Introduction, Specifications and Packaging
A LARGER consumer 3D XPoint SSD!
Introduction:
Over the past couple of days, we saw some rumors and e-tailer appearances of the Intel SSD 905P. Essentially an incremental upgrade to the 900P, with a few notable differences. Specs see a slight bump across the board, as do capacities, but the most striking difference is Intel’s apparent choice to move forward with the blue-LED enabled design seen in a press deck slide that began circulating last year:
That upper right design seemed pretty cool at the time, and I never thought we would see it materialize, but less than 24 hours ago this arrived at the office:
Note: The color is user adjustable – we just don't have the software for it yet.
*edit* colors are configurable via command line, using the most recent SSD toolbox app. The possible colors are limited (literally red/green/blue/off – that's it), but I've confirmed that the setting does persist after reboot / power cycling / changing systems. This is a welcome change over other RGB-enabled components that require software to always be installed to control (or even turn off) lighting. Here's a look at the other two colors:
*end edit*
Well now that it’s here, let’s see what it can do!
Specifications:
The 905P lineup ratchets up the capacities previously available with the 900P. The add-in card (HHHL) form factor gets a bump up to a sole 960GB part, while the U.2 2.5” form factor moves up to 480GB (it was previously only available in the 280GB capacity for the 900P). Performance specs are a slight nudge higher than the 900P. Random reads moves from 550k to 575k, writes from 500k to 550k, sequential reads from 2.5 to 2.6GB/s, and writes from 2.0 to 2.2GB/s. Operating temp range upper limit moved from 70C to 85C.
Packaging:
The same premium packaging seen with the 900P with the exception of the Star Citizen branding present on that model (seen here). I confirmed with Intel that while the 900P is still shipping with a Star Citizen license, while the 905P does not. Seems odd given the 905P is a more premium product/capacity, but I digress (for now – more on that when we look at pricing).
| Review Terms and Disclosure All Information as of the Date of Publication |
|
|---|---|
| How product was obtained: | The product is on loan from Intel for the purpose of this review. |
| What happens to product after review: | The product remains the property of Intel but is on extended loan for future testing and product comparisons. |
| Company involvement: | Intel had no control over the content of the review and was not consulted prior to publication. |
| PC Perspective Compensation: | Neither PC Perspective nor any of its staff was paid or compensated in any way by Intel for this review. |
| Advertising Disclosure: | Intel has not purchased advertising at PC Perspective during the past twelve months. |
| Affiliate links: | This article contains affiliate links to online retailers. PC Perspective may receive compensation for purchases through those links. |
| Consulting Disclosure: | Intel is not a current client of Shrout Research for products or services related to this review. |
Intel really needs to rethink
Intel really needs to rethink Optane for desktop. Quite a bit of schizophrenia approach on marketing of this product to consumers.
I have to disagree, if only
I have to disagree, if only because Intel did make a prior decision to limit its M.2 Optane SSDs to x2 PCIe 3.0 lanes. However, I believe I saw very recent reports that the newer M.2 Optane controller is smaller and also uses x4 PCIe 3.0 lanes. See, for example, Intel’s “enterprise” M.2 Optanes, photographs of which have already started appearing on the Internet. As such, it’s only a matter of time before future Intel M.2 Optanes come with larger capacities that are more compatible with desktop designs. Also, keep your eye on upcoming 2.5″ U.2 Optane SSDs, because they will integrate quite naturally into the 2.5″ bays available in billions of PC chassis. On that point, I was also very happy to see that Icy Dock is now manufacturing a 5.25″ enclosure that houses 4 x 2.5″ NVMe SSDs: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817994219&Tpk=N82E16817994219
https://www.tomshardware.com/
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/highpoint-ssd7120-raid,5509.html
“The performance with our four-drive Optane 900P array is spectacular: the array achieved over 11,000 MB/s at a queue depth (QD) of 16. At QD8, we measured sequential read performance at just over 8,000 MB/s.”
Photos of Enterprise M.2
Photos of Enterprise M.2 Optane SSDs are here:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12562/intel-previews-optane-enterprise-m2-ssd
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/12562/imgp0710_678x452.jpg
ahahahahahahah
LEDs before
ahahahahahahah
LEDs before SPECs.
I bet this is marketed towards gaming intel consumers on sudoku watch. Which month of this year is this getting obsolete?
The LEDs are admittedly a bit
The LEDs are admittedly a bit silly, but this does remain the highest performing (all but sequential) and highest endurance client SSD available.
