Intel Optane for consumers is here

[Delta6326]

It's a No for me. Both my m.2 slots are taken.

Source:

My PC
Boot 39.74
Excel 1.19Sec. Word 1Sec.
I don't have the others to test.

 

[TheLostSwede]

32 second boot... I boot in like 10 seconds with my NVMe drive... 20 seconds on my latop with a SATA drive.
It's clearly not useful for games, only smaller programs, which might be useful for some, but you'd see the same from a regular SSD I'd say, while getting an overall more responsive system if you install the OS on it.

 

[RejZoR]

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...

I've had Sandisk's ReadyCache 32GB cache years ago. It was like 35€.

 

[Ahhzz]

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...

Gizmodo did a short take on it here, looks like it even helps SSDs

 

[Ferrum Master]

I can only see making a hybrid SSD using optane as SLC cache.

This? Looks like a scream from 90ties.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Gizmodo did a short take on it here, looks like it even helps SSDs

Great, but would you pay $77 for it?

 

[newtekie1]

Great, but would you pay $77 for it?

No, in fact I wouldn't even use this if I had an HDD. I'd use the already readily available Intel Smart Response that uses a standard SSD in the same exact way to speed up HDDs.

 

[notb]

Great, but would you pay $77 for it?

Well.. 1TB HDD costs $50, when a 1TB SSD is $400.
If it turned out to be true that a HDD + Optane performs similarly to an SSD (in general daily use), it would make Optane extremely good value.

 

[erocker]

If I still used HDD's, yes I'd get one. $44 for the 16gb version and $77 for the 32gb.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Except you'd need a new motherboard and possibly a new CPU and RAM as well, since this only works with the 200-series chipset...

 

[biffzinker]

since this only works with the 200-series chipset...

Should also work with the 170 series PCH as well if not for Intel creating artificial segmentation.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Should also work with the 170 series PCH as well if not for Intel creating artificial segmentation.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda... well, it doesn't so why even bring it up?

 

[Nuckles56]

I really dislike the fact that the biggest benefit comes from low end systems which are only using HDDs still, but they cannot make use of it because you need a Z270 or a Q270 motherboard which these systems clearly don't have. Maybe in a few years when intel drops the price and increases capacity I would consider using it, especially if they give us it in DIMM form soon (seeing as I have no m.2 or PCI-E slots available.

 

[biffzinker]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda... well, it doesn't so why even bring it up?

Skylake - Kabylake is there really a remarkable difference between either or the accompanying PCH? Not that I'm aware of. Just Intel being Intel, nothing new. Seems like a missed opportunity to sell more on Intel's part.

 

[notb]

Except you'd need a new motherboard and possibly a new CPU and RAM as well, since this only works with the 200-series chipset...

Even if one has to buy a new PC, this could still be good value. . I could include quite a decent 200-series PC in the HDD+Optane vs SSD difference with my storage needs (6TB at this point and growing...).

Keep in mind the 200-series limitation is just for the M.2 cache drive.
You can get an Optane-based SSD (when available) and setup it as a cache using Intel Smart Response. M.2 cache drives might be more optimized, but you'd still benefit from the excellent Optane's characteristics.

I really dislike the fact that the biggest benefit comes from low end systems which are only using HDDs still, but they cannot make use of it because you need a Z270 or a Q270 motherboard which these systems clearly don't have. Maybe in a few years when intel drops the price and increases capacity I would consider using it, especially if they give us it in DIMM form soon (seeing as I have no m.2 or PCI-E slots available.

Consider the fact that there are different needs regarding disk's size and speed. It's all about the workflow.
If you're a gamer, you'll be fine with a small SSD and a HDD for storage.
But for people that need a lot of space, HDDs are still the only cost-effective option. For them SSD caching is an excellent solution.

Good example: photographers and videographers. Even as a hobbyist, you can easily generate 1TB of photo files a year (way more for video).
Storing everything on SSDs would cost *a lot*. Yet, you'll want fast browsing and editing. Caching is just fantastic.

Generally speaking, I'd recommend SSD caching to anyone who has to edit large files. Most apps freeze while saving (and autosaving - e.g. in Excel), which can be really frustrating at times.

