Performance Comparisons – Client QD Weighted

These results attempt to simplify things by focusing on what really matters – the Queue Depths that folks actually see when using these products. A dimension is eliminated from the previous charts by applying a weighted average to those results. The weights were derived from trace recordings of moderate to heavy workloads, which still ended up running closer to QD=1-2 even on a slower SATA SSD. The intent here is to distill the results into something for those wanting 'just the facts' to grab and go when making their purchasing decisions. Don't be alarmed by the low figures. Remember, these are low queue depths – the place where these SSDs actually operate when in use by those not just running benchmarks all day!

Starting with reads (blue bars), Intel has one-upped themselves, with a new high score of just under 115k IOPS! Random writes also see a bump, letting Intel take the crown back from the Samsung 970 PRO.

Smaller bumps over the 900P in sequentials, and not nearly enough to win over the Samsung 970 PRO.

Here's the typical 'criss cross' pattern seen when we compare NAND with 3D XPoint. NAND gets an advantage in 100% writes since incoming data is buffered by the flash itself, but this tapers off quickly as more reads are introduced and the true NAND access speed is revealed. Optane only accelerates as you add in more reads.

« PreviousNext »