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 - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.
The Optane SSD 900p in either capacity delivers a much higher average data rate on the Heavy test than any flash-based SSD. As with the original review, the 280GB model is a bit faster when the drive is pre-filled than when the test is run on a freshly-erased drive; the opposite is almost always true of flash-based SSDs. The 480GB's results look more normal and fall in the same range as the 280GB's scores.
The average and 99th percentile latency scores of both Optane SSD capacities are slightly ahead of the fastest flash-based SSDs. Both models also show lower latency when the drive is filled than when it is freshly erased.
The average read latency of the Optane SSD 900p on the Heavy test is about the same for both capacities, and about half that of any flash-based SSD. The average write latencies are a bit worse than the Samsung 960 PRO but still clearly better than the 960 EVO or anything else.
The 99th percentile read latency scores for the Optane SSDs are a fraction of the latency of any other drive, and both capacities of the 900p score about the same. The 99th percentile write latency is barely faster than the Samsung 960 PRO.
The power consumption of the Optane SSDs fits their heritage as derivatives of an enterprise drive. The only other consumer SSD this power hungry is the Intel SSD 750, another enterprise derivative. Even the M.2 PCIe SSDs with relatively poor power management and low performance use much less energy over the course of the test.
The 480GB 900p uses about 10% more energy than the 280GB model while performing about the same.
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.