Random 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.

Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

The M.2 Optane modules offer the fastest burst random read speeds when tested as standalone drives, but Intel's caching system imposes substantial overhead. Even with that overhead, the random read performance is far above any solution that doesn't involve 3D XPoint memory. As in past reviews, we find that the Optane Memory/Optane SSD 800P has a slight advantage here over the top of the line Optane SSD 900P.

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.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

The sustained random read test covers a larger span of the drive, and the 32GB and 64GB modules are not large enough to cache the entire dataset plus the necessary cache management metadata, leaving them with performance close to that of the the hard drive. The 118GB cache is sufficient to contain the full data set for this test, and its performance is below that of the Optane drives tested as standalone drives, but still out of reach of flash-based storage.

The random read performance scaling of the Optane Memory and 800P drives is rather uneven at higher queue depths, but they do still reach very high throughput. The 118GB cache configuration doesn't scale to higher queue depths as well as the standalone SSD configuration, and the 900P hits a wall at a far lower performance level than it should based on our Linux benchmarking.

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.

Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

On the burst random write test, the larger two caching configurations perform far above what any standalone drive delivers under Windows. The 32GB Optane Memory module also scores better when used as a cache than as a standalone SSD. It is possible that Intel's caching software is also using a RAM cache and is lying to the benchmark software about whether the writes have actually made it onto non-volatile storage. However, the performance here is not actually beyond what NVMe SSDs deliver when we test them under Linux, so it's somewhat possible that there are simply some much-needed fast paths in Intel's drivers.

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.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

The sustained random write test covers more data than can be cached on the 64GB Optane Memory M10, so it and the 32GB cache module fall far behind mainstream SATA SSDs. The standalone Optane SSDs continue to offer great performance, and the 118GB Optane SSD 800P as a cache device tops the chart.

For the one configuration with a cache large enough to handle this test, performance scales up much sooner than in the standalone SSD configuration: QD2 gives almost the full random write speed. When the cache is too small, increasing queue depth just makes performance worse.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light Sequential Performance
Comments Locked

96 Comments

View All Comments

  • Flunk - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link

    For $144 you can get a 256GB M.2 SSD, big enough to use as a boot drive. Even as a cache for a slow hard-drive (which means you also need to buy a hard drive, possibly bumping the cost up to 512GB SSD prices) means this product doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe it made sense when they started development, but it doesn't now.
  • dullard - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link

    Flunk, the reason to get these drives is that an Optane cache + standard hard drive is FASTER and LARGER CAPACITY than the 512 GB SSD. If you don't like larger or faster, then go ahead with just a SSD.
  • bananaforscale - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link

    You totally miss the point. An SSD is cheaper and irrelevantly slower and you can use it for caching.
  • wumpus - Wednesday, May 16, 2018 - link

    You can? You used to be able to use a 64GB cache on Intel boards, and you can use a 512GB cache on just released AMD (470) boards [unfortunately, that bit of the review still has [words] under the storeMI section].

    If you can pull it off, a 512GB caching SATA drive makes all kinds of sense for anything you might want to do with this. As near as I can tell, Optane's only advantage is that they provide the caching software without having to hit windows and motherboard requirements. Which makes the whole "optane is so fast" advantage a bit of a joke.

    Wake me up when optane has the endurance to be used with a DDR4 interface (presumably with caching HBM2/Intel system DRAM). This doesn't give any advantage (besides providing the software license).
  • shadowx360 - Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - link

    Windows Storage Spaces or ZFS can do it. Right now I have 2x256GB SSDs mirrored to accelerate a 5x4TB hard drive array. I set 100GB as a write-back cache that automatically flushes to the HDDs, so random write is SSD-level quick. I also pin about 20GB of files to the SSDs permanently and the rest is rotated between free space and system-managed hot files.
  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link

    400-500MB/s vs 1.5GB/s, not really much of a difference, either way you will have to wait for that HDD to write to the cache drive 1st at 100MB/s or less (since they're small files, HDD works faster on transfer with larger files).

    If you got a set of constantly used files, move those to the SSD, problem solved.
  • evernessince - Wednesday, May 16, 2018 - link

    Or you buy an X470 motherboard or pay $10 to get StoreMI, which also makes a cache but is much cheaper and can use any SSD as a cache, which saves you money, allot of it.
  • CheapSushi - Wednesday, May 16, 2018 - link

    You can use any Optane drive like ANY SSD too.
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, May 16, 2018 - link

    It's faster in zero real-world situations. It's larger than an SSD bought for the same total money, but not larger than an SSD at the same cost as the optane drive (256GB) + the same HDD you'd use for optane caching. Your point is... flawed.
  • Keljian - Tuesday, May 29, 2018 - link

    This is actually not true. It's faster for Mysql/sqlite in 4k situations when the cache is tuned for it. What uses sqlite? - games, most office software, web browsers..

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now