2x-10x better when they claimed 1000x isn't "just that good". ESPECIALLY not when the write endurance is so abysmal.
The fact they don't come out and say, in the review, the hardware was furnished by Intel, and instead you have to actively search out the link you just provided, in and of itself is troubling. It's common courtesy and pretty much industry standard practice to list conflicts of interest at the start or end of an article like the one posted...
Hi tw04 - just as a heads up, none of the SSDs were furnished by Intel. We have a budget and bought all of the drives we used on this test. Some we had to buy second hand, some were scavenged from servers we have had to decommission.
Unlike virtually every other major review site (and a large number of bloggers), as of today we still do not have direct ad sales to any of these companies.
We also buy an absolute ton of gear for the DemoEval service we run which is why we have access to many different bits. For example, we have purchased a dozen Optane 900p's already since Intel would not furnish us with a U.2 drive.
Intel does not want to have the 900p eat into the P4800X which is a higher margin product. As a result, this is the kind of article (Optane 900p in servers) that Intel specifically would not want us to do. Since we buy hardware, we can.
> Intel does not want to have the 900p eat into the P4800X which is a higher margin product. As a result, this is the kind of article (Optane 900p in servers) that Intel specifically would not want us to do. Since we buy hardware, we can.
Intel has not to my knowledge actively discouraged or tried to prevent anyone from reviewing the 900p in an enterprise context. They haven't expressed any negative opinion about me including the 900p in my review of the P4800X, even though they provided hardware for both.
I agree that they probably don't want the 900p to hurt the sales of the P4800X, but I don't think they're particularly concerned about that happening. Most potential P4800X customers aren't going to go to the trouble of buying and installing large quantities of 900ps instead.
>Intel does not want to have the 900p eat into the P4800X which is a higher margin product. As a result, this is the kind of article (Optane 900p in servers) that Intel specifically would not want us to do. Since we buy hardware, we can.
That's such a cop out and an inaccurate statement. In the article you make it pretty explicit that the 900p is unfit for production workloads (which I agree with). In what world is someone going to use a device that will lose data on power loss for their write cache?? I don't think Intel is the least bit concerned. You then go on to say the 4800 is a better fit, yet you don't show any performance numbers for it because "You will notice that we do not have P4800X results. We had good results, but off of where we would expect" - so you didn't post them??? I'm sorry, that reeks of you being TOLD not to post them by Intel or your "anonymous benchmark requester" - otherwise you would've posted the numbers with the note that you think they seem off. Leaving them out entirely with no explanation as to why is extremely questionable.
please stop trolling, the author purchased the disk immediate after the release. multiple disks were purchased from newegg, it is recorded publicly here:
"Just ordered another. Sold by newegg. Limit 1 now."
the write endurance is much better than NAND products in the market. try to compare with Inte's previous generation or the current generation from SAMSUNG.
Get a real life and learn how to grow up, stop spreading completely false info. Internet is not built for you to troll.
I think you're tricking yourself into a wrong conclusion. What was promised doesn't matter (to a customer); all that matters is the price and performance.
Ignoring the difference between 3D XPoint memory and Optane-branded products based on that memory is a good way to reach bad conclusions.
But even accounting for that, Intel's definitely not hitting their goals for endurance yet, and the density goal is the only one they clearly have come close to. We won't be able to judge performance until there are 3D XPoint NVDIMMs that get the PCIe bus out of the way.
The fact they don't come out and say, in the review, the hardware was furnished by Intel, and instead you have to actively search out the link you just provided, in and of itself is troubling. It's common courtesy and pretty much industry standard practice to list conflicts of interest at the start or end of an article like the one posted...