The Intel Optane SSD 900p 480GB Review: Diving Deeper Into 3D XPoint
by Billy Tallis on December 15, 2017 12:15 PM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.
We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.
The average data rate of the 480GB Optane SSD 900p on The Destroyer is a few percent higher than the 280GB model scored, further increasing the lead over the fastest flash-based SSDs.
The 480GB Optane SSD 900p shows a substantial drop in average latency relative to the 280GB model, allowing it to score better than any flash-based SSD. For 99th percentile latency the 480GB model scores slightly worse than the 280GB, but both are still far ahead of any competing drive.
The two capacities of Optane SSD 900p have essentially the same average read latency that is less than half that of any flash-based SSD. For average write latency, the 480GB model sets a new record while the 280GB performed worse than it did the first time around, but still faster than anything other than the Samsung 960 PRO.
The 99th percentile read and write latency scores for the Optane SSD 900p are all substantially better than any flash-based SSD, even though the 280GB's results again show some variation between this test run and our original review. The 99th percentile read latency scores are particularly good, with the Optane SSDs around 0.5ms while the best flash-based SSDs are in the 1-2ms range.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
thestryker - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
I'm curious if the power consumption on the u.2 version would be any different.Any chances of Intel hooking AnandTech up with a u.2 version? I know the storage bench system doesn't have u.2, but I'm sure there's a system around which does. I believe there's also a sku with m.2 to u.2 adapter also.
Billy Tallis - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
The U.2 drive uses the same 12V supply as the add-in card, unlike SATA SSDs that use 5V. Any differences in power consumption would probably be minor variations due to different operating temperature.CheapSushi - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
It's been so satisfying to see all the Optane haters, dismissers, general naysayers and "meh, ___ is good enuff" crowd, who pretend to be enthusiasts, finally backtracking on their comments about it. Good times.tricomp - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
Can't wait seeing my customer's jaws dropping... I build heavy multi-core workstations for 3D and post production. Using 480 jet like this for the OS is something they will truly appreciatemapesdhs - Monday, December 18, 2017 - link
Responsiveness, etc. with pro apps wasn't tested here. Where's the evidence it would be any better than a 960 Pro? I'd be more interested in a Puget Systems review with real world situations.tricomp - Monday, December 18, 2017 - link
I agree with mapesdhs. The main strength of this unit should be tested and compared, not to mention - mentioned - in an article called "deeper diving into 3D Xpoint"lilmoe - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
Pardon the ignorance, but is can XPoint memory packages run on lower voltages, or is operation dependent on a single constant voltage setting? Are there any plans for low-power based XPoint like LPDDR or DDRL? If so, I wonder how much performance and latency would degrade.As it is, these will never be able to compete with NAND in terms of power. Lots of users (like) me want this kind of power on the go. Samsung and others are simply NOT trying anymore. I've REALLY delayed purchasing a mobile workstation till these technologies get sorted out and it's clear for me what type of expansion I'll need for compatibility.
wanderer66 - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
There won't be mainstream memory modules until late next year, based on what I've read. I wouldn't count on seeing mobile workstation/laptop capability until 2019 or 2020, and that depends on several things: 2nd or 3rd gen optane modules using less power (due to die shrinkage), and a reference design from Intel that supports them on that kind of motherboard. Even then count on them consuming 10-15 watts for a loaded configuration.wanderer66 - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
Two things: This is first gen Optane architecture. *First Gen* sisters and brothers... In the next several years, performance will evolve as the controllers improve (greater parallelism and other performance tweaks), power usage will decrease as process optimization and die shrinkage improves, and the design moves beyond being able to use NVMe as the interface, which it will.Second, 550k iops. That's mind-blowing, really. This may not be hugely important to single-user workstations, but in the hosting/cloud markets, this is one of the largest leaps that can be made..
In five years time, Optane will be to flash SSDs what flash SSDs are to HDDs today.
djayjp - Sunday, December 17, 2017 - link
Would *really* like to see real world testing, not traces. In such tests no difference is ever apparent between the bargain basement SSDs and the absolute top tier, thus the current tests AT uses are nonsense.