Intel Optane SSD DC P4800X 750GB Hands-On Review
by Billy Tallis on November 9, 2017 12:00 PM ESTConclusion
There aren't really any surprises to this review. As promised, the Intel Optane SSD DC P4800X 750GB performs about the same as the 375GB model we tested earlier this year, which puts it far above the flash-based competition. The doubling of the drive's capacity has brought it up to a far more usable level where it can more easily be regarded as either an expansion of memory or as a reasonably large storage device that is extremely fast.
The Optane SSD DC P4800X is not a one size fits all enterprise SSD, but for certain use cases it has almost no competition. SSDs using SLC NAND once offered latency close to the Optane SSD, but their high prices made them a niche product that most manufacturers decided wasn't viable. 3D XPoint memory is significantly more expensive than current 3D MLC and 3D TLC NAND flash memory, but the low latency and high performance consistency it enables have a place in today's enterprise SSD market.
Testing the ostensibly consumer-oriented Optane SSD 900p in the context of enterprise storage reveals the 900p to be just as competent in the performance department. There are several enterprise-class features missing from the 900p, most notably support for different sector sizes with protection metadata. Support for out of band management and is more of a convenience than a necessity except in large scale cloud hosting deployments. The missing enterprise features are not a showstopper for every enterprise customer. Otherwise, the 900p is roughly the P4800X in different capacities with a lower write endurance rating and a proportionally lower price. The 900p is essentially an entry-level Optane enterprise SSD, with a value proposition that is at least as attractive as the Optane P4800X.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
58 Comments
View All Comments
"Bullwinkle J Moose" - Thursday, November 9, 2017 - link
Humor me.....How fast can you copy and paste a 100GB file from and to the same Optane SSD
I don't believe your mixed mode results adequately demonstrate the internal throughput
At least not until you demonstrate a direct comparison
Billy Tallis - Thursday, November 9, 2017 - link
Your concept of "internal throughput" has no basis in reality. File copies (on a filesystem that does not do copy-on-write) require the file data to be read from the SSD into system DRAM, then written back to the SSD. There are no "copy" commands in the NVMe command set."Bullwinkle J Moose" - Thursday, November 9, 2017 - link
"There are no "copy" commands in the NVMe command set."---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That might be fixed with a few more onboard processors in the future but does not answer my question
How fast can you copy/paste 100GB on THAT specific drive?
"Bullwinkle J Moose" - Thursday, November 9, 2017 - link
Better yet, I'd like you to GUESS how fast it can copy and paste based on your mixed mode analysis and then go measure itLord of the Bored - Friday, November 10, 2017 - link
How will a new processor change that there is no way to tell the drive to do what you want? We don't trust storage devices to "do what I mean", because the cost of a mistake is too high. No device anyone should be using will say "it looks like they're writing back the data they just read in, I'mma ignore the input and duplicate it from the cache to save time." Especially since they can't know if the data is changed in advance.Barring a new interface standard, it will take exactly as long to copy a file to another location on the same drive as it will to read the file and then write the file, because that is the only provision within the NVMe command set.
"Bullwinkle J Moose" - Thursday, November 9, 2017 - link
What would happen if Intel Colludes with AMD to implement this technology into onboard graphics instead of AMD's plan to use Flash in their graphics cards ?Seems to me like Internal throughput would be very important to the design
Samus - Thursday, November 9, 2017 - link
That is also file system dependent. For example, in Mac OS High Sierra, you can copy and paste (duplicate) any size file instantly on any drive formatted with APFS.But your question of a block by block transfer of a file internally for a 100GB file would likely take 50 seconds if not factoring in file system efficiency.
cygnus1 - Thursday, November 9, 2017 - link
That's not a copy of the file though. It's just a duplicate file entry referencing the same blocks. That and things like snapshots are possible thanks to the copy on write nature of that file system. But, if any of those blocks were to become corrupted, both 'copies' of the file are corrupt."Bullwinkle J Moose" - Thursday, November 9, 2017 - link
Good call SamusI noticed that the Windows Fall Crappier Edition takes MUCH longer to copy/move/paste in several tests than the earlier versions of "Spyware Platform 10"
as well as gives me a "Format Disk Now?" Prompt after formatting a new disk with Disk Manager
as well as making a zero byte backup with Acronis 2015 (Possible anomaly, Will test again)
as well as breaking compatibility with several programs that worked in earlier versions
as well as asking permission to do anything with my files and then often failing to do it
as well as, well.....you get the idea, they fix one thing and break 5 more
Disclaimer:
I do NOT believe that xpoint could be used in its current form for onboard graphics!
But I'd like to know that the numbers you are getting at AnandTech match your/my expectations and if not, why not?
Sorry if I'm sounding like an AHole but I'd like to know what this drive can really do, and then what Microsoft graciously allows it to do ?
make sense?
PeachNCream - Friday, November 10, 2017 - link
It doesn't make sense to even care what a client OS would do with this drive. It's enterprise hardware and is priced/positioned accordingly. Instead of the P4800X, check out the consumer 900p version of Octane instead. It's a lot more likely that model will end up sitting in a consumer PC or an office workstation.