RAPTER INTERNATIONAL

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(idle power)

(idle wake-up)

출처 - https://www.anandtech.com

미국 인텔은 옵테인 기술을 채용한 워크 스테이션/소비자용 SSD "Optane SSD 900P"을 발표했다. 용량은 480GB/240GB의 PCIe 모델과 280GB의 2.5인치 모델이 준비되며 가격은 오픈 프라이스.

마이크론과 공동 개발한 3D XPoint라 불리는 신형 비휘발성 메모리를 채용하는 SSD로 그 동안 서버용으로만 선행 투입됐지만 컨슈머용으로도 전개된다. 기존의 NAND와 비교하면 낮은 레이턴시, 높은 랜덤 성능이 특징이며 특히 워크 스테이션용 스토리지 벤치에서 PCIe NAND와 비교 최대 4배의 성능이 나타나고 있다. 또 고도의 렌더링 작업에서는 삼성 960 Pro SSD로 17.4시간 걸리는 작업을 6.3시간 만에 완료할 수 있다고 밝혔다.

연속 읽기 성능은 2500MB/s, 쓰기 성능은 2,000MB/s로 읽기/쓰기의 밸런스가 잡혔고, 4K 랜덤 읽기 성능은 550000IOPS, 쓰기 성능은 500000IOPS. 레이턴시는 10μ s 이하, 쓰기 내구성(480GB 모델)은 최대 8.76PBW, 부팅 및 RAID에도 대응한다.

2.5인치 모델의 인터페이스는 U.2이며 U.2 케이블 동봉 모델과 U.2→ M.2 변환 케이블을 동봉 모델이 준비된다. 2018년 이후로는 TB급 제품도 예정되어 있다.

출처 - https://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/1088632.html

미국 인텔은 19일(현지 시간) Micron와 공동 개발한 신형 메모리 "3D XPoint"를 채용한 서버용 PCI Express SSD "Optane SSD DC P4800X"를 발표했다. 조만간 고객용으로 출하를 시작하고 양산 출하는 2017년 하반기부터 시작한다.

3D XPoint는 NAND와 비슷한 용량을 가지면서 지연은 NAND의 1000분의 1로 DRAM과 기존 NAND SSD 사이를 메우는 포지션이 된다. Optane SSD는 그 용량을 활용, 보다 고속 스토리지 외 메모리 풀로서 DRAM을 보강하는 형태로 탑재 할 수 있다. 또, 장기적으로는 DIMM 형태의 메모리도 예정되어 있다.

구체적인 성능으로 DC P4800X는 기존 NAND 채용 DC 3700과 비교하면 랜덤 읽기는 최대 10배, 랜덤 쓰기는 최대 3배 고속이다. 또 200~600MB/s의 부하 상황에서 응답 성능은 12.5 ~ 35배 고속으로 알려졌다.

우선 375GB 용량 모델을 출하하고 이후 2분기부터 하반기까지 750GB/1.5TB의 M.2형 제품도 투입한다.

출처 - http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/1050311.html

인텔은 새로운 3D XPoint 기술의 비 휘발성 메모리를 기반으로한 SSD를 준비하고있다. 이 기술은 향후 NAND 플래시를 대체 할 것으로 기대하고 있으며 인텔과 Micron Technology가 공동으로 개발했다. 이 메모리를 장착한 첫 번째 인텔 SSD는 옵테인(Optane) 브랜드로 판매 될 예정으로 다양한 시장 부문 (클라이언트, 엔터프라이즈, 데이터 센터 등)을 겨냥한 여러 하위 브랜드가 있으며 데이터 센터 시장을 목표로 한 옵테인 DC P4800X SSD의 기술 슬라이드가 웹으로 유출됐다.

