AnandTech 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 a new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and 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.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The Intel Optane Memory H10 actually performs better overall on The Destroyer with caching disabled and the Optane side of the drive completely inactive. This test doesn't leave much time for background optimization of data placement, and the total amount of data moved is vastly larger than what fits into a 32GB Optane cache. The 512GB of QLC NAND doesn't have any performance to spare for cache thrashing.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The QLC side of the Optane Memory H10 has poor average and 99th percentile latency scores on its own, and throwing in an undersized cache only makes it worse. Even the 7200RPM hard drive scores better.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

The average read latencies for the Optane Memory H10 are worse than all the TLC-based drives, but much better than the hard drive with or without an Optane cache in front of it. For writes, the H10's QLC drags it into last place once the SLC cache runs out.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The Optane cache does help the H10's 99th percentile read latency, bringing it up to par with the Crucial MX500 SATA SSD and well ahead of the larger QLC-only 1TB 660p. The 99th percentile write latency is horrible, but even with the cache thrashing causing excess writes, the H10 isn't quite as badly off as the DRAMless Toshiba RC100.

Cache Size Effects AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

60 Comments

View All Comments

  • SaberKOG91 - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link

    Nothing special about my usage on my laptop. Running linux so I'm sure journals and other logs are a decent portion of the background activity. I also consume a fair bit of streaming media so caching to disk is also very likely. This machine gets actively used an average of 10-12 hours a day and is usually only completely off for about 8-10 hours. I also install about 150MB of software updates a week, which is pretty on par with say windows update. I also use Spotify which definitely racks up some writes.

    I can't speak to the endurance of that drive, but it is also MLC instead of TLC.

    I would argue that it means that the cost per GB of QLC is now low enough that the manufacturing benefit of smaller dies for the same capacity is worth it. Most consumer SSDs are 250-500GB regardless of technology.

    I'm not referring to a few faulty units or infant mortality. I can't remember the exact news piece, but there were reports of unusually high failure rates in the first generation of Optane cache modules. I also wasn't amused when Anandtech's review sample of the first consumer cache drive died before they finished testing it. You're also assuming that they only factor in the failure of a drive is write endurance. It could very well be that overheating, leakage buildup, or some other electrical factor lead to premature failure, regardless of TBW. It's also worth noting that you may accelerate drive death if you exceed the rated DWPD.
    Reply
  • RSAUser - Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - link

    I'm at about 3TB after nearly 2 years, this with adding new software like android etc. And swapping between technologies constantly and wiping my drive once every year.
    I also have Spotify, game on it, etc.

    There is something wrong with your usage if you have that much write? I have 32GB RAM so very little caching though, so could be the difference.
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - link

    "You're also assuming that they only factor in the failure of a drive is write endurance. It could very well be that overheating, leakage buildup, or some other electrical factor lead to premature failure, regardless of TBW."

    I certainly did not. It was in reply to your original post.

    Yes, write endurance is a small part of a drive failing. If its failing due to other reasons way before warranty, then they should move to remedy this.
    Reply
  • Irata - Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - link

    You are forgetting the sleep state on laptops. That alone will result in a lot of data being written to the SSD. Reply
  • jeremyshaw - Sunday, July 14, 2019 - link

    Or they have a laptop with the "Modern Standby," which is code for:

    Subpar idle state which goes to Hibernation (flush RAM to SSD - I have 32GB of RAM) whenever the system drains too much power in this "Standby S3 replacement."
    Reply
  • voicequal - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link

    "Optane has such horrible lifespan at these densities that reviewers destroyed the drives just benchmarking them."

    What is your source for this comment?
    Reply
  • SaberKOG91 - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link

    Anandtech killed their review sample when Optane first came out. Happened other places too. Reply
  • voicequal - Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - link

    Link? Anandtech doesn't do endurance testing, so I don't think it's possible to conclude that failures were the result of worn out media. Reply
  • FunBunny2 - Wednesday, April 24, 2019 - link

    "Since our Optane Memory sample died after only about a day of testing, we cannot conduct a complete analysis of the product or make any final recommendations. "

    here: https://www.anandtech.com/show/11210/the-intel-opt...
    Reply
  • Mikewind Dale - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link

    I don't understand the purpose of this product. For light duties, the Optane will be barely faster than the SLC cache, and the limitation to PCIe x2 might make the Optane slower than a x4 SLC cache. And for heavy duties, the PCIe x2 is definitely a bottleneck.

    So for light duties, a 660p is just as good, and for heavy duties, you need a Samsung 970 or something similar.

    Add in the fact that this combo Optane+QLC has serious hardware compatibility problems, and I just don't see the purpose. Even in the few systems where the Optane+QLC worked, it would still be much easier to just install a 660p and be done with it. Adding an extra software layer is just one more potential point of failure, and there's barely any offsetting benefit.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now