인텔은 12월 중순 동사의 Web 사이트를 갱신해 수수께끼의 새로운 코드 네임 "Whiskey Lake"(위스키레이크)을 밝혔다. 설명으로 "Client Notebook Platform Code Name"(클라이언트 노트북 플랫폼 코드 네임)이라고 쓰여 있을 뿐 그 이외의 설명은 없다.


OEM 업체 소식통의 정보에 따르면 이 Whiskey Lake는 Coffee Lake에 이어 등장하는 새로운 14nm 프로세스 세대의 4번째 코드 네임이며 10nm 프로세스의 제품이 본격적으로 태동하기 까지 중간 계투로 투입되는 제품이라는 것이다.


인텔의 10nm 프로세스에서 제조될 예정인 제품은 연기되어 내년(2018년) 중반에 Kaby Lake를 10nm 프로세스로 축소한 Cannon Lake가 Y 시리즈만 등장하고 새 아키텍처로 메인 스트림을 위해 10nm 프로세스 제품으로 등장하는 Ice Lake는 2019년 이후가 될 것이기에 그 10nm 기반 제품이 늦어지는 구멍을 메우는 것이 Whiskey Lake.


기본적으로 인텔의 CPU 마이크로 아키텍처는 Skylake 이후에는 모두 Skylake 기반 제품이 이어지고 있다. Kaby Lake는 Skylake의 최적화 버전으로 자리 매김하고 있어 기본적인 아키텍처는 Skylake와 같다. 그리고 그 Kaby Lake의 리프레시로 투입 된 Kaby Lake Refresh(KBL-R), Kaby Lake의 6코어 버전으로 투입된 Coffee Lake라는 8세대 Core로 투입된 2개의 제품도 모두 Skylake기반 제품이다.


OEM 업체 소식통의 정보에 따르면 Whiskey Lake는 14nm++로 제조되는 제품이다. CPU 아키텍처도 Skylake의 마이크로 아키텍처에서 4코어 제품이 U시리즈(TDP 15W)전용으로 투입 된다고 설명하고 있다. 즉, 현 시점에서 정보를 종합하면 KBL-R의 후계, 즉 "Kaby Lake Refresh Refresh"라는 입지에 상당히 가까운 듯한 표현이며 현 시점에서는 2018년 후반에 투입될 계획이다.


큰 변화는 PCH. 현재의 KBL-R의 PCH는 CPU 다이가 CPU 패키지에 동봉되어 1칩처럼 되어 있으나 물리적으로는 별개로 존재하고 있으며 Skylake로 도입된 22nm 프로세스에서 생산된 세대의 PCH다.


Whiskey Lake의 PCH는 14nm 에서 생산된 것으로 바뀌며 그에 따른 SoC 전체의 소비 전력 저감 등이 기대된다. 그런 Whiskey Lake는 어느 시장을 커버하는 것인가 하면 계획되고 있는 것은 U시리즈(TDP 15W)의 제품으로 현재의 노트 PC 시장에서 메인 볼륨을 차지하는 초박형 노트 PC를 커버하게 된다.


인텔의 원래 계획은 2018년 말에 10nm 프로세스에서 생산된 새 마이크로 아키텍처 제품인 Ice Lake(아이스레이크)를 투입할 계획이었다. Ice Lake는 S시리즈(데스크톱 컴퓨터, H시리즈(게이밍 노트북용, TDP45W), U프로세서(슬림 노트/메인 스트림용, TDP 15W), Y프로세서(2in1/태블릿 전용 TDP 4.5W)을 풀 커버하는 제품으로 특히 가장 볼륨 존이 되는 U시리즈는 Ice Lake의 투입을 기다려 현재의 KBL-R에서 이행할 계획이었다.


그러나 OEM 업체 소식통의 정보에 따르면 이 Ice Lake는 이미 2018년 인텔의 로드맵에서 사라지고 2019년 이후로 연기된 것 같다. 그 구멍을 메우는 제품으로 Whiskey Lake가 14nm 프로세스로 4번째 코드 네임으로 추가된 셈이다.