첫 번째 Optane DC P4800X SSD 중 하나는 약 375GB의 용량이다. 이 드라이브는 PCI-Express 3.0 x4 호스트 인터페이스로 하프 사이즈 PCI-Express 애드온 카드 (AIC) 폼 팩터에 내장되어 있다. Optane DC P4800X 375GB AIC SSD의 스펙 시트에 따르면 이 드라이브는 고 내구성 MLC NAND 플래시를 기반으로 하는 유사한 엔터프라이즈 SSD보다 내구성보다 21배 이상 뛰어나다. 12.3페타바이트 (12,300TB) 총 쓰기 사용량 (TBW) 등급으로써 이것은 다른 375GB의 공간을 가진 드라이브와 비교해 매우 높은 수치다. 드라이브의 랜덤 액세스 성능은 경쟁 MLC NAND 플래시 기반 드라이브 보다 높으며 최대 550,000 IOPS의 4K 랜덤 읽기 및 최대 500,000 IOPS의 4K 랜덤 쓰기를 지원한다. 자세한 성능은 제품 출시후 확인할 수 있다.

출처 - http://www.tomshardware.com

3D XPoint 메모리는 인텔과 마이크론 테크놀로지가 지난해(2015년) 7월 말에 공동 개발을 발표한 고속의 대용량 비휘발성 메모리다. 이미 128Gbit 실리콘 다이 샘플이 출하되고 있으며 SSD(Solid State Drive) 시제품에서 성능이 평가되고 있다.

3D XPoint 메모리는 실리콘 다이의 성능에서는 "NAND 플래시 메모리의 1000배 고속" 이며 "NAND 플래시 메모리의 1000배 수명", "DRAM의 10배 기억 밀도"를 갖는다고 발표했었다. 그러나 NVMe 인터페이스의 SSD로 NAND 플래시 메모리 장착 제품과 비교한 범위에서는 레이턴시(지연 시간)은 10분의 1, 어플리케이션의 처리 속도는 3배의 성능에 그쳤다.

그래도 3D XPoint 메모리에 대한 메모리 사용자의 기대는 크다. 128Gbit 라고 하는 대용량 칩의 비휘발성 메모리는 NAND 플래시 메모리를 제외하면 존재하지 않기 때문이다. 고속의 랜덤 접속이 가능하다는 의미에서는 3D XPoint 메모리가 현재 유일한 존재다.

요소 기술은 대부분 미공개

"Z-NAND" 기술로 메모리의 성능 및 요소 기술 등은 현재 전혀 공개되지 않았다. 공개된 것은 "Z-SSD"의 간단한 구성과 성능 정도다. Z-SSD는 Z-NAND 칩과 전용 개발 컨트롤러를 조합한다. 칩과 컨트롤러 각각의 독자적인 설계가 적용되고 있다고 보이지만 자세한 것은 알수가 없다.

삼성은 이전에 상변화 메모리(인텔은 "PCM", 삼성은 "PRAM"이라 함)를 개발하는 것으로 밝힌적이 있다. 그러나 FMS 설명에서는 Z-NAND 칩은 상변화 메모리가 아니라고 밝혔다. 칩에 DRAM 실리콘 다이와 NAND 실리콘 다이를 내장하고 성능을 높이는 기법도 있지만 이것도 아닌 것이다.

Z-NAND 칩은 미국 온라인 잡지 EETimes가 Z-NAND에 관해 보도한 기사가 흥미롭다. 이 잡지의 기자가 도시바의 엔지니어와 인터뷰하고 "3D NAND 플래시 메모리를 SLC 타입으로 사용하는 것으로 성능을 높일 가능성이 있다" 라는 중요한 코멘트를 받고 있다. 3D NAND 플래시 메모리의 표준적인 사용법은 TLC(3bit/ 셀) 타입이다. 같은 실리콘 다이를 SLC(1bit/ 셀) 타입으로 사용하면 기억 용량은 3분의 1까지 떨어지지만 접근 속도는 올라간다. 특히 쓰기 성능이 올라간다. NAND 플래시 메모리는 종래, 쓰기 성능이 낮다는 약점을 안고 있었다. 이를 기존의 SSD에서는 입출력 채널의 다자화나 DRAM 버퍼의 탑재 등으로 보완하고 높은 성능을 실현해 왔다.

예를 들면 256Gbit의 TLC 타입 3D NAND 플래시를 SLC 유형으로 사용하면 기억 용량은 약 85Gbit로 작아진다. 그러나 쓰기에 필요한 시간은 짧아진다. 또 쓰는 수명이 크게 증가한다. 삼성은 엔터프라이즈용 SSD 솔루션으로서 Z-SSD를 소개하고 있으므로 수명의 증가는 큰 의미를 갖는다.

