The Intel Optane Memory H10 Review: QLC and Optane In One SSD
by Billy Tallis on April 22, 2019 11:50 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
Our first test of random read performance uses very short bursts of operations issued one at a time with no queuing. The drives are given enough idle time between bursts to yield an overall duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is impossible. Each burst consists of a total of 32MB of 4kB random reads, from a 16GB span of the disk. The total data read is 1GB.
The burst random read test easily fits within the Optane cache on the Optane Memory H10, so it outperforms all of the flash-based SSDs, but is substantially slower than the pure Optane storage devices.
Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.
On the longer random read test that covers a wider span of the disk than the Optane cache can manage, the H10's performance is on par with the TLC-based SSDs.
 |
|||||||||
The Optane cache provides little benefit over pure QLC storage at lower queue depths, but at the higher queue depths the H10 with caching enabled starts to develop a real lead over the QLC portion on its own. Unfortunately, but the time queue depths are this high, the flash-based SSDs have all surpassed the H10's random read throughput.
Random Write Performance
Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.
The burst random write performance of the H10 with caching enabled is better than either half of the drive can manage on its own, but far less than the sum of its parts. A good SLC write cache on a TLC drive is still better than the Optane caching on top of QLC.
As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.
On the longer random write test that covers a much wider span than the Optane cache can handle, the Optane Memory H10 falls behind all of the flash-based competition. The caching software ends up creating more work that drags performance down far below what the QLC portion can manage with just its SLC cache.
 |
|||||||||
Random write performance on the Optane Memory H10 is unsteady but generally trending downward as the test progresses. Two layers of caching getting in each others way is not a good recipe for consistent sustained performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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.
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.
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.
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.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."
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?
SaberKOG91 - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link
Anandtech killed their review sample when Optane first came out. Happened other places too.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.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...
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.