Ice Lake의 연기 원인으로 생각되는 것은 어떠한 설계 변경을 진행하고 있어 2019년으로 연기됐다는 말이 있다. 하지만 Cannon Lake의 U시리즈 제품도 로드맵에서 사라진 이상 2018년 중에 인텔의 10nm 프로세스로 제조된 제품이 볼륨 존에 투입될 가능성이 없어진 것은 확실하다.


인텔은 Ice Lake의 최적화 버전으로 Tiger Lake(타이거레이크)를 2019년에 계획하고 있었지만 그것과 2019년으로 연기된 Ice Lake에 대한 것은 현 시점에서 명확하지 않다.


출처 - https://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/column/ubiq/1099371.html

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널


중국의 반도체 메이커(UnilC)가 2018년에 자체 개발한 DDR4 메모리를 시장에 투입할 전망이다.


몇 일전 중국의 반도체 메이커가 DDR4 메모리 개발에 성공했다는 소식이 중국 내에서 흘러 투자자들이 그 진위여부를 확인했다. 이후 해당 메이커는 "DDR4 메모리는 현재 개발 단계로 계획대로 되면 내년(2018년)에 시장에 투입한다"고 공식적으로 밝혔다.


DRAM / NAND 등의 반도체를 연구/제조/개발하는 해당 메이커는 Qimonda가 2009년 4월 사업 회생 절차를 하면서 시안에 있던 개발 거점을 재생하여 2009년 5월에 설립된 회사로써 현재 SDR/DDR/DDR2/DDR3 등을 제조하고 있다.


중국 기업들의 본격적인 메모리 반도체 진출이 시작되고 있다.

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널


전 세계적으로 화제가 되고 있는 배틀 그라운드 게임을 통한 인텔 CPU와 AMD CPU의 성능 비교 벤치마크 입니다. 유튜브 채널 : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8iQa1hv7oV_Z8D35vVuSg



배틀 그라운드 게임에서 인텔과 AMD CPU를 울트라 퀄리티 / 미디엄 퀄리티 / 로우 퀄리티로 테스트한 벤치마크로써 결과는 인텔의 코어 i3 - 8100 모델이 AMD 라이젠 1800X와 비슷한 성능을 나타내며 하위 1700 - 1600 - 1500 - 1400 등 모든 제품을 압도하고 있습니다. 


벤치마크 원본은 아래 영상을 참조해 주시기 바랍니다.


출처 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOvwrGx5uas&t=335s



반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널


Dell EMC는 중견 기업용으로 PowerEdge VRTX 서버와 SDS 제품 Dell EMC IsilonSD Edge를 패키지한 미들 레인지 스토리지 NAS를 발표했다.


IsilonSD Edge는 스케일 아웃 스토리지로 알려진 Isilon의 소프트웨어 버전 제품으로 VMware vSphere 환경에서 가동된다. 이번 PowerEdge VRTX(3노드)와 VMware vSphere, IsilonSD Edge를 패키지화 하여 최대 36TB까지 확장 가능한 스케일 아웃 NAS로서 제공되며 vSphere 환경을 제공하여 다른 VM 애플리케이션과 혼재하는 것도 가능하다.

 

스케일 아웃이 가능한 IsilonSD를 도입함으로서 데이터 관리의 자동화 및 심플화를 스몰 스타트에서 실현할 수 있다는 것이며 데이터 보호 기능(백업/복구 비동기 리플리케이션, 로드 밸런싱 등)과 데이터 관리 기능(클라우드 대응 자동 계층화, 중복 제거, 신 프로비저닝 등)도 제공하여 신뢰성에 대한 과제도 해소하고 하고 있다.

 

제품은 2018년 1월부터 제공 시작.

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널


시스코 시스템즈가 기업 직원이 이용하는 iOS 디바이스를 보호하는 보안 앱으로 Cisco Security Connector를 발표했다. 시스코가 제공하는 보안 SaaS 솔루션 Cisco Umbrella / Cisco Clarity(엔드 포인트 Cisco AMP)와 연계하여 트래픽 정보 취득, 네트워크 액티비티 가시화 및 제어를 실현한다. 