FMS 삼성 부스에 전시된 "Z-NAND" 기술과 "Z-SSD" 기술. 엔터프라이즈용 솔루션으로 소개되고 있는 것으로 나타났다

상변화 메모리(PRAM)와 성능을 비교한 의미

DRAM과 기존 SSD 사이의 메모리 계층에는 큰 성능 차이가 존재하는 것은 잘 알고 있다. 삼성은 FMS의 키노트 연설에서 이 갭을 메우는 데는 상변화 메모리(PRAM)를 기반으로한 어프로치가 지금까지 존재했으며 삼성은 NAND 기반의 접근으로 이 간극을 메우려 했다.

메모리 계층의 DRAM과 SSD 사이에 있는 성능 차이와 간극을 메우는 방법. FMS 삼성 키노트 강연

여기서 PRAM 기반의 접근은 "3D XPoint 메모리"를 가리키는 것으로 여겨진다. FMS의 키노트 강연과 전시회에서 삼성은 Z-SSD의 성능을 기존 SSD와 비교했는데 비교한 도면에서도 자주 PRAM 기반 SSD와 비교 결과가 나왔다.

키노트 강연에서 삼성의 NVMe SSD "PM963"과 PRAM 기반 SSD, Z-SSD의 성능을 늘어놓은 그래프를 보였다. 예를 들면 순차 읽기의 산출량은 NVMe SSD의 2배 이상이며 PRAM (SSD보다 약간 높다. 그리고 4KB 데이터 읽기의 레이턴시(지연 시간)은 NVMe SSD 보다 월등히 짧고, PRAM 기반 SSD와 거의 같다. 메모리 캐시 서버의 성능은 NVMe SSD 탑재 시스템의 2배 이상이며 PRAM 기반 SSD 탑재 시스템보다 조금 높다. 빅 데이터 분석 성능은 NVMe SSD 탑재 시스템의 2배 이상이며 PRAM 기반 SSD 보다 1.2배 가량 높다. 그리고 Z-SSD의 소비 에너지 효율은 PRAM 기반 SSD 보다 2.6배 높다.

삼성의 NVMe SSD "PM963" 과 PRAM 기반 SSD의 성능 비교. FMS 삼성 키노트 강연

전시회 부스에서도 기존의 NVMe SSD, PRAM 기반의 SSD, Z-SSD의 성능을 비교하고 대형 액정 패널에서 슬라이드 쇼로 표시하고 있었다.

시퀀셜 읽기와 시퀀셜 쓰기의 산출량은 Z-SSD가 약 3.2GB/sec 으로 최고의 성능을 나타내고 있었다. PRAM 기반 SSD는 NVMe SSD(NAND 플래시 기반)보다는 높지만 스루풋은 Z-SSD의 3분의 2전후가 되고 있었다.

4KB 데이터 읽기의 레이턴시(지연 시간)은 키노트 강연과 마찬가지로 Z-SSD가 NVMe SSD 보다 4분의 1로 짧고 PRAM 기반 SSD와 거의 같다.

전체적으로는 PRAM 기반의 SSD(즉 3DXPoint 메모리 기반 SSD "Optane"과 "QuantX"를 상정)과 동등 이상의 성능을 Z-SSD는 낼 수 있다고 어필했고 릴리스에 따르면 Z-SSD 제품판은 내년(2017년)에 출하할 것으로 기대되고 있다.

SSD는 NVMe의 초고속 인터페이스를 얻어 그 성능의 최대화 가능했다. 역설적이지만 NVMe 인터페이스를 극한까지 써서 성능의 SSD를 고안하고 개발하는 의의가 생긴 것이다. 3DXPoint와 Z-NAND 등은 NVMe 인터페이스가 전제인 SSD를 실현하는 요소 기술이다. 앞으로도 유사한 방향성을 목표로 한 SSD가 고안될 가능성이 적지 않으며 매우 기대된다.

출처 - http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/column/semicon/1018367.html