anandtech Intel Optane cache drive - 1st impressions

[MageTank]

2 hours ago, Shakaza said:

Couldn't cost be a factor? Say you want a lot of fast storage, but you don't want to spend a lot on a, 1 TB SSD, for example. You could buy a 1 TB HDD and get one of these bad boys and get similar performance for a much lower price. The 32 GB cache drive + a 1 TB HDD would set you back around $127 USD, whereas a 1 TB SSD would set you back $250 or more. If cost isn't really a factor for you and you just care about blazing fast performance, like a lot of enthusiasts, then sure, I'd say this doesn't make a lot of sense. For people like my dad, however, he needs a lot of storage for archival purposes, but he doesn't want to spend a lot because he's paying for two kids going to college. He could still afford SSDs, but I may have recommended this to him if it was available at the time and he had a Kaby Lake system. I still think that's a bit restrictive.

That was not my point. My point is: people already have ram. Some people buy more than they even need, like myself. While NAND in general is getting expensive, some still have 32-64GB of ram and they could easily do the exact same thing as an Optane drive without having to buy a specific chipset and drive that supports it. You can buy high capacity HDD's, and cheapo SSD's to cache them, or simply cache them with your ram all using Primocache.

 

Cost isn't applicable in my eyes, as you have to invest in the platform that supports it anyways, so desktop users without the platform are better off throwing more ram, or traditional SSD's at the problem. For laptop users/embedded devices with finite storage solutions, the point is moot. 

[zMeul]

33 minutes ago, MageTank said:

That was not my point. My point is: people already have ram. Some people buy more than they even need, like myself. While NAND in general is getting expensive, some still have 32-64GB of ram and they could easily do the exact same thing as an Optane drive without having to buy a specific chipset and drive that supports it. You can buy high capacity HDD's, and cheapo SSD's to cache them, or simply cache them with your ram all using Primocache.

 

Cost isn't applicable in my eyes, as you have to invest in the platform that supports it anyways, so desktop users without the platform are better off throwing more ram, or traditional SSD's at the problem. For laptop users/embedded devices with finite storage solutions, the point is moot. 

what is this shit!?

are you seriously comparing 32GB of RAM for caching, that costs ~200$, against a 32GB Optane cache that costs 70$

 

people have RAM, like 8GB of it; some have 16GB and very few above that

 

---

 

Quote

Primocache

funny how that solution of yours costs 30$ / PC licence

also, it doesn't retail the data after a reboot like the Optane cache does

[JoostinOnline]

These benchmarks probably aren't indicative of real world results unfortunately.  Benchmarks re-use the same files, so caching results is going to be more obvious.

4 hours ago, zMeul said:

here's the thing: at 32GB, the cache can completely cover a base Windows install

Depends what you mean by a "base" install.  If you mean the moment after you finish the install, then yes.  However, if you start using Windows for awhile, even without installing any additional programs or creating your own files, it will use more than that. It starts taking up more space for backups, cache, temporary files, updates (plus the uninstallers to remove them), logs, and more.

 

Hopefully someone could clear something up for me though.  Do you have to do a fresh OS install to set it up?

[zMeul]

5 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

However, if you start using Windows for awhile, even without installing any additional programs or creating your own files, it will use more than that. It starts taking up more space for backups, cache, temporary files, updates (plus the uninstallers to remove them), logs, and more.

the caching algorithm will "phase out" data that is not accessed frequently - if the Intel software is any good, and I no reason to think otherwise

[MageTank]

9 minutes ago, zMeul said:

what is this shit!?

are you seriously comparing 32GB of RAM for caching, that costs ~200$, against a 32GB Optane cache that costs 70$

 

people have RAM, like 8GB of it; some have 16GB and very few above that

 

---

 

funny how that solution of yours costs 30$ / PC licence

also, it doesn't retail the data after a reboot like the Optane cache does

Man, you get worked up easily over the most basic things. Calm yourself down buddy. As for your point, you can get 32GB for $160 here in the US, but that's not my point. My point is: to use this tech, you need to buy the latest Intel platform/chipset AND an optane drive. Those of us with decent platforms can do the same thing as Optane, by using ram or SSD's. The total cost of the platform and Optane drive, might cost more than upgrading ram capacity.

 

You can cache your spinners with cheapo SSD's as well. For $110, you can get a 250GB 850 Evo that will easily make your HDD's feel as fast as an SSD. Will it be as fast as the NVMe drives? No, but when's the last time your average consumer actually needed fast sequential speeds or uncommon queue depths? 

 

I can't wait for your next "WHAT?!?!?!" comment for me. It's starting to become a highlight of my day.

[JoostinOnline]

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

the caching algorithm will "phase out" data that is not accessed frequently - if the Intel software is