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

  • Alexvrb - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link

    "The caching is managed entirely in software, and the host system accesses the Optane and QLC sides of the H10 independently. "

    So, it's already got serious baggage. But wait, there's more!

    "In practice, the 660p almost never needed more bandwidth than an x2 link can provide, so this isn't a significant bottleneck."

    Yeah OK, what about the Optane side of things?
    Reply
  • Samus - Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - link

    They totally nerf'd this thing with 2x PCIe. Reply
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - link

    Linux handles Optane pretty easily without any Intel software through bcache. I'm not sure why Anandtech can't test that, but maybe just a lack of awareness.

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...
    Reply
  • Billy Tallis - Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - link

    Testing bcache performance won't tell us anything about how Intel's caching software behaves, only how bcache behaves. I'm not particularly interested in doing a review that would have such a narrow audience. And bcache is pretty thoroughly documented so it's easier to predict how it will handle different workloads without actually testing. Reply
  • easy_rider - Wednesday, April 24, 2019 - link

    Is there a reliable review of 118gb intel optane ssd in M2 form factor? Does it make sense to hunt it down and put as a system drive in the dual-m2 laptop? Reply
  • name99 - Thursday, April 25, 2019 - link

    "QLC NAND needs a performance boost to be competitive against mainstream TLC-based SSDs"

    The real question is what dimension, if any, does this thing win on?
    OK, it may not be the fastest out there? But does it, say, provide approximately leading edge TLC speed at QLC prices, so it wins by being cheap?
    Because just having a cache is meaningless. Any QLC drive that isn't complete garbage will have a controller-managed cache created by using the QLC flash as SLC; and the better controllers will slowly degrade across the entire drive, maintaining always an SLC cache, but also using the entire drive (till its filled up) as SLC, then switching blocks to MLC, then to TLC, and only when the drive is approaching capacity, using blocks as QLC.

    So the question is not "does it give cached performance to a QLC drive", the question is does it give better performance or better price than other QLC solutions?
    Reply
  • albert89 - Saturday, April 27, 2019 - link

    Didn't I tell ya ? Optane's capacity was too small for many yrs and compatible with a very tiny number devices/hardware/OS. She played the game of hard to get and now no guy wants her. Reply
  • peevee - Monday, April 29, 2019 - link

    "The caching is managed entirely in software, and the host system accesses the Optane and QLC sides of the H10 independently. Each half of the drive has two PCIe lanes dedicated to it."

    Fail.
    Reply
  • ironargonaut - Monday, April 29, 2019 - link

    "While the Optane Memory H10 got us into our Word document in about 5 seconds, the TLC-based 760P took 29 seconds to open the file. In fact, we waited so long that near the end of the run, we went ahead and also launched Google Chrome with it preset to open four websites. "

    https://www.pcworld.com/article/3389742/intel-opta...

    Win
    Reply
  • realgundam - Saturday, November 16, 2019 - link

    What if you have a normal 660p and an Optane stick? would it do the same thing? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now