Intel Optane for consumers is here

[TheLostSwede]

The official link http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/intel-optane-technology.html

And some more details http://www.anandtech.com/show/11227/intel-launches-optane-memory-m2-cache-ssds-for-client-market

For now it's just available as a 16 or 32GB Optane Memory cache, with "SSD" type products coming at some point in the future for consumers. Note that you need at least a Core i3 and a B250 motherboard to use it.

Optane Memory looks like a new take on the mini PCIe SSD caching from a few years ago (was that Z77?) and the USB drive caching crap from Microsoft before that.

Long story short, if you own an SSD it's unlike it's going to matter to you. If you don't own an SSD, 32GB of Optane ($77) is the same price as a decent 128GB SSD or a cheap 240GB SSD...

 

[dorsetknob]

Don't have any system that could possibly use it and unless there is a big euro/lottery win in my future
don't think that one is in my immediate future

 

[alucasa]

I am cheap. I buy cheap. Is Optane cheap?

Me doesn't think so.

 

[TheLostSwede]

I am cheap. I buy cheap. Is Optane cheap?

Me doesn't think so.

At $77 for 32GB, not really, no.

 

[alucasa]

At $77 for 32GB, not really, no.

Okie, dokie, I will go sulk in a corner and sob for my sorry-poor-life. Call me back when it becomes 50 dollars for 250gb.

 

[Sasqui]

I voted "huh" ...must see some real world benefits from independent tests before saying yes or no.

 

[fec32a4de]

But how fast is random access (4K) in MB/s?
for read and write?

SATAIII SSDs are 30-50MB/s read and 40-65write
I hoped that NVMe drives would be faster, and they are - but not by a whole lot.

How fast would either capacity be with consumer Optane?

 

[Mike0409]

So if I am understanding the market for Optane its mainly for SSD caching since its in small sizes of 16/32 currently?

Not seeing a solid purpose on adding this to a machine with current gen SSD's? Maybe the Hybrid drives?

 

[notb]

I voted "huh" ...must see some real world benefits from independent tests before saying yes or no.

I think this is the only sensible reaction right now.

The price suggests this could be on a level of enterprise-grade SSDs and - honestly - they're simply on a different level compared to what we use in PCs.
Lets wait for some random read/write tests + real-life tests...

 

[alucasa]

I smell Optane 2 even before Optane 1 becomes somewhat affordable and useful.

 

[Tomgang]

For now deffently not. That would mean if i shut use it, i had to get a new setup and im not ready to let go on my x58 pc yet.

Optane is properly also as every other new type of storage/memory exspensive in the first few gen just as ssd where years back.

I have all the storage and memory i need right now. 4 SSD's (including a samsung 950 pro 256 gb m.2 NVMe ssd for OS and most used games. So i have a fast storage/c-drive) and 12 gb ddr3 ram.

I voted off cause no. Maybe in the future when the teknoligy has imatured and prices got down, but not for now.

 

[fullinfusion]

Only if cheap.. I noticed a new BIOS for my board that supports it so who knows but at these prices I can say na

 

[biffzinker]

But how fast is random access (4K) in MB/s?
for read and write?

SATAIII SSDs are 30-50MB/s read and 40-65write
I hoped that NVMe drives would be faster, and they are - but not by a whole lot.

How fast would either capacity be with consumer Optane?

Access speed for 3D XPoint is the same as DRAM so your looking at 1uS-10uS compared to a SSD at 0.5-1mS, and the hard disk drive is all way down at 10s of mS. 3D XPoint also manages to hit it's maximum/advertised transfer speed starting with QD=1 unlike SSDs require QD=4.

 

[AsRock]

Simply No, just intel trying to make some money. Just another label that be stuck on a box to make it look even better.

 

[Sasqui]

The price suggests this could be on a level of enterprise-grade SSDs and - honestly - they're simply on a different level compared to what we use in PCs.
Lets wait for some random read/write tests + real-life tests...