 

[Nuckles56]

Consider the fact that there are different needs regarding disk's size and speed. It's all about the workflow.
If you're a gamer, you'll be fine with a small SSD and a HDD for storage.
But for people that need a lot of space, HDDs are still the only cost-effective option. For them SSD caching is an excellent solution.

Good example: photographers and videographers. Even as a hobbyist, you can easily generate 1TB of photo files a year (way more for video).
Storing everything on SSDs would cost *a lot*. Yet, you'll want fast browsing and editing. Caching is just fantastic.

Generally speaking, I'd recommend SSD caching to anyone who has to edit large files. Most apps freeze while saving (and autosaving - e.g. in Excel), which can be really frustrating at times.

If you are generating 1TB+ of photos, you are going to have a big, fast NAS where all the photos are stored on and only the active projects are stored locally on a much smaller SSD, removing much of the requirement for a Optane+HDD combo

 

[Frick]

Skylake - Kabylake is there really a remarkable difference between either or the accompanying PCH? Not that I'm aware of. Just Intel being Intel, nothing new. Seems like a missed opportunity to sell more on Intel's part.

Doesn't matter, if Intel says it'll only work on certain chipsets that's how it'll be.

The interesting thing about this is that you can adress it as you could RAM (as opposed to flash memory), paving the way for some really disruptive stuff. Where closer to the point when RAM=storage.

 

[Mussels]

This seems exactly the same as buying a hybrid SSHD drive with the 32GB cache already on it

maybe future variants of the tech will be more appealing, but this first wave just seems... redundant

 

[notb]

The interesting thing about this is that you can adress it as you could RAM (as opposed to flash memory), paving the way for some really disruptive stuff. Where closer to the point when RAM=storage.

You can also do that with other NVMe PCIe disks.

But yup, we'll most likely see DIMM SSDs in 2018.
So yeah, maybe in few years we won't have M.2 slots - just DIMMs.
Mind you, if a PCIe SSDs is connected via something else than RAM slot, adding it to RAM pool is possible, but fairly pointless.

 

[RejZoR]

This seems exactly the same as buying a hybrid SSHD drive with the 32GB cache already on it

maybe future variants of the tech will be more appealing, but this first wave just seems... redundant

Except there are no SSHD drives with 32GB cache. Just garbage 8GB so it passes with nice numbers in benchmarks, but it won't work well in real world. If they had 32GB, they'd sell like hot cakes. For a ~30€ premium over normal HDD.

 

[Mussels]

Except there are no SSHD drives with 32GB cache. Just garbage 8GB so it passes with nice numbers in benchmarks, but it won't work well in real world. If they had 32GB, they'd sell like hot cakes. For a ~30€ premium over normal HDD.

you know what i mean tho - it hardly seems superior, other than being a larger cache.

 

[RejZoR]

Seems superior what? Not quite sure what you mean there...

 

[Frick]

You can also do that with other NVMe PCIe disks.

I'm pretty sure you can't. Those are still flash disks, 3D X-point is not. Unless you mean you can do it over the NVMe interface, which I have no idea about.

 

[Steevo]

Maybe in like 5 years when it's adopted by others, or on board cache is a thing by then and it will be obsolete by HBM stacks on the CPU is a thing.

 

[notb]

Maybe in like 5 years when it's adopted by others, or on board cache is a thing by then and it will be obsolete by HBM stacks on the CPU is a thing.

IMO these desktop caches exist mostly to give new tech some traction. Let's be honest: Intel aims for laptop domination.
They've already announced that next mobile CPU gen will include WiFi, but the Optane thing is even more important.
Think about the current situation:
1) To get a notebook with decent NVMe disk one usually has to prepare over $1000.
2) Notebooks priced between $500 and $1000 have lesser SSDs which can still be improved by a fast cache.
3) However, low-end is really interesting. Here you end up with either a slow HDD or some awful flash memory that could be even slower than those 5400rpm.

With a cost-efficient Optane cache (and the prices will drop with large volume), you can make all these laptops feel a lot more similar in daily consumer-ish tasks (browsing, casual gaming etc) and some more advanced stuff as well.
This is not just a performance boost. It's a significant qualitative change - something relaly worth looking forward to.

I find it pretty shocking that people here commonly believe in a soon-to-happen 8-core software optimization (because now maybe 2% of consumers will have them instead of 1% ), but at the same so few believe in caching solutions.
In truth an increase in core number really mattered only once: when we got the second one.