AnandTech 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.

ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

As with The Destroyer, the average data rate of the Intel Optane SSD 800p puts it near the top of the rankings, but behind the fastest flash-based SSDs and the Optane 900p. Intel's VROC again adds overhead that isn't worthwhile without the high queue depths of synthetic benchmarks.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latencies of the Optane SSD 800p on the Heavy test are better than any of the low-end NVMe SSDs, but it is only in RAID that the latency drops down to the level of the best flash-based SSDs and the 900p.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (Average Write Latency)

The average read latency of the Optane SSD 800p ranks second behind the 900p. VROC adds enough overhead that the RAID configurations end up having slightly higher average read latencies than the Samsung 960 PRO. For the average write latencies, VROC is far more useful, and helps the 800p make up for the lack of a write cache.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read and write latencies of the 800p RAID configurations are on par with the 900p, but the individual drives have slightly worse QoS than the Samsung 960 PRO.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

The 800p again leads in energy usage thanks to its high overall performance without the high baseline power consumption of the 900p. The budget NVMe SSDs all use at least twice as much energy over the course of the test, and the Samsung 960 PRO is closer to the budget drives than to the 800p.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Comments Locked

116 Comments

View All Comments

  • beginner99 - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link

    Exactly. Anything below 240GB is not a workable solution nowadays. I remember my first intel g2 80GB. constant micro-managing where to put files and which app gets to be on the ssd and which not. Or for my parents I back then got them a 64 gb drive. When the win 10 update came it was not possible to update because updating windows 7 to 10 requires more than 64gb.
  • Calin - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link

    I do use a 120GB SSD on my desktop, and it works good enough with a 2TB hard drive. I even use a 90% partition, as early SSDs had performance problems when close to full.
  • sharath.naik - Thursday, March 8, 2018 - link

    was rapid mode tried on Samsung drives?. not sure with a large enough ram the difference in random performance would matter that much.
  • Billy Tallis - Thursday, March 8, 2018 - link

    Half the test suite is run on Linux, so Rapid Mode isn't an option. And in general, I don't approve of third-party software that second-guesses the decisions made by core parts of the OS like the virtual memory system—especially not when those tools put user data at risk without being absolutely clear about what they're really doing.
  • eddieobscurant - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link

    Billy , do you have any news on micron's QuantX ?
  • Dragonstongue - Thursday, March 8, 2018 - link

    Intel and Micron (IM) joint venture, Intel "branded" as Optane either way is 3D XPoint..far as I understood Micron decided to "drop it" so is Intel going about it all on their own, was Unity Semiconductors who was bought out by Rambus 2012, that likely not a good thing either (they) RB seem more prevalent to sue people vs making a tangible product everyone wants (IMO)

    the above 3d x, optane whatever seems like another thing that "on paper" seems like would be a decent thing, but, the price factor puts it into a "there are better options available" that offer similar performance or at the very least substantially better $/gb value.

    I think that is what Micron was seeing, no real way to get the "value" out of it without charging too high a price to make it market worthwhile for them and consumer, Intel is their own fish and they always (again IMO) charge substantial price for a "do we really need this" type product (like Nvidia) cut corners or cut down performance that could have been, but still want top dollar, and "next year" come out with a more full fat version (that should have been the previous year) and want more $ for the "upgrade" planned obsolescence/upgrade path.

    for a loose example, Samsung 950 EVO M.2 250gb (pro faster but ofc more pricey)
    I see available for ~$160 CAD
    read/write 3200/1900
    QD1 Thread
    Random Read: 14,000 IOPS
    Random Write: 50,000 IOPS
    QD32 Thread
    Random Read: 380,000 IOPS
    Random Write: 360,000 IOPS

    their "power draw" and latency do not seem to be praiseworth either, so it still leads me to the same question "why bother"...also, I really wish M.2 drives were maybe a toned down speed version so it could be "less expensive" here I thought that by going smaller and smaller node and going from SLC to MLC to 3d etc price would drop and drop while performance would go up and up, seems that the only real thing that has changed is the less on the "board" the further they crank the speed give smaller capacity and increase the price *facepalm*
  • Lolimaster - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link

    10x less latency
    15x faster in QD1r
    4X faster in QD1w
  • Adramtech - Saturday, March 10, 2018 - link

    Micron has no plans to drop QuantX and are providing an update at their May tech conference.
  • shabby - Thursday, March 8, 2018 - link

    Leave it to intel to artificially cripple a product on purpose, who does this?
  • boeush - Thursday, March 8, 2018 - link

    Seems to me, if you really want supper-fast, low-latency high-endurance random read/write at low QD and capacities ~128GB for a lot of $$$, then just get a bunch of RAM and a UPS (to prevent data loss in case of power failure.). No SSD technology will ever beat good ol' RAM in terms of performance. In this case, for mass storage you just need fast sequential reads and writes so you can quickly map your filesystem to/from RAM on system startup/shutdown, respectively...

    In light of which, until Intel comes out with their next-gen Optane at 512 GB+ capacities in M.2 package, the current product feels like a solution on search of a problem

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now