This is from the Anandtech write-up:

"The very low capacity of the Optane Memory drives limits their usability as traditional SSDs. Intel intends for the drive to be used with the caching capabilities of their Rapid Storage Technology drivers. Intel first introduced SSD caching with their Smart Response Technology in 2011. The basics of Optane Memory caching are mostly the same, but under the hood Intel has tweaked the caching algorithms to better suit 3D XPoint memory's performance and flexibility advantages over flash memory. Optane Memory caching is currently only supported on Windows 10 64-bit and only for the boot volume. Booting from a cached volume requires that the chipset's storage controller be in RAID mode rather than AHCI mode so that the cache drive will not be accessible as a standard NVMe drive and is instead remapped to only be accessible to Intel's drivers through the storage controller. This NVMe remapping feature was first added to the Skylake-generation 100-series chipsets, but boot firmware support will only be found on Kaby Lake-generation 200-series motherboards and Intel's drivers are expected to only permit Optane Memory caching with Kaby Lake processors."

 

[Disparia]

This is from the Anandtech write-up:

"The very low capacity of the Optane Memory drives limits their usability as traditional SSDs. Intel intends for the drive to be used with the caching capabilities of their Rapid Storage Technology drivers. Intel first introduced SSD caching with their Smart Response Technology in 2011. The basics of Optane Memory caching are mostly the same, but under the hood Intel has tweaked the caching algorithms to better suit 3D XPoint memory's performance and flexibility advantages over flash memory. Optane Memory caching is currently only supported on Windows 10 64-bit and only for the boot volume. Booting from a cached volume requires that the chipset's storage controller be in RAID mode rather than AHCI mode so that the cache drive will not be accessible as a standard NVMe drive and is instead remapped to only be accessible to Intel's drivers through the storage controller. This NVMe remapping feature was first added to the Skylake-generation 100-series chipsets, but boot firmware support will only be found on Kaby Lake-generation 200-series motherboards and Intel's drivers are expected to only permit Optane Memory caching with Kaby Lake processors."

Voted yes thinking Optane would a be way to speed up my all-HDD home server but that's just too limiting.

I'd rather spend a little more and get an Intel 600p 256GB for $99. Ain't as fast, but I'd get so much more value out of it.

 

[Sasqui]

I'd rather spend a little more and get an Intel 600p 256GB for $99. Ain't as fast, but I'd get so much more value out of it.

Yes... and wait for production on 3D XPoint products to ramp up, it looks like quite the disruptive technology.

 

[notb]

Voted yes thinking Optane would a be way to speed up my all-HDD home server but that's just too limiting.
I'd rather spend a little more and get an Intel 600p 256GB for $99. Ain't as fast, but I'd get so much more value out of it.

I think we're generally too attached to some general concepts like SSD storage.
We look at a 32GB SSD for $80 and we think "nah, I can get something 8x larger".
But what if it turns out that adding an Optane cache worth $80 gets you +10% rendering or database performance? Don't you think that would get some traction?

Honestly, today storage is possibly the main limiting factor in computation, data analysis, AI and so on - not how many cores your CPU has (unlike what many try to tell us).
Just the fact that people are using RAM drives (despite having an SSD) shows that there is in fact a place for such a solution.

So is $80 a lot? If it doesn't deliver than any price would be. But if it does?
I just checked: over the last 10 years disks (just a single SSD and many HDD) has cost me twice as much as CPUs. So yeah... I guess I could push another $80 into the storage budget.

But lets be honest. This caching idea is great for technology launch, but what people actually want is a normal SSD with Optane-like performance. Well... we'll get there sometime, but the tech has to mature and offering it to the customers clearly won't slow this process down.

 

[silentbogo]

I think we're generally too attached to some general concepts like SSD storage.

+1, but for different reasons.

Consumer models of Intel Optane drives are used as cache, and apparently are managed by software (unlike SSHDs with hardwired caching algorithms). So my belief is that MS and Intel have decided to cooperate on improving prefetch/superfetch and few other "preloading" features, besides simple HDD caching.
Which means that if you constantly use certain software or few games, it will be preloaded to cache only once, and stay there after restart (thus reducing both OS load times and software startup time, whenever needed). Right now it gets pre-loaded to RAM at each startup (which makes Win10 real pain in the ass without an SSD).
Also, in contrast to SSHDs, the prediction algorithm can be tweaked/patched/improved with a simple windows update, or a new driver version.

