AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The Intel Optane Memory H10 is generally competitive with other low-end NVMe drives when the Light test is run on an empty drive, though the higher performance of the QLC portion on its own indicates that the H10's score is probably artificially lowered by starting with a cold Optane cache. The full-drive performance is worse than almost all of the TLC-based SSDs, but is still significantly better than a hard drive without any Optane cache.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latencies from the Optane Memory H10 are competitive with TLC NAND when the test is run on an empty drive, and even with a full drive the latency scores remain better than a mechanical hard drive.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

The average write latency in the full-drive run is the only thing that sticks out and identifies the H10 as clearly different than other entry-level NVMe drives, but the TLC-based DRAMless Toshiba RC100 is even worse in that scenario.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)

Unlike the average latencies, both the read and write 99th percentile latency scores for the Optane H10 show that it struggles greatly when full. The Optane cache is not nearly enough to make up for running out of SLC cache.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random IO Performance
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