The Intel Optane SSD 900p 480GB Review: Diving Deeper Into 3D XPoint
by Billy Tallis on December 15, 2017 12:15 PM ESTConclusion
As expected, the 480GB Optane SSD 900p performs about the same as the 280GB model. That makes it one of the overall fastest SSDs money can buy, but the Optane SSDs don't win in every test.
Higher performance is often an important selling point for higher capacity SSDs—and sub-par performance can be a major reason to avoid the smallest model in most product lines. This doesn't really apply to the Optane SSDs, so consumers are faced with the simpler question of how much fast storage they really want to pay for. As the most expensive "consumer" SSDs on a per-GB basis, the Optane SSDs force potential buyers to consider just how much blazing fast storage they actually need. I'm currently using an Optane SSD in one of my machines as a cache in front of a RAID array of hard drives. For this use case, even the 280GB model is larger than necessary. But as a primary storage device, the 480GB model would definitely feel less crowded.
Given the high price per GB of the Optane SSDs so far, the upcoming 960 GB and 1.5 TB models of the Optane SSD are going to be an even tougher sell: The market for $1200+ SSDs is pretty small, and very few users actually need a full TB of data within ten microsecond's reach.
Our first round of power measurements of the Optane SSD 900p showed what we expected: the Optane SSD 900p requires far more power than M.2 NVMe SSDs, and usually ends up being less efficient than a good M.2 SSD in spite of the great performance of the Optane SSD. It's hard to score well on efficiency with an idle power draw of over 3.5W. The Optane SSD 900p did score a clear efficiency win for random reads at low queue depths, where its performance advantage over flash-based SSDs is greatest.
Don't hold your breath for a M.2 version of the 900p, or anything with performance close to the 900p. Future Optane products will require different controllers in order to offer significantly different performance characteristics. Higher sequential performance to compete against the top flash-based SSDs will require a higher channel count, making for a more expensive drive with an even larger and more power-hungry controller. Lower power consumption will require serious performance compromises. In the near term, we're much more likely to see a new controller that's a step up from the Optane Memory M.2's single channel, but not large enough to rule out using the M.2 form factor. A three or four channel controller should be able to fit within a M.2 card's physical, electrical and thermal limits, but would offer much lower performance than this Optane SSD 900p.
| 250-280 GB | 480-512 GB | 1TB | 2TB | |
| Samsung 960 EVO | $127.99 (51¢/GB) | $240.00 (48¢/GB) | $449.99 (45¢/GB) | |
| Samsung 960 Pro | $289.99 (57¢/GB) | $619.00 (60¢/GB) | $1227.00 (60¢/GB) | |
| Intel Optane SSD 900p AIC | $389.99 (139¢/GB) | $599.99 (125¢/GB) | ||
| Intel Optane SSD 900p U.2 | $369.99 (132¢/GB) |
For the most part, the Optane SSDs are holding to their MSRPs, leaving them more than twice as expensive per GB as the fastest NAND flash based SSDs. They're a niche product in the same vein as the extreme capacity models like Samsung's 2TB 960 PRO and 4TB 850 EVO. But where the benefits of expanded capacity are easy to assess, the performance benefits of the Optane SSD are more subtle. For most ordinary and even relatively heavy desktop workloads, high-end flash storage is fast enough that further improvements are barely noticeable.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
Billy Tallis - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
The ATSB tests are Windows-based, and the synthetic tests are on Linux with fio. I can't really create a RAM disk large enough to properly run the ATSB tests (at least not on this system), but I'll look into running the synthetic tests against a RAM disk.tuxRoller - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
Thanks so much for the response and clarification.I'll keep an eye out for that ramdisk comparison:)
Chaser - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
In other words, if you are the enthusiast gamer person like many of the people that read this site, you're throwing money away buying this for your gaming system.jabber - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
You are pretty much throwing away money investing in anything faster than a 850EVO in a gaming rig.eek2121 - Sunday, December 17, 2017 - link
Not really, as a gamer, you should not only be looking at performance, but at reliability as well. Ironically I say this NOT because the 8xx EVO is crap (my 840 evo still has 93% life left and that's despite being used as a system drive for many years), but because my 960 evo has had a metric ton of degradation in the 6 months I've owned it.Klimax - Sunday, December 17, 2017 - link
Only if one has few games. There's better solution: 16GB of RAM + large regular HDD (WD Black and similar, their sequential reads are very good). Only initial load will be noticeable. (Anytime after that, caching will take care of that)CheapSushi - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
Umm, what? Optane would be the better drive in every single way for OS and general usage. If you were going to get ONE main drive, it should be Optane.ddriver - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
Sure, but is 0.01% faster in real world performance worth being 300$ more expensive? If you are going with one main drive, you better get better capacity than performance you can't make any use of.tricomp - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
Here is what Tom wrote about Optane OS drive : "You will see and feel a performance benefit just by using the Optane SSD 900P as your operating system drive. The feel of the system changes even if you’re replacing a high-performance NVMe SSD. You will notice the increased responsiveness immediately and then gradually become accustomed to it. In our experience, you will take the performance for granted until you work on a slower PC. Then you'll wish it had an Optane SSD." Its main advantage - 4K read performance - makes it OS kingeek2121 - Sunday, December 17, 2017 - link
"Tom" has been gone for a long time. Tom's hardware, much like AnandTech, has simply become a vehicle for Purch Ads (sadly). The AnandTech or Tom's Hardware of today have absolutely nothing to do with the original founders/sites. I don't mean to sound anti-corporate (because I'm not), but Purch has allowed pretty much all of their sites to degrade to the point where they have become irrelevant. I mean no disrespect to any AT folks either. I'm sure they bust their asses off. However, IMO, Purch has taken some very valuable brands and driven them into the ground in a desperate reach for revenue.