 

Cisco Security Connector는 기업이 지급하는 iOS 11 디바이스용 보안 앱으로서 엔드 포인트 보호/검출/대응 도구인 Clarity / DNS 베이스의 보안 툴인 Umbrella와의 제휴에 의해 iOS 디바이스 및 앱에 따른 모든 트래픽에 상세한 가시성을 보여줌으로서 사고 조사시 발생한 사건이나 영향 범위, 리스크 영향도 등을 신속하게 파악할 수 있도록 지원하고, 위험한 인터넷 사이트 접속을 차단한다. (이용시 Clarity / Umbrella와의 사용 계약 필요)


시스코는 Security Connector 앱에 의해 직원의 모바일 경험에 악영향을 주지 않고, 사용자와 디바이스 양쪽의 컴플리언스 확보에 도움이 되는 동시에 위험한 인터넷 사이트 접속을 방어할 수 있다고 어필하고 있다.


시스코 시큐리티 커넥터 상세 - https://blogs.cisco.com/security/now-available-cisco-security-connector-for-ios



반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널


AMD가 최근 기자 회견에서 자사의 2세대 라이젠(Ryzen) 데스크탑 프로세서가 2018년 4월 이전에 첫 선을 보일 것이라고 밝혔다. 2세대 라이젠 프로세서는 최대 8개의 CPU 코어를 갖추며 GPU가 없는 12나노 피나클릿지(Pinnacle Ridge)가 2개(4코어 x2)로 구성된다. 레이븐릿지(Raven Ridge)는 베가 그래픽 아키텍처를 기반으로하는 iGPU와 최대 4개의 CPU 코어를 결합하는 APU이며 핵심 CPU 마이크로 아키텍처는 여전히 젠 (Zen)이다. Pinnacle Ridge는 전력 소모에 미치는 영향을 최소화 하면서 클럭 속도를 높이기 위해 12나노를 적용한다.

AMD는 차세대 400시리즈 칩셋도 준비하고 있다. 이 칩셋에 대해서는 알려진게 거의없고, 2세대 Ryzen 프로세서와 APU는 iGPU가 있는 칩과 없는 칩간에 명확한 차별화를 위해 2000 시리즈 모델 넘버를 적용할 수 있다고 한다. 두 제품 모두 AMD 300 시리즈 칩셋 기반의 기존 AM4 마더보드 (BIOS 업데이트)에서 작동한다. AMD는 2019년에는 젠(Zen)의 후계 Zen2를 준비하고있다. Mattise 아키텍처는 멀티코어 CPU 제품 라인을 주도 할 것이며 Picasso 아키텍처는 APU 라인을 주도 할 것이다. 이 두 칩은 기존 AM4 마더보드에서 동작 할 것이며 AMD는 2020년까지 AM4 소켓을 유지할 계획이다.


출처 - https://www.techpowerup.com

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널


인텔과 AMD가 결합된 Kaby Lake-G (Core i7-8709G)가 Futuremark SystemInfo에 공개됐다. 이 칩은 인텔의 쿼드코어 Kaby Lake CPU 다이와 AMD 라데온 Vega M GPU(HBM2)가 멀티 칩 모듈(MCM) 기술로 구성된다.  

Futuremark SystemInfo에는 3.10GHz ~ 3.90GHz(Turbo Boost)로 작동되고 있는 4코어 / 8스레드 카비레이크 CPU, 1024비트 메모리 인터페이스의 4GB HBM2 메모리로 구성된 Radeon RX Vega M (694C : C0) 그래픽 코어가 확인되며 GPU는 1.19GHz, 메모리는 800MHz (204.8GB/s)으로 확인되고 있다.


출처 - https://www.techpowerup.com

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널



imgp8746.jpg


Samsung OEM Client PCIe SSD History
 ControllerNAND FlashNotesConsumer
Variant
XP941S4LN053X012D MLCPCIe 2.0, AHCI-
SM951UBX2D MLCAHCI or NVMe950 PRO
PM9512D TLC -
SM961Polaris2D & 3D MLC 960 PRO
PM9613D TLC 960 EVO
PM971Photon3D TLCBGA SSD, PCIe 3 x2-
PM981Phoenix3D TLC 980 Evo?


