Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
NunoLava1998

Should I get an Optane 800P 64GB as a boot drive?

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

I don't mind the low capacity and the price (124€), and ignoring sequential speeds (because those are literally irrelevant for boot drives as far as I know, please do correct me if I'm horribly misinformed fuck you AnandTech) it's about the same in 4K write as the 970 EVO and it's about 3x in 4K read compared to the 970 EVO (which is pretty significant). 970 EVO 250GB is about 39€ difference, and I don't need 250GB for a boot/programs drive (I have a separate SSD for games and large stuff, the OS drive is going to be used as purely a OS and programs drive).

Optane seems to be more adequate as a small boot drive because it uses 3D XPoint which doesn't slow down when you fill it up more, unlike regular SSDs

Also going to be putting my drive into a M.2 slot with direct connection to the CPU instead of the chipset

 

UserBenchMark (take a look at 4K speeds):

CrystalDiskMark (take a look at 4K speeds, gets surpassed at about QD10 ish by other NVMes, but still close to most NVMes above ss that):

Spoiler

Intel-800P-118GB-Crystal-DiskMark.png From TheSSDReview

Resultado de imagem para crystaldiskmark 800p From ProClockers: using CPU lanes (which is what I'm going to do)

cry4 From HotHardware (christ those Read speeds...)

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write AnandTech (This review is so biased for Optane I would not be surprised at all if they were paid by Intel)

Overall, seems like a pretty good boot drive. Seems better than NVMe in some areas (and about the same or slightly worse than NVMe in the areas it isn't better), and while the price per gigabyte is astronomically high and the capacity low, I don't mind paying the price lol

 

No TL;DR, read everything

TL;DR: Seems like a pretty good disk, but expensive af and low capacity, but I don't mind those two


Despite me bringing in 3D XPoint into stupid shit, I am indeed not paid by Intel to advertise 3D XPoint

Ryzen 5 1500X 4GHz/1.4V, 8GB DDR4, RX 570, Corsair 88R, 1TB HDD, 240GB SSD, Corsair 88R

1500X idle temperature: 40C 

1500X load temperature (OCCT AVX 64bit all cores/Prime95 1h sustained) : 80C

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
3 minutes ago, James Evens said:

Won't be any faster then a normal sata SSD. 

3d cross point matter for applications like databases not windows start up.

Windows startup is perfectly fine for me on a SSD, it's just that I prefer moving files/installing programs to be much faster, and the OS to be very responsive at all times. Plus I want a drive that holds up in the future (Optane has pretty high endurance and speeds but 64GB will probably be nothing in the future so there's that)

However yes, 3D XPoint was mostly made because of enterprise

2 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

I would say go for it. It will help with the responsiveness of the OS itself.

Alright, going to wait for more opinions tho


Despite me bringing in 3D XPoint into stupid shit, I am indeed not paid by Intel to advertise 3D XPoint

Ryzen 5 1500X 4GHz/1.4V, 8GB DDR4, RX 570, Corsair 88R, 1TB HDD, 240GB SSD, Corsair 88R

1500X idle temperature: 40C 

1500X load temperature (OCCT AVX 64bit all cores/Prime95 1h sustained) : 80C

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found very little difference going from a 500MBs SSD to a 1500 one. OS etc and startup all felt pretty much the same.

 

I would always say go for it if you have bought everything else and have some budget left but never if you have other components still to buy. Tackle your primary bottleneck first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 minute ago, NineEyeRon said:

I found very little difference going from a 500MBs SSD to a 1500 one. OS etc and startup all felt pretty much the same.

 

I would always say go for it if you have bought everything else and have some budget left but never if you have other components still to buy. Tackle your primary bottleneck first.

I do have everything else. What you're talking about is the sequential speeds, which for a OS drive as far as I know literally means jack shit (could be completely wrong though).

NVMe does seem to make a difference, but not if you buy shitty drives like the A1000

No bottleneck in my system and I'm pretty happy with my system for what I do (aka web browse a lot and every week play 20 minutes of Cities Skylines modded).


Despite me bringing in 3D XPoint into stupid shit, I am indeed not paid by Intel to advertise 3D XPoint

Ryzen 5 1500X 4GHz/1.4V, 8GB DDR4, RX 570, Corsair 88R, 1TB HDD, 240GB SSD, Corsair 88R

1500X idle temperature: 40C 

1500X load temperature (OCCT AVX 64bit all cores/Prime95 1h sustained) : 80C

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. 64 GB is too small for OS

What makes you think the OS does mostly 4K reads and writes making that statistic relevant?

 

Spend less on a bigger drive, and if you really want to maybe put the difference towards more ram - the OS will cache the files in ram and then the 4k reads and writes become irrelevant since the files are read from ram instead.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
4 minutes ago, mariushm said:

No. 64 GB is too small for OS

What makes you think the OS does mostly 4K reads and writes making that statistic relevant?

 

Spend less on a bigger drive, and if you really want to maybe put the difference towards more ram - the OS will cache the files in ram and then the 4k reads and writes become irrelevant since the files are read from ram instead.

 

Windows 10 takes 9GB without the hibernation file (and even then it doesn't exceed 20GB), and I'm only storing the OS and programs there, not everything (even then I don't have a lot of stuff and my SSD rarely goes beyond 200GB filled).

 

About the 4K, most of the time OS and programs don't do many sequential reads and writes. I.e. when loading or reading something you're going to be looking at sequential, but when you're copying or moving a file, or extracting a file, you're going to be looking at 4K. Even if sequential was a majority of the stuff done, it still has pretty okay sequential speeds.


Despite me bringing in 3D XPoint into stupid shit, I am indeed not paid by Intel to advertise 3D XPoint

Ryzen 5 1500X 4GHz/1.4V, 8GB DDR4, RX 570, Corsair 88R, 1TB HDD, 240GB SSD, Corsair 88R

1500X idle temperature: 40C 

1500X load temperature (OCCT AVX 64bit all cores/Prime95 1h sustained) : 80C

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NunoLava1998 said:

it's just that I prefer moving files/installing programs to be much faster, and the OS to be very responsive at all times.

1. moving large files = normal flash based NVME or SSD Raid

2. moving very small files = fast NVME like the 970 pro. alternatively buy a cheaper SSD and more RAM so you can use a RAM disk which is fast and has a low response time

3. you can not buffer read and writes = optane 

4. windows does not feel more responsive with optane

5. installing programs is often CPU limited as those installer use decompression the data for installtion

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Buy VPN

×