It is still kinda expensive for such a small device, but I'd love to get my hands on one of these puppies.

 

[JalleR]

if it's not support on X99 then I don't care..... 32gb

 

[Disparia]

I think we're generally too attached to some general concepts like SSD storage.
We look at a 32GB SSD for $80 and we think "nah, I can get something 8x larger".
But what if it turns out that adding an Optane cache worth $80 gets you +10% rendering or database performance? Don't you think that would get some traction?

Honestly, today storage is possibly the main limiting factor in computation, data analysis, AI and so on - not how many cores your CPU has (unlike what many try to tell us).
Just the fact that people are using RAM drives (despite having an SSD) shows that there is in fact a place for such a solution.

So is $80 a lot? If it doesn't deliver than any price would be. But if it does?
I just checked: over the last 10 years disks (just a single SSD and many HDD) has cost me twice as much as CPUs. So yeah... I guess I could push another $80 into the storage budget.

But lets be honest. This caching idea is great for technology launch, but what people actually want is a normal SSD with Optane-like performance. Well... we'll get there sometime, but the tech has to mature and offering it to the customers clearly won't slow this process down.

I think you're going wide and generalized while my scope was focused -- consumer Optane available in 32GB and 64GB capacities and how I would use it right now.

The general concept of caching or tiered storage is not new to me; I was using DRAM-based SSDs well before NAND came along The hang-up I have is the lock-in to a specific platform and OS which is easily 50% of the reason why I'd prefer a 600p in it's place. The other half comes from guesstimating the benefit I'd gain utilizing 256GB 600p vs Optane 32GB and I sided with the former.

It's not that I can't think up a scenario where there is notable use of Optane, it's just that the phrasing of the question included "my hard earned money" and I don't want to spend my money on any of those scenarios at this time. It hasn't reached a value that makes me interested in it. Now if you want to know how I'd use 375GB, 1TB, and 1.5TB Optane in the datacenter; that's another story

 

[RejZoR]

Pointless tech as NO ONE seems to use even SSD cache drives anyway. I was one of the odd ones to have hybrid storage system and everyone laughed at me for having it instead of using SSD for "boot drive". Which I think is dumb. So, fast forward 2 years and now I'm 100% on SSD anyway.

I mean, SSD caching existed for ages and it was cheap and it worked. And it worked great. It worked great because cache was larger than garbage 8GB on SSHD's. But again, no one used it even though it was cheap way to augment speed to almost SSD levels while retaining capacity advantage of HDD.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Pointless tech as NO ONE seems to use even SSD cache drives anyway. I was one of the odd ones to have hybrid storage system and everyone laughed at me for having it instead of using SSD for "boot drive". Which I think is dumb. So, fast forward 2 years and now I'm 100% on SSD anyway.

I mean, SSD caching existed for ages and it was cheap and it worked. And it worked great. It worked great because cache was larger than garbage 8GB on SSHD's. But again, no one used it even though it was cheap way to augment speed to almost SSD levels while retaining capacity advantage of HDD.

It worked in some scenarios, but just as with this, it had a lot of limitations imposed by Intel, such as only supported in certain configurations, only for the boot drive etc. and it added a fair chunk of cash which could've been better spent in the first place on a larger SSD. It sort of made some kind of sense when a 64GB SSD was $300, but now, not really.

 

[RejZoR]

I had 2TB HDD paired with 128GB M.2 SSD, both connected together into hybrid system with PrimoCache. Zero Intel imposed caching limits that they had with their RAID kind of system...

 

[TheLostSwede]

Clearly a recent thing then and not like in the Z77 days when you got a 16 or 24GB Mini PCIe Intel SSD as cache...
This really is a repeat of that crap, just better at QD1/QD4 and much much faster overall.

For those that are interested in the specs back then http://ark.intel.com/products/66291/Intel-SSD-313-Series-24GB-2_5in-SATA-3Gbs-25nm-SLC

So 12x improved read latency, 9x random read improvement and 7.5x sequential read improvement. Not bad in five years, but even so...