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
Notmyusualid - Sunday, December 17, 2017 - link
So, when you are at gun point, in a corner, you finally concede defeat?I think you need professional help.
tuxRoller - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
If you are staying with a single thread submission model Windows may we'll have a decent sized advantage with both iocp and rio. Linux kernel aio is just such a crap shoot that it's really only useful if you run big databases and you set it up properly.IntelUser2000 - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
"Lower power consumption will require serious performance compromises.Don't hold your breath for a M.2 version of the 900p, or anything with performance close to the 900p. Future Optane products will require different controllers in order to offer significantly different performance characteristics"
Not necessarily. Optane Memory devices show the random performance is on par with the 900P. It's the sequential throughput that limits top-end performance.
While its plausible the load power consumption might be impacted by performance, not always true for idle. The power consumption in idle can be cut significantly(to 10's of mW levels) by using a new controller. It's reasonable to assume the 900P uses the controller derived from the 750, which is also power hungry.
p1esk - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
Wait, I don't get it: the operation is much simpler than flash (no garbage collection, no caching, etc), so the controller should be simpler. Then why does it consume more power?IntelUser2000 - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
You are still confusing load power consumption with idle power consumption. What you said makes sense for load, when its active. Not for idle.Optane Memory devices having 1/3rd the idle power demonstrates its due to the controller. They likely wanted something with short TTM, so they chose whatever controller they had and retrofitted it.
rahvin - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
Optane's very nature as a heat based phase change material is always going to result in higher power use than NAND because it's always going to take more energy to heat a material up than it would to create a magnetic or electric field.tuxRoller - Saturday, December 16, 2017 - link
That same nature also means that it will require less energy per reset as the process node shrinks (roughly e~1/F).In general, pcm is a much more amenable to process scaling than nand.
CheapSushi - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
Keep in mind a big part of the sequential throughput limit is the fact that the Optane M.2s are x2 PCIe lanes. This AIC is x4. Most NAND M.2 sticks are x4 as well.twotwotwo - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
I'm curious whether it's possible to get more IOPS doing random 512B reads, since that's the sector size this advertises.When the description of the memory tech itself came out, bit addressability--not having to read any minimum block size--was a selling point. But it may be that the controller isn't actually capable of reading any more 512B blocks/s than 4KB ones, even if the memory and the bus could handle it.
I don't think any additional IOPS you get from smaller reads would help most existing apps, but if you were, say, writing a database you wanted to run well on this stuff, it'd be interesting to know that small reads help.
tuxRoller - Friday, December 15, 2017 - link
Those latencies seem pretty high. Was this with Linux or Windows? The table on page one indicates both were used.Can you run a few of these tests against a loop mounted ram block device? I'm curious to see what both the min, average and standard deviation values of latency look like when the block layer is involved.