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


View All Comments

  • 0ldman79 - Thursday, March 8, 2018 - link

    That is a pretty significant limitation.

    With SSD's a lot of us have small to mid sized SSD as a boot drive and practically everything else resides on a spinner.

    If Optane can't cache the secondary drive then it is of less use to me than even the Kaby Lake and above limitation. That means that even if I built a Kaby Lake or Coffee Lake I still won't get any benefit on the anything aside from the OS. My games are all installed on a mechanical drive.
  • Lolimaster - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link

    Crucial MX500 2TB $499

    If you're an avid GTAV player, the 118GB should be a nice thing for the game intall, also your pagefile and install/profile/cache of firefox/chrome.
  • TheWereCat - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link

    Micron 1100 2TB $370
  • Reflex - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link

    Yup, grabbed one of those a few weeks ago, its a great drive for that price.
  • hescominsoon - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link

    I run only a micro 1TB ssd in my machine for everything. I have a couple of friends who are into video editing and they use a spinning disk for temporary storage...but that's about it..:)
  • name99 - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link

    Any decent SSD that wants to boost itself with a cache can ALREADY do so by using some of the MLC or TLC flash as SLC. And thereby run faster than Optane. And without requiring a separate controller and a separate Optane die.

    Optane is not buying you anything in the sort of market you describe.
  • Gunbuster - Thursday, March 8, 2018 - link

    Capacity is still useless for any power user who would be shopping this.
  • iter - Thursday, March 8, 2018 - link

    It will be useful for pagefile spillover in case you have workloads that require more than the 32 or 64 gb of ram that most high end desktops come with.

    It will still massacre performance if you go paging, but it will be significantly better than nand, god forbid hdd.
  • jospoortvliet - Friday, March 9, 2018 - link

    That's an interesting use case, the first I read that seems reasonably useful... But it would still need more performance to really make it worth it, and even then only when you don't care about costs at all and your platform simply doesn't support more ram. I mean, as long as the system can handle another ram dimm, you'd go for that even with the insane prices atm...
  • iter - Saturday, March 10, 2018 - link

    The thing is many systems can't. 64 is currently a limit for high end, 128 for HEDT.

    It could get better by raiding more drives, but .... that's not an option on high end platforms due to the low PCIe lane count. You will have to give up on running a GPU if you want to snap in 4 of those drives.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now