I’ll wait until 960gb
I’ll wait until 960gb capacity is under $1000 used AND is in 2.5in form factor. So I’ll be waiting a while.
2.5in form factor for Optane?
2.5in form factor for Optane? You mean with slow-ass SATA or non-existent U.2?
U.2 on desktop is a bit of an
U.2 on desktop is a bit of an issue without cases that offer direct airflow across the bottom of the SSD (heatsink area). Drives that draw >10W in U.2 form factor will cook when left in stagnant air. That's if you even have the U.2 port in the first place. If not then you have to get creative with adapters…
Well regarding the connector,
Well regarding the connector, it’s pretty straightforward…either 8639 -> 8643, or 8639 -> 8643 -> M.2.
I can’t really think of a platform on which NVMe would be reasonable which doesn’t have at least an M.2 slot.
can we have some real world
can we have some real world testing please?
e.g. app loading, Windows boot times
Spoiler: it will be really
Spoiler: it will be really fast, but will only “feel snappier”.
You’re at the point of
You're at the point of diminishing returns over a 970 / 960 in boot times and most applications loads (see the mixed burst read service time results for that).
According to 900P owner forum
According to 900P owner forum posts, it makes things like Regedit search or loading icons instant, and in those regards is a visible improvement over high-end NVMe NAND SSDs.
On the other hand, I have no idea how one would benchmark that beyond the classic 4k random QD1/QD2.
4K random read at low QD is
4K random read at low QD is exactly how you test for that, and the Optane parts crush those particular tests. It's just that most typical software hasn't caught up to the potential just yet.
gave up thinking that these
gave up thinking that these ultra fast drives, including the 970 and 960 pro and evos, are worth all that extra cash when i was able to buy the micron 2TB ssd with endurance of 400TB for $318, .159/GB on amazon
i doubt i will notice the difference
here is the link for the pragmatic or poor or both:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LB05YOO/?coliid=I122MGZXIHO222&colid=TB86CXPXW1HK&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
hope this helps some of you
It was even on sale for $270
It was even on sale for $270 the other day (USA only Rakuten seller).
I have it, and on my ancient board it reaches pretty low 4K QD1/QD2 scores, maybe half of what a modern NVMe SSD would do on a modern board.
maybe you are constrained by
maybe you are constrained by sata 2 given you have an old mobo?
that $270 is an insane price
the drive is bare bones, but i have read good things about it to date, and the endurance is solid
I do have SATA3, just not
I do have SATA3, just not native.
If you check userbenchmark.com, the best 4K random read anyone got on the Micron 1100 is 26 MB/s (with an average of 20 MB/s). The average for a modern NVMe drive is 50 MB/s, while a 850 Evo manages 38 MB/s average. So it’s a good drive for the price, but the competition is 50-100% faster where it matters.
Why did you only measure
Why did you only measure “burst” rates and not sustained random I/O? I bet the 905p would smoke the 970 in those cases. Especially if they are close to full.
This review seems very biased.
Well, if you care to read the
Well, if you care to read the performance focus page, you'll note that sustained *and* burst results are present, and for Optane SSDs (and non-caching NAND SSDs), the lines overlap, meaning sustained and burst performance are the same. Also, real client usage is not sustained. Does that give SLC caching NAND SSDs an advantage? Yes, but only compared with reviews that don't use realistic workloads, artificially *disadvantaging* those caching SSDs (sustained IO is not a realistic workload). We also don't test at the crazy high QD's that SSDs are typically rated at. Same reason.
Also, there's a whole page of this review dedicated to explaining why we test the way we do.
So basically you admit that
So basically you admit that you tested this drive in a way that it wasn’t designed for. Intel’s own material says it’s meant for “high endurance” workloads. Tom’s Hardware says “Intel bills the 905P as a workstation product designed to accelerate extended workloads.”
burst workloads do not represent this use case, regardless of how “realistic” they are for the average consumer.
It’s a high-end
It's a high-end gamer-oriented SSD. With LEDs. The 900P (essentially the same product) ships with a free license to a game in the box. Intel's own documentation states it is for "desktop or client workstations". Additionally, workstation workloads operate at similar QD's to desktop, the difference being that workstations see those workloads at a higher frequency / for greater TBW, etc, and they do not see sustained operation at high QD's. Finally, with the burst and sustained results being equal, your assertion that I am testing it in a way it is not designed for is irrelevant (aside from also being false).
Allyn’s expert focus on
Allyn’s expert focus on latency needs to be appreciated together with the raw bandwidth that becomes available by using x16 PCIe slots, as opposed to connecting downstream of Intel’s DMI 3.0 link.
