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
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?
Samus - Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - link
They totally nerf'd this thing with 2x PCIe.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&...
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.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?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?
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.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.
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
realgundam - Saturday, November 16, 2019 - link
What if you have a normal 660p and an Optane stick? would it do the same thing?