer run times, the Optane SSDs are back on top with a substantial performance lead. Unlike the burst test, this test shows almost no performance difference between the two capacities of the Optane SSD 900p.
The performance lead of the Optane SSD 900p isn't enough to make up for its higher power consumption, so the 900p ends up in the second tier of drives for sequential read power efficiency, alongside Samsung's 960 generation and the Toshiba XG5.
 |
|||||||||
The 480GB Optane SSD 900p draws about 0.6–0.75W more than the 280GB model during the sequential read test, putting it just over 8W total when operating at full speed. Even the smaller 900p is still over 6W at QD1, while the flash-based SSDs are mostly in the 4-5W range. (The Intel SSD 750 breaks 9W at higher queue depths.)
Sequential Write Performance
Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.
The burst sequential write performance of the Intel Optane SSD 900p is on par with some of Samsung's older NVMe SSDs, but is exceeded by the 960 generation and the PM981.
Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
On the longer sequential write test, the Samsung PM981 falls out of first place and ends up substantially slower than the Optane SSD 900p, but the Samsung 960 PRO and EVO are still faster than the 900p.
The power efficiency of the Optane SSD 900p during sequential writes is worse than most M.2 NVMe SSDs, though not as bad as the extremely power-hungry Intel SSD 750.
 |
|||||||||
The two capacities of the Optane SSD 900p offer essentially identical sequential write performance. As with sequential reads, the difference in power consumption between the two capacities is about 0.75W, but the writes require about than 2W more than the reads.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
ddriver - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
Which is MLC...Samsung realized nobody is catching up in the nand market and decided to push consumer, high end and mainstream enterprise a notch down to TLC.
So now that MLC is only a "high end enterprise" thing in their portfolio, they decided to pimp it up with a new moniker - z-nand. Alas, it is just good old MLC with a barely incremental controller. And claim that it has anything to do with SLC performance - which it does as much as an a race horse harness makes an old donkey faster.
They REALLY aren't trying.
mapesdhs - Monday, December 18, 2017 - link
Do you have a link to Intel's original PR articlea about this tech? Other people keep saying you're wrong, but if there is indeed a piece of Intel PR that at least implied an initial launch would provide the sort of speed gains you mention, then you absolutely have a point.jospoortvliet - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link
I have no link, but as pointed out below, there is a fight with a strawman going on here. Intel certainly talked about 1000x improvement in latency of flash vs Optane - at that point they are talking about time it takes for a single flash cell vs an Optane cell. As Flash can only write to a block or more, it is far far slower, optane can address a single cell directly. And sure, that might very well be 1000x faster in theory - and even already in this very first Optane SSD.But, just like if you make one component (eg a piston) in a car engine 1000x faster the entire car won't drive 1000x faster - the other components also contribute to speed, as do external factors like, you know, wind, asphalt... So the car gets 10% faster as a whole. You see the same here: even if that one part is 1000x faster, flash controllers use a ram cache and splitting data over a dozen channels to overcome the inherent limitation of flash while the NVME protocol and PCIExpress puts limits at latency improvements, so the end result is that the Optane PCIE devices are occasionally >10x faster than SSD's but generally a factor 3-5.
Of course, if you put them in a DDR4 slot, they'll be unleashed a bit more and would beat a DDR4 SSD solution probably by a factor 30-50 in most cases with peaks of 100x. Still not 1000 and it'll never be...
So, in short, even if Intel is 100% correct and an individual cell responds 1000x faster, its response has to be mediated by the controller, go over a data bus etc etc. so you'll never measure it like that.
jospoortvliet - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link
And of course Intel just screams '1000x faster response time' without very clearly identifying they're talking about a theoretical maximum. Well, it is marketing. You take the best looking numbers that are defensible and use them.eddman - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link
No, intel claimed it for 3D xpoint, NOT optane. Xpoint is the name of the tech, optane is the storage devices based on the tech.Kidster3001 - Wednesday, January 3, 2018 - link
Intel never claimed Optane to be 1000x faster than anything. The 1000x faster was in reference to 3D-XPoint. XPoint = the memory cells; Optane = the SSD product line. Two completely different things.ddrіver - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
I'm not myself when I drink.farazgomot - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
I fully agree, why almost everybody is caustic to ddriver when he correctly is critic to only the marketing hype , not that the product is in any way bad ( except for the high price/ capacity)lmcd - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
He's arguing semantics when ridiculous performance claims are an industry norm. He's argued those semantics for 5 straight articles, and arguing with literally every comment he can find this very point. It's in the ballpark of 100 belligerent comments on 5 articles, which frankly is far closer to "caustic" than our collective treatment. It's fine if he states his opinion, but we're tired of being screamed at.Reflex - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
The problem with ddriver is that he is arguing against a strawman that was built up in his own mind. Optane was never promised to produce products that could deliver 1000x performance boosts in the first generation. PCM is itself as much as 1000x faster than traditional NAND for many operations while being orders of magnitude more durable.However the fact that you are using Optane/PCM does not in some way fix the fact that controllers aren't capable of that kind of performance yet, that PCIe bandwidth is way behind that level, that system memory, chipsets and CPU's couldn't keep up with that, that the software stack is not optimized for that, etc etc.
Intel delivered, mostly on time and for a cheaper price than is typical for a first gen of a new technology. Since they have previously stated what the performance capabilities of Optane/PCM are, the focus now will be on other aspects of the platform in order to enable that capability. This removes a major performance roadblock as they move towards an optical bus and optical chips, and ensures that system storage is not the long pole.
I'm fairly excited, its been ten years since any major change in storage has occurred and now it is finally here. And its reasonably priced for what it delivers from the get go.