Feature SSD Memory Face-Off: Intel Optane vs Samsung Z-NAND

[abryant]

We pitted these two, cutting-edge storage technologies against each other in a 7-round death match for your data. Read more here.

SEAN WEBSTER
@seanwebster
Sean Webster is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews consumer storage.

 

[cryoburner]

What's with these squiggly-line charts? It looks like whoever made them was drunk. : P Results also seem to be divided between more charts than usual, making it harder to get a good overview of the performance differences between drives. Not exactly the most easily-interpretable information. What happened to the usual storage test chart design?

Also, why is there no section comparing prices? Is it because both drives fail at pricing? At the very least, these things are not likely to make much sense in a consumer system or even most high-end workstations. For the vast majority of real-world tasks, the performance benefits over even a lower-end SSD will be relatively minimal, and not at all worth paying around 10 to 20 times as much for. Yet I see in the 983 ZET review that "competitive pricing" is listed under the "pros" category. In what way is $2000 for less than 1TB of storage considered a "pro" when it's possible to get similar-sized SSDs for a little over $100? Maybe in some specific enterprise setting where the high endurance levels and low-access times can provide some more tangible benefits, but just about anyone else would be better off paying far less for a regular consumer SSD.

 

[littleleo]

Why not add the price as your 8th criteria? Believe it or not a $700 price delta may be a factor in choosing which to use.

 

[thegriff]

What's with these squiggly-line charts? It looks like whoever made them was drunk. : P Results also seem to be divided between more charts than usual, making it harder to get a good overview of the performance differences between drives. Not exactly the most easily-interpretable information. What happened to the usual storage test chart design?

Also, why is there no section comparing prices? Is it because both drives fail at pricing? At the very least, these things are not likely to make much sense in a consumer system or even most high-end workstations. For the vast majority of real-world tasks, the performance benefits over even a lower-end SSD will be relatively minimal, and not at all worth paying around 10 to 20 times as much for. Yet I see in the 983 ZET review that "competitive pricing" is listed under the "pros" category. In what way is $2000 for less than 1TB of storage considered a "pro" when it's possible to get similar-sized SSDs for a little over $100? Maybe in some specific enterprise setting where the high endurance levels and low-access times can provide some more tangible benefits, but just about anyone else would be better off paying far less for a regular consumer SSD.

There was a price comparison at the end (believe it was price's at amazon), and the Optane was $700 cheaper for slightly larger size. So, yeah how is it a Pro for the ZET when it's more than the Optane.

 

[USAFRet]

In what way is $2000 for less than 1TB of storage considered a "pro" when it's possible to get similar-sized SSDs for a little over $100? Maybe in some specific enterprise setting where the high endurance levels and low-access times can provide some more tangible benefits, but just about anyone else would be better off paying far less for a regular consumer SSD.

Exactly.
AS we've seen time and time again, the difference between HDD and SSD is huge.
The difference between different types of SSD, not so huge.

In the "Total Loading TIme" chart., the difference between the regular SATA III Crucial MX500 ($130) and the 970 EVO NVMe ($273) drive is only 7%.
100% price premium for 7% improvement.

Even sillier when you look at the 905p, at $1300 for the same 1TB drive space.
10x the cost for 4 seconds difference.

As you mention, certain enterprise level use cases will absolutely benefit. For 99.9% of people reading this? Not so much.

 

[Jim90]

Hey Tom's, apologies for being a little off topic and a bit late, I know you've re-designed and upgraded things but a hugely significant aspect of the previous experience, and hugely beneficial for the whole community, was the ability for the community to discuss almost all your articles and reviews - and in an instantly accessible manner (at the bottom of the original page). I don't see this now and, just as concerning, I very rarely see links to discuss your posts. Unless I'm daft and missing something obvious (possible, it's been a while), I'd strongly suggest that removing this ability would remove a key (?critical) positive. Community involvement is good! - or to put it another way - allowing the community to get involved with /discuss most content easily is good!!

 

[chickenballs]

Hard to believe that the gtx 1080 consumes 290w while v64 only 180w which is less than gtx 1070ti. So many errors....