>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) th

>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.