삼성 PM981 SSD 스펙

컨트롤러 : Samsung Phoenix

낸드플래시 : 64층 TLC V-NAND

인터페이스 : NVMe


테스트 시스템

AnandTech 2017 SSD Testbed
CPUIntel Xeon E3 1240 v5
MotherboardASRock Fatal1ty E3V5 Performance Gaming/OC
ChipsetIntel C232
Memory4x 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR4-2400 CL15
GraphicsAMD Radeon HD 5450, 1920x1200@60Hz
SoftwareWindows 10 x64, version 1703
Linux kernel version 4.12, fio version 2.21


ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The average data rate of the 1TB Samsung PM981 on The Destroyer is comparable to the 960 EVO 1TB and well ahead of any competing TLC-based drives like the Toshiba XG5. The 512GB PM981 is slower by a typical amount, and still faster than any of the non-Samsung drives of that size.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The 1TB PM981 shows a substantial improvement over the average and 99th percentile latency scores of the 960 EVO, putting it close to the 960 PRO. The 512GB PM981 isn't as impressive, with latency scores that fall behind most MLC-based NVMe SSDs.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

The 1TB PM981 sets a new record (among flash-based SSDs) for average read latency on The Destroyer, shaving a few microseconds off the 960 PRO's performance. The average write latency can't quite keep up with the MLC-based 960 PRO that doesn't use SLC write caching. The smaller 512GB PM981 is competitive with most similarly-sized MLC-based drives, but slower than Samsung's 960 PRO.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

Samsung's 99th percentile read latency is nothing special, though the PM981 does offer clear improvement over the 960 EVO. The 99th percentile write latency of the 1TB PM981 is excellent and far better than the 1TB 960 EVO. The 512GB PM981 is clearly the fastest TLC-based drive of that size that we've tested, but it doesn't quite match the 99th percentile latency scores of the MLC-based competition.


ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

On the Heavy test, the average data rates of the 512GB Samsung PM981 again lag slightly behind most MLC-based NVMe drives but are clearly ahead of the competitors' TLC drives. The 1TB PM981 is behaving a bit oddly with slower than expected performance after a secure erase, but great performance when filled.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

The average latency of the 1TB PM981 is a significant improvement over the 1TB 960 EVO, while the 512GB PM981 doesn't stand out from the other 512GB drives. The 99th percentile latencies aren't particularly good, and the 512GB PM981 scores worse than almost all the other PCIe SSDs of that size.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (Average Write Latency)

The average write latency of the 1TB PM981 is excellent especially when the test is run on an empty drive. Average read latencies for both drives are decent but aren't a big improvement over their predecessors.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latencies are one of the few ATSB scores where the TLC-based nature of the PM981 shines through. Many MLC-based SSDs are much better at keeping read latency under control, and the TLC-based Toshiba XG5 also scores much better than the PM981 here. The 99th percentile write latency of the 1TB PM981 is pretty good, following suit to the average write latency, while the 512GB model could use some improvement.


ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

Both capacities of the Samsung PM981 offer great average data rates on the Light test. Their performance when full or empty is improved over the Samsung 960 EVO and comes close to the 960 PRO.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the PM981s aren't much of an improvement over Samsung's last generation, but this is still a new record for flash-based SSDs, even though the PM981 is using TLC NAND.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

The average write latency of the PM981s is great whether the test is run on a full or empty drive, but the average read latency is slightly worse than the 960 PRO when the test is run on a full drive.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency of the PM981s is record-setting when the Light test is run on an empty drive, but only the 1TB sets a record when the test is run on a full drive. The 99th percentile write latency is excellent on both drives in either test scenario.



Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst random read performance of the Samsung PM981 is great by the standards of TLC SSDs, but is surpassed by several MLC-based drives, including the Phison E7-based Patriot Hellfire with planar MLC NAND.

Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

On the longer random read test that includes some higher queue depths, the PM981 comes a bit closer to the standard set by Samsung's MLC drives, and it outperforms all the non-Samsung drives.

Both capacities of the PM981 show performance scaling with queue depth in the typical manner for a high-performance drive, though the 512GB model has passed an inflection point by QD32 and is approaching saturation.

Random Write Performance

Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.

Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

There are a few MLC-based SSDs that offer substantially higher burst random write performance than the Samsung PM981, but it is on par with most high-end drives including the Samsung 960 PRO.

