The Intel Optane SSD 900p 480GB Review: Diving Deeper Into 3D XPoint
by Billy Tallis on December 15, 2017 12:15 PM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.
The Optane SSD 900p in either capacity delivers a much higher average data rate on the Heavy test than any flash-based SSD. As with the original review, the 280GB model is a bit faster when the drive is pre-filled than when the test is run on a freshly-erased drive; the opposite is almost always true of flash-based SSDs. The 480GB's results look more normal and fall in the same range as the 280GB's scores.
The average and 99th percentile latency scores of both Optane SSD capacities are slightly ahead of the fastest flash-based SSDs. Both models also show lower latency when the drive is filled than when it is freshly erased.
The average read latency of the Optane SSD 900p on the Heavy test is about the same for both capacities, and about half that of any flash-based SSD. The average write latencies are a bit worse than the Samsung 960 PRO but still clearly better than the 960 EVO or anything else.
The 99th percentile read latency scores for the Optane SSDs are a fraction of the latency of any other drive, and both capacities of the 900p score about the same. The 99th percentile write latency is barely faster than the Samsung 960 PRO.
The power consumption of the Optane SSDs fits their heritage as derivatives of an enterprise drive. The only other consumer SSD this power hungry is the Intel SSD 750, another enterprise derivative. Even the M.2 PCIe SSDs with relatively poor power management and low performance use much less energy over the course of the test.
The 480GB 900p uses about 10% more energy than the 280GB model while performing about the same.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
ddriver - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
Which is MLC...Samsung realized nobody is catching up in the nand market and decided to push consumer, high end and mainstream enterprise a notch down to TLC.
So now that MLC is only a "high end enterprise" thing in their portfolio, they decided to pimp it up with a new moniker - z-nand. Alas, it is just good old MLC with a barely incremental controller. And claim that it has anything to do with SLC performance - which it does as much as an a race horse harness makes an old donkey faster.
They REALLY aren't trying.
mapesdhs - Monday, December 18, 2017 - link
Do you have a link to Intel's original PR articlea about this tech? Other people keep saying you're wrong, but if there is indeed a piece of Intel PR that at least implied an initial launch would provide the sort of speed gains you mention, then you absolutely have a point.jospoortvliet - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link
I have no link, but as pointed out below, there is a fight with a strawman going on here. Intel certainly talked about 1000x improvement in latency of flash vs Optane - at that point they are talking about time it takes for a single flash cell vs an Optane cell. As Flash can only write to a block or more, it is far far slower, optane can address a single cell directly. And sure, that might very well be 1000x faster in theory - and even already in this very first Optane SSD.But, just like if you make one component (eg a piston) in a car engine 1000x faster the entire car won't drive 1000x faster - the other components also contribute to speed, as do external factors like, you know, wind, asphalt... So the car gets 10% faster as a whole. You see the same here: even if that one part is 1000x faster, flash controllers use a ram cache and splitting data over a dozen channels to overcome the inherent limitation of flash while the NVME protocol and PCIExpress puts limits at latency improvements, so the end result is that the Optane PCIE devices are occasionally >10x faster than SSD's but generally a factor 3-5.
Of course, if you put them in a DDR4 slot, they'll be unleashed a bit more and would beat a DDR4 SSD solution probably by a factor 30-50 in most cases with peaks of 100x. Still not 1000 and it'll never be...
So, in short, even if Intel is 100% correct and an individual cell responds 1000x faster, its response has to be mediated by the controller, go over a data bus etc etc. so you'll never measure it like that.
jospoortvliet - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link
And of course Intel just screams '1000x faster response time' without very clearly identifying they're talking about a theoretical maximum. Well, it is marketing. You take the best looking numbers that are defensible and use them.eddman - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link
No, intel claimed it for 3D xpoint, NOT optane. Xpoint is the name of the tech, optane is the storage devices based on the tech.Kidster3001 - Wednesday, January 3, 2018 - link
Intel never claimed Optane to be 1000x faster than anything. The 1000x faster was in reference to 3D-XPoint. XPoint = the memory cells; Optane = the SSD product line. Two completely different things.ddrіver - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
I'm not myself when I drink.farazgomot - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
I fully agree, why almost everybody is caustic to ddriver when he correctly is critic to only the marketing hype , not that the product is in any way bad ( except for the high price/ capacity)lmcd - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
He's arguing semantics when ridiculous performance claims are an industry norm. He's argued those semantics for 5 straight articles, and arguing with literally every comment he can find this very point. It's in the ballpark of 100 belligerent comments on 5 articles, which frankly is far closer to "caustic" than our collective treatment. It's fine if he states his opinion, but we're tired of being screamed at.Reflex - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
The problem with ddriver is that he is arguing against a strawman that was built up in his own mind. Optane was never promised to produce products that could deliver 1000x performance boosts in the first generation. PCM is itself as much as 1000x faster than traditional NAND for many operations while being orders of magnitude more durable.However the fact that you are using Optane/PCM does not in some way fix the fact that controllers aren't capable of that kind of performance yet, that PCIe bandwidth is way behind that level, that system memory, chipsets and CPU's couldn't keep up with that, that the software stack is not optimized for that, etc etc.
Intel delivered, mostly on time and for a cheaper price than is typical for a first gen of a new technology. Since they have previously stated what the performance capabilities of Optane/PCM are, the focus now will be on other aspects of the platform in order to enable that capability. This removes a major performance roadblock as they move towards an optical bus and optical chips, and ensures that system storage is not the long pole.
I'm fairly excited, its been ten years since any major change in storage has occurred and now it is finally here. And its reasonably priced for what it delivers from the get go.