From a research point of view, the availability of “bifurcated” x16 slots has now made possible options like the ASRock Ultra Quad M.2 card installed in an AMD Threadripper motherboard (and AICs like it).
(Hey, gals and guys, no need to “dangle the dongle”!)
Similar quad-M.2 add-in cards come withOUT an integrated RAID controller, because the RAID logic is performed directly by an available CPU core.
As such, designers can now choose to populate these add-in cards with M.2 SSDs and/or M.2-to-U.2 adapter cables.
So, picture this feasible setup: 4 x Samsung 970 EVO SSDs installed in an ASRock Ultra Quad M.2 AIC that is plugged into an x16 slot on the ASRock X399M micro-ATX motherboard.
Then, install 2 x Samsung 970 Pro SSDs in two of the three M.2 slots integrated on that same motherboard.
Lastly, sacrifice the third integrated M.2 slot by choosing instead a U.2 cable that connects directly to a U.2 Optane SSD.
If I had the money, I would be buying the required parts tomorrow. Alternatively, I would be shipping some of those parts directly to Allyn, so he could do his expert testing with other parts he already has in his lab.
The really good news is that ASRock Tech Support replied very promptly to my email request for the steps required to configure a RAID-0 array, using their Ultra Quad M.2 card and their X399M motherboard. I immediately forwarded ASRock’s detailed instructions to Allyn.
Lastly, put all of the above in the visible future context of PCIe 4.0, which ups the transmission clock to 16 GHz.
What is truly amazing to me, about these recent developments, is that mass storage is now very close to performing at raw speeds comparable to DDR3 and DDR4 DRAM, and withOUT the volatility that comes with DRAM.
You never only gain
You never only gain performance with RAID, so whether it makes any sense at all relies on the workload.
Why M.2 => U.2 => Optane instead of just PCIe HHHL-ing it in?
Here’s one possible
Here’s one possible answer:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/highpoint-ssd7120-raid,5509.html
Almost 20 watts and that
Almost 20 watts and that price.
gold award my azz,lol
NOW, i understand why that PCPerGoldPNG-300.png is looking
more Brownish than gold , Round rim , its has a light tongue.
are this s(h)ite giving gold awards to any mofo company
who approve of your existense.
If you care about 20W for a
If you care about 20W for a high-end SSD in a desktop chassis then this product is not for you. High-end GPUs idle at the same power draw that this SSD consumes fully loaded. Also, we dropped it down to gold specifically due to the price and called it out for that in the article multiple times. Maybe read some of those words instead of being so fixated on the award pictures, mmmk?
I would like to come to
I would like to come to Allyn’s defense, using my own use case as an example:
First of all, we have really enjoyed the prolonged productivity we have experienced by loading our 14GB website image into a ramdisk. Simple tasks like browsing and indexing are noticeably faster, and they cause no wear on quality DRAM that has a lifetime warranty (we use a Corsair matched quad that cost >$700 brand new).
Here’s the rub: the ramdisk software that we chose comes with a feature that SAVES and RESTORES the ramdisk contents during shutdown and startup. As our ramdisk has grown, both the SAVE and RESTORE tasks have naturally required more and more time to complete. This would not be a big deal, except for those days when we are required to RESTART, for one reason or another.
Accordingly, any routine RESTART must first SAVE the ramdisk’s contents (as enabled), then the same routine RESTART must then RESTORE the ramdisk’s contents from non-volatile storage. Thus, that reading and writing take place TWICE during every routine RESTART.
(Yes, I am aware that we can always disable that ramdisk, to accelerate RESTARTS; but then, re-loading the ramdisk takes a whole lot longer, using that approach.)
The non-volatile storage which SAVEs our ramdisk is reading about 1,900 MB/second. By switching to 4 x Samsung 970 EVO in RAID-0, the same task should be reading about 10,000 MB/second, or FIVE TIMES the speed of our current (aging) workstation. Similarly, 32GB of new DDR4-3200 should read about FOUR TIMES faster than the 16GB of DDR2-800 now in that aging workstation.
(Hey, gals and guys, I am TOTALLY aware that our DDR2-800 is obsolete, but that workstation continues to function perfectly, so why fix what ain’t broke? 🙂 As soon as I can afford the large incremental cost, I’ll be building a brand new Threadripper workstation.
Hope this helps.
Just make sure to have an
Just make sure to have an offsite (incremental) backup too 😀
With 4x RAID-0 you bump the data loss risk up quite a bit.
