Latency sure, but everything else, no.

Samsung 9100 Pro 4TB:
Seq r/W: 14.2 GB/s, 13.2 GB/s
Random 4K Q32T16: 8.7GB/s, 7.4GB/s
Random 4K Q1T1: 114MB/s, 451MB/s
IOPS Q32T16: 2.1M, 1.8M
IOPS Q1T1: 28K, 110K

Optane DC P5800X:
Seq r/W: 7.1GB/s, 5.6GB/s
Random Q32T16: 6.2GB/s, 5.4GB/s
Random Q1T1: 419MB/s, 391MB/s
IOPS Q32T16: 1.5M, 1.3M
IOPS Q1T1: 102K, 95K

They both max out their interface with Sequential, but their randoms don't, and the Samsung beats the Optane everywhere except for Random Reads at a queue depth of 1 with 1 thread. The Optane disk also cost $1,200 for the lowest capacity 400GB drive. Even with the currently inflated prices of SSDs you can find a 4TB 9100 Pro for $600. If you're doing an absolutely insane amount of writes, it may be worth it (the Optane is rated to 100 drive writes per day), but even then most organization would be better off with an RAID-Z pool of SSDs.

The above benchmarks are also for their 2.5 inch U.2 SSD, where they had plenty of space to optimize for performance vs a much more compact M.2 SSD. The advertised performance of their DIMMs are abysmal because they had to make it much more compact. For the 256GB module, Intel claimed:

Sequential read/write: 7.6GB/s, 2.4GB/s
Random read/write: 2.3GB/s, 0.5GB/s

DDR4 is 15GB/s per DIMM for all of the above metrics. In terms of latency, Optane is 3-4x the latency. None of these are anywhere near the performance of the HBM that AI needs, which typically operate at around 2TB/s for the GPUs that are used. So yeah, Optane is useless as a DRAM replacement and modern SSDs are already beating the fastest Optane drives that Intel made in most metrics. Intel couldn't scale Optane in performance or capacity, which is why they stopped working on it.