The Intel Optane SSD 800p (58GB & 118GB) Review: Almost The Right Size
by Billy Tallis on March 8, 2018 5:15 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 rates from the Intel Optane SSD 800p on The Destroyer are comparable to some of the faster flash-based SSDs we've tested, but the 800p isn't as fast as the Samsung 960 PRO. Intel's VROC clearly doesn't help performance on this kind of test, and instead it just adds overhead.
The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the Optane SSD 800p on The Destroyer are good, but don't beat the best flash-based SSDs and are far higher than the Optane 900p. Intel VROC seems to improve latency some even though it was detrimental to the average data rate.
The average read latency of the 800p is more than twice as high as that of the 900p, and is higher than the Samsung 960 PRO. VROC RAID-0 adds a few more microseconds of read latency. The average write latency of the 800p is far worse than the 900p or high-end flash based SSDs, but VROC greatly improves the write latencies and the four-drive RAID-0 is comparable to the Optane SSD 900p.
Intel's VROC helps significantly with the 99th percentile read and write latencies, taking the 800p from not quite high-end to beating a single 900p.
The energy usage of the Optane SSD 800p over the course of The Destroyer is far lower than that of any flash-based SSD. The 800p completes the test fairly quickly, and unlike the 900p it keeps power consumption reasonably low throughout the test. The low-end flash based SSDs can take more than twice as long to complete the test while drawing more power than the 800p.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
116 Comments
View All Comments
Reflex - Thursday, March 8, 2018 - link
I'm sorry you know how many are rushing out to buy a product that isn't available yet? I don't personally expect large volumes since at the current capacities it isn't in the sweet spot for consumers in price/perf, but its offering solid performance that bests NAND in almost every consumer scenario, in some cases significantly while consuming less overall power. That's a win. As production ramps, costs will come down.And only the literacy challenged have chosen to read Intel's claims about 3DXPoint's potential as claims about its first generation products. Right now its constrained by a number of things beyond the memory itself, such as PCIe bus speed.
iter - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link
And I am sorry don't possess common sense.Of course I am not talking about how the 800p sells, only a complete idiot could take this out of my comments. I am talking about the non-existent demand for it in the enterprise, which the introduction of the 800p is another testament to.
If intel was able to sell it at high enterprise margins they wouldn't be forcing it in the consumer world where it is pointless. Intel is not keep on losing money, and as overpriced as it is even as a consumer product, it is tremendously cheaper than what they can ask for it at the enterprise market. Instead they are marketing it to frigging games... which is 100% laughable.
And of course, I don't expect anyone save for silly fanboys with rich mommies to buy it in the consumer world. because it can offer absolutely nothing for the price premium it comes at. No intelligent human being would pick a 118 gb 800p to a decent 256 gb nvme or 512 gb ssd drive. None whatsoever.
Constrained by PCIe? It doesn't even come close to that. Neither in terms of bandwidth nor latency. But believe whatever it takes to reinforce your fake worldview.
Luckz - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link
Is there actually a point to 256 gb NVMe though? I mean, performance of the small 960 Evo sucks balls compared to the bigger ones. Why go NVMe when you can have a nice SATA drive with much more capacity and not even much worse perf?Adramtech - Saturday, March 10, 2018 - link
iter, Lehi fabs are 100% dedicated to Xpoint and no longer NAND. They wouldn't commit billions to that if they didn't have a path outlined for improvement and scaling.patrickjp93 - Saturday, March 10, 2018 - link
Are you kidding? AWS Memcached, Lambda, and DynamoDB have their caching layers and indexing stored in Optane.eddman - Saturday, March 10, 2018 - link
We just found ddriver's long lost twin brother.Alexvrb - Saturday, March 10, 2018 - link
Cloning tech gone wrong.Reflex - Saturday, March 10, 2018 - link
It's not his twin, it's just his new account. This place had a much better community during the too brief time he was gone.patrickjp93 - Saturday, March 10, 2018 - link
3DXP is being made on the 90nm node right now. What did you expect? It's a vastly cheaper research node for something so complex.And the performance is stunningly better than everything else Samsung has EXCEPT for high Queue Depth sequential performance. All real world testing shows the 960Pro getting smashed.
Reflex - Saturday, March 10, 2018 - link
Didn't you hear the memo that because this first gen product isn't as good as the theoretical max performance discussed three years ago its all a big fail? /sarcasm