Otherwise seems sound. Depending on whether you even need that much CPU performance and that many lanes, a consumer Intel chipset (you don’t seem to seek ECC?) with integrated graphics could also host a ton of NVMes via its PCIe slots. The i5 8400 is a fraction of the cost of a Threadripper.
As for synchronising the RAM disk to HDD, periodic use of a tool like https://www.nongnu.org/rdiff-backup/ is also an option.
Thanks!
Historically
Thanks!
Historically speaking, we have had almost zero problems
with several RAID-0 arrays built with 4 x 6G SSDs:
to date, we prefer Samsung and SanDisk wired to an
inexpensive add-in card.
To synchronize our ramdisk with our non-volatile storage,
we use a simple XCOPY sequence:
xcopy E:folder R:folder /s/e/v/d
xcopy R:folder E:folder /s/e/v/d
That does the job (if you don’t mind Command Prompt).
Then, we backup E:folder with another batch file
that copies updates over a LAN to older PCs.
Those older PCs act as storage servers that we power up
long enough to perform that task, then power them down.
Those storage servers are also an informal experiment
to measure just how long an obsolete PC will work,
with proper care, maintenance and UPS input power.
p.s. I don’t usually need much of the discussion about
“random” and “sequential” workloads, for our purposes,
because routine tasks like updating a COPERNIC index
involve both modes of access. For that reason, we prefer
to have both kinds of storage, so that sequential tasks
like drive images can be done with fast sequential drives,
and random tasks can be done with fast random drives.
Our ramdisk software from http://www.superspeed.com has been
absolutely fantastic — the effects on productivity
have been huge. Plus, all that computing using DRAM
has reduced wear on our other storage subsystems:
http://supremelaw.org/patents/SDC/RamDiskPlus.Review.pdf
Ha ha ha Threadripper for a
Ha ha ha Threadripper for a workstation is a joke compared to Epyc/Sp3! Really gamers do not get it about what real workstations are all about and its not about some damn game running some crappy gaming graphics at some stupid FPS. professional Graphics Workstation user whant stability for their many hours long graphics rendering workloads and that’s different from consumer/gaming SKUs like TR/X399 MB that are not really tested/certified and vetted for ECC Memory Usage.
Epyc is a Real server/workstation grade CPU/MB ecosystem and Threadripper dos not make the grade for real production workstation workloads.
Stop that madness all you enthusiasts websites with your affiliate code kickback schemes with the consumer marketing divisions of these companies. Trying to foist non Workstation grade hardware for the extra revenues ant the expense of the truth. Epyc is AMD’s real server/workstation grade brandng and not any consumer Threadripper/Ryzen non professionally certified/tested and vetted for system stability and error free memory usage. Epyc is the better TRUE workstation price/feature winner against Intel and Against any other consumer/AMD gaming oriented hardware that does nt make the grade for actually professional workstation production workloads.
Threadripper even mintioned in the same article as Workstation is the very epitome of disingenuousness!
Real professionals use real Workstation hardware an AMD’s Epyc SKUs are more affordable than Intel’s Xeon and the better price/feature deal even compared to Threadripper.
AMD’s not Intel so AMD’s Real Epyc Workstation/Server Branded parts are so affordable that users are not forced to play at being professional and only able to afford Intel’s non workstation grade consumer trash!
You sound mentally unstable. Seriously. You should seek professional help.
If anyone is interested,
If anyone is interested, ASRock replied to our query with simple instructions for doing a fresh install of Windows 10 to an ASRock Ultra Quad M.2 card installed in an AMD X399 motherboard. We uploaded that .pdf file to the Internet here:
http://supremelaw.org/systems/asrock/X399/
FYI: comments on ASRock Ultra
FYI: comments on ASRock Ultra Quad M.2 AIC:
https://forums.servethehome.com/index.php?threads/quad-m-2-pcie-x16-nvme-raid0-adapter-by-asrock.18949/#post-189568
Reportedly, Intel’s Enterprise M.2 Optane uses x4 PCIe lanes:
https://www.servethehome.com/new-intel-data-center-optane-m-2-ocp-summit-2018/
“From talking to some of our hyper-scale data center contacts, we expect this new Optane m.2 drive to be PCIe x4 and significantly faster than the desktop drives. Perhaps given the DC P4510 and P4511 naming convention this will become the Intel DC P4801X or a new class of drives like a P4601X.
“Still, the continual march of the m.2 form factor in servers, even in the dense OCP server platforms, is ongoing. It is great to see that a proper Intel Optane DC drive is coming to the m.2 slot.”