As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

On the longer random write test, the 1TB PM981 stands out with clearly higher performance than the Samsung 960 series could manage. The 512GB PM981 is slower but still definitely performing like a high-end drive.

The random write performance of the 1TB PM981 scales very well with increasing queue depth. As compared to the Samsung 960 series, it also reaches its plateau around QD8, but is providing much higher throughput by that point. The 512GB model runs out of SLC cache during portions of this test so its performance is much lower and less steady.


Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential read performance of the Samsung PM981 doesn't quite set a new record, but it's pretty close to the top performer and very far ahead of any non-Samsung drive.

Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

On the longer test with higher queue depths, the best MLC-based drives pull ahead of the PM981 and even the 960 EVO has a slight advantage.

The 1TB PM981 starts out with almost the same performance as the 1TB 960 EVO, but the PM981's performance falls off a bit during the first half of the test while the 960 EVO remains steady. The 512GB PM981 doesn't experience any slowdown, but it is slower than the 1TB model throughout the test.

Sequential Write Performance

Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.

Burst 128kB Sequential Write (Queue Depth 1)

The PM981s both deliver the same record-setting burst sequential write performance that is a marked improvement over the best of Samsung's last generation, and far ahead of any competing flash-based SSD.

Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write

On the longer sequential write test, the 512GB PM981 falls behind most of the rest of the Samsung drives but the 1TB model remains on top, ahead of even the 960 PROs.

The 1TB PM981 hits full write speed at QD2 and stays there for the rest of the test, holding on to its lead over the 960 PRO. The 512GB PM981 runs out of SLC write cache early on and its performance bounces around with the garbage collection cycles.


Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write

The mixed random I/O performance of the Samsung PM981 is a big improvement over last generation's 960 EVO. The 1TB PM981 beats out even the MLC-based 960 PRO, while the smaller 512GB PM981 is a bit slower than the 960 PRO of the same size.

As the proportion of writes in the mixed workload increases, the PM981 steadily gains performance, pulling further and further ahead of the 960 EVO. The 512GB PM981's main weakness is that its performance doesn't hit quit as high a peak during the final phases of the test when the workload is almost entirely random writes.

Mixed Sequential Performance

Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write

The 512GB PM981 matches the mixed sequential performance of the MLC-based 512GB 960 PRO, while the 1TB PM981 is substantially faster than the 960 PRO or any other flash-based SSD.

The Samsung 960 PRO 1TB outperforms the 1TB PM981 during the early read-heavy phases of the mixed sequential test, but then its performance drops off precipitously while the PM981 retains its performance until later in the test. The 512GB PM981 averages almost exactly the same performance as the 512GB 960 PRO, but with substantial differences in the details: the 960 PRO is faster at either end of the test, but the PM981 has a significant advantage for more even mixes of reads and writes.


출처 - https://www.anandtech.com

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널




optane.jpg




인텔 옵테인 SSD 900p 480GB 스펙



컨트롤러 : 인텔 SLL3D 

메모리 : 인텔 128Gb 3D XPoint 테크놀로지

인터페이스 : PCIe 3.0 x4

폼팩터 : HHHL Add-in card or 2.5" 15mm U.2 / HHHL Add-in card / HHHL Add-in card (U.2 unknown)

시퀀셜 읽기 : 2500MB/s

시퀀셜 쓰기 : 2000MB/s

랜덤 읽기 : 550k
랜덤 쓰기 : 500k
전력소모 : 읽기 : 8W / 쓰기 : 13W / 버스트 : 14W / 아이들 : 5W

워런티 : 5년

가격 : 280GB = 389달러 / 480GB = 599달러



테스트 시스템


AnandTech 2017 SSD Testbed
CPUIntel Xeon E3 1240 v5
MotherboardASRock Fatal1ty E3V5 Performance Gaming/OC
ChipsetIntel C232
Memory4x 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR4-2400 CL15
GraphicsAMD Radeon HD 5450, 1920x1200@60Hz
SoftwareWindows 10 x64, version 1703
Linux kernel version 4.12, fio version 2.21



ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The average data rate of the 480GB Optane SSD 900p on The Destroyer is a few percent higher than the 280GB model scored, further increasing the lead over the fastest flash-based SSDs.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The 480GB Optane SSD 900p shows a substantial drop in average latency relative to the 280GB model, allowing it to score better than any flash-based SSD. For 99th percentile latency the 480GB model scores slightly worse than the 280GB, but both are still far ahead of any competing drive.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

The two capacities of Optane SSD 900p have essentially the same average read latency that is less than half that of any flash-based SSD. For average write latency, the 480GB model sets a new record while the 280GB performed worse than it did the first time around, but still faster than anything other than the Samsung 960 PRO.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read and write latency scores for the Optane SSD 900p are all substantially better than any flash-based SSD, even though the 280GB's results again show some variation between this test run and our original review. The 99th percentile read latency scores are particularly good, with the Optane SSDs around 0.5ms while the best flash-based SSDs are in the 1-2ms range.


ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

The Optane SSD 900p in either capacity delivers a much higher average data rate on the Heavy test than any flash-based SSD. As with the original review, the 280GB model is a bit faster when the drive is pre-filled than when the test is run on a freshly-erased drive; the opposite is almost always true of flash-based SSDs. The 480GB's results look more normal and fall in the same range as the 280GB's scores.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of both Optane SSD capacities are slightly ahead of the fastest flash-based SSDs. Both models also show lower latency when the drive is filled than when it is freshly erased.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (Average Write Latency)

The average read latency of the Optane SSD 900p on the Heavy test is about the same for both capacities, and about half that of any flash-based SSD. The average write latencies are a bit worse than the Samsung 960 PRO but still clearly better than the 960 EVO or anything else.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency scores for the Optane SSDs are a fraction of the latency of any other drive, and both capacities of the 900p score about the same. The 99th percentile write latency is barely faster than the Samsung 960 PRO.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

The power consumption of the Optane SSDs fits their heritage as derivatives of an enterprise drive. The only other consumer SSD this power hungry is the Intel SSD 750, another enterprise derivative. Even the M.2 PCIe SSDs with relatively poor power management and low performance use much less energy over the course of the test.

The 480GB 900p uses about 10% more energy than the 280GB model while performing about the same.


ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The Light test shows much greater differences between full and empty drive performance, for both flash SSDs and for the rather variable 280GB Optane SSD 900p. The 480GB model shows less variation in its average data rater between the full and empty runs. Overall, the Optane SSDs outperform a full flash-based SSD but are unimpressive compared to a fresh out of the box flash-based SSD.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

Aside from the different behavior of full vs empty, the average and 99th percentile latency scores of the Optane SSDs are not too interesting. The best-case performance is not quite as fast as the best from a flash based SSD, but once the flash drive is slowed down by being full, the Optane SSD shows a meaningful latency advantage.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

The average read latency of the Optane SSDs on the Light test is not hurt by filling the drive, giving it much better latency in the worst case scenario than any flash-based SSD. When the Light test is run on freshly-erased drives, the Optane SSD's average read latency is about the same as the best flash-based drives. Neither Optane SSD sets a record for average write latency, and Samsung's fastest NVMe drives have a clear advantage.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)

As with the average read latency, the 99th percentile read latency of the Optane SSDs on the Light test only impresses when compared to the performance of flash-based SSDs in unfavorable conditions like being completely full. Otherwise, the Samsung PM981 performs just as well, and the 960 PRO isn't far behind. The 99th percentile write latency of the Optane SSDs is clearly worse than Samsung's top NVMe SSDs.

ATSB - Light (Power)

The Optane SSD 900p again requires much more energy than most NVMe SSDs, and the larger Optane drive requires significantly more power—three times as much as the most efficient NVMe SSD we've tested.


Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

Random reads at queue depth 1 are where Intel's Optane products shine. Compared to the fastest NVMe SSDs using MLC NAND flash, the Optane SSDs aren't quite an order of magnitude faster, but only because the latency of the NVMe protocol over PCIe becomes the bottleneck. Intel's tiny Optane Memory M.2 cache drive is slightly faster in this one benchmark, but the difference hardly matters.

Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

Adding some higher queue depths to the average shows a small speed advantage for the 480GB Optane SSD over the 280GB model, and the Optane Memory M.2 starting to fall behind the larger Optane SSDs. The NAND flash-based SSDs also pick up speed as queue depths grow, but they need to go far beyond QD4 to catch up.

Sustained 4kB Random Read (Power Efficiency)

Given how thoroughly the Optane SSDs have shattered the record for random read performance, it's not too surprising to see them at the top of the charts for power efficiency when performing random reads. The 480GB Optane SSD is a bit less efficient than the smaller model because it has to power significantly more 3D XPoint memory chips with only a small performance boost to show for it. Compared to the flash-based SSDs, the Optane SSDs are only about 2.5 times more efficient, despite being about 7 times faster. The performance doesn't come for free.


At low queue depths the two Optane SSDs offer nearly the same random read performance. When they both reach saturation at QD8, the 480GB model has slightly higher performance, and is drawing about 0.85W more power—a 13% power increase for a 7% performance boost.

Random Write Performance

Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.

Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

The random write performance at queue depth 1 of the Optane SSDs is great, but not record-setting. Flash-based SSDs can cache write operations in their DRAM and report the command as complete before the data has actually made it to the flash memory. This means that for most flash-based SSDs the burst random write speed is more of a controller benchmark than a test of the storage itself. The Optane SSDs don't have large DRAM caches on the drive and are actually writing to the 3D XPoint memory almost as quickly as the Intel SSD 750 can stash the writes in its DRAM.

As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

With larger queue depths and test durations long enough to defeat any DRAM-based write caching and many SLC write caches, the Optane SSDs rise to the top. With this second round of testing, the 280GB Optane SSD performed slightly worse than the first run, but it's still essentially tied with the fastest flash-based SSDs. The 480GB model is a tiny bit faster than even the previous record from the 280GB model, putting it about 8% faster than the Samsung 960 PRO.

Sustained 4kB Random Write (Power Efficiency)

Without a huge performance lead, the high power consumption of the Optane SSDs takes a toll on their efficiency scores for random writes. They are ahead of early NVMe SSDs and on par with the fastest SATA SSDs, but the best current flash-based NVMe SSDs are substantially more efficient. The Toshiba XG5 prioritized efficiency over peak performance and ends up offering more than twice the power efficiency of the Optane SSDs, while the Samsung 960 EVO has a mere 77% efficiency advantage at essentially the same level of performance.


As with random reads, the performance and power consumption gap between the two Optane SSD 900p capacities widens at higher queue depths. With power consumption starting at 5W and climbing to over 10W for the larger model, the Optane SSDs are in a completely different league from M.2 NVMe SSDs, which mostly top out around 4.5W.


Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

Despite having incredibly low access latency, the Optane SSD 900p doesn't beat the fastest flash-based SSDs in our burst sequential read test. The fastest flash SSDs make up for their slower initial response time through a combination of higher channel counts, prefetching and most likely larger native block sizes. The Optane SSD 900p still has a great score here, but it fails to stand out from the much cheaper flash-based drives.

Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

With the test of higher queue depths and longer run times, the Optane SSDs are back on top with a substantial performance lead. Unlike the burst test, this test shows almost no performance difference between the two capacities of the Optane SSD 900p.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read (Power Efficiency)

The performance lead of the Optane SSD 900p isn't enough to make up for its higher power consumption, so the 900p ends up in the second tier of drives for sequential read power efficiency, alongside Samsung's 960 generation and the Toshiba XG5.


The 480GB Optane SSD 900p draws about 0.6–0.75W more than the 280GB model during the sequential read test, putting it just over 8W total when operating at full speed. Even the smaller 900p is still over 6W at QD1, while the flash-based SSDs are mostly in the 4-5W range. (The Intel SSD 750 breaks 9W at higher queue depths.)

Sequential Write Performance

Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.

Burst 128kB Sequential Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential write performance of the Intel Optane SSD 900p is on par with some of Samsung's older NVMe SSDs, but is exceeded by the 960 generation and the PM981.

Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write

On the longer sequential write test, the Samsung PM981 falls out of first place and ends up substantially slower than the Optane SSD 900p, but the Samsung 960 PRO and EVO are still faster than the 900p.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Optane SSD 900p during sequential writes is worse than most M.2 NVMe SSDs, though not as bad as the extremely power-hungry Intel SSD 750.


The two capacities of the Optane SSD 900p offer essentially identical sequential write performance. As with sequential reads, the difference in power consumption between the two capacities is about 0.75W, but the writes require about than 2W more than the reads.


Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write

Since this mixed random I/O test is conducted at the relatively low queue depth of four, the Optane SSDs have a large performance advantage, and even the tiny Optane Memory M.2 does well (though it has to run a slightly modified version of the test due to its low capacity). The Optane SSDs are more than three times faster overall than the highest-scoring flash-based SSD.

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write (Power Efficiency)

The Optane SSDs have a substantial power efficiency lead on the mixed random I/O test, but it is small enough that flash-based SSDs could conceivably catch up with a generation or two of improvements. As usual, the 480GB model has clearly lower efficiency because its minor performance advantage doesn't outweigh the power cost the extra 3D XPoint memory chips.


Both capacities of the Intel Optane SSD 900p show a modest decline in performance as the workload becomes more write-heavy, and a fairly linear increase in power consumption. The  480GB model's power consumption grows slightly faster than the 280GB model, leading to a 0.9W gap at the end of the test.

Even the Intel SSD 750 draws substantially less power for most of the test, though it catches up at the very end. The flash-based M.2 NVMe SSDs are mostly drawing a fraction of what the Optane SSDs require. In terms of performance, none of the flash-based SSDs come at all close to the Optane SSDs until the very end of the test, where many are able to deliver good random write speed.

Mixed Sequential Performance

Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write

The Intel Optane SSD 900p is much faster on the mixed sequential I/O test than any consumer flash-based SSD. Samsung's best drives are slower by a third, and it's downhill from there for NAND flash. The 480GB model actually performed slightly worse on this test than the 280GB model, but the difference is small enough it may simply be due to variation between runs.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Optane SSD 900p on the mixed sequential I/O test is good but not quite at the top of the charts. Instead, it is on par with the Samsung 960 EVO, which sacrificed a bit of efficiency to improve performance relative to the Samsung 950 PRO.


The 280GB Optane SSD 900p was a bit faster than the 480GB overall but a bit less steady over the course of the test. The scaling of the Optane SSDs is quite similar to the results from the mixed random test: a gradual decline in performance as the proportion of writes increases, and a linear increase in power consumption. The overall performance level is significantly higher than for the random I/O test.

The flash-based SSDs can get much closer to competing with the Optane SSDs on this mixed sequential test than on the mixed random test. Several drives have sequential read speeds that approach that of the Optane SSDs, and a few have higher sequential write performance. But through the middle portions of the test, the flash-based SSDs all lose a lot of their performance for at least a few phases of the test, while the Optane SSD has no acute performance weakness.


Active Idle Power Consumption (No LPM)Idle Power Consumption

(idle power)

Idle Wake-Up Latency

(idle wake-up)


출처 - https://www.anandtech.com

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널

커뮤니티 여러분 안녕하세요

오버워치의 한국어 음성을 맡은 성우진에 대한 최신 정보를 공유 드립니다.

향후 추가되는 한국어 음성의 성우 정보에 대해서도 계속 업데이트해 드리겠습니다.

2017년 12월 1일 기준

D.Va - 김현지
겐지 - 김혜성
둠피스트 - 안장혁
라인하르트 - 권혁수
로드호그 - 김대중
루시우 - 이호산
리퍼 - 신용우
맥크리 - 곽윤상
메르시 - 이현진
메이 - 전숙경
모이라 - 이미나
솔저: 76 - 김승준
솜브라 - 김연우
시메트라 - 임윤선
아나 - 이영리
아나운서 (아테나) - 전해리
에피 올라델레 - 김새해
오리사 - 강시현
위도우메이커 - 이지현
윈스턴 - 임채헌
자리야 - 양유진
정크랫 - 진정일
젠야타 - 안효민
카티야 볼스카야 - 김은아
토르비욘 - 이재범
트레이서 - 박신희
파라 - 조현정
한조 - 한신
할프레드 글리치봇(할리우드 전장) - 엄상현

(순서는 캐릭터별 오름차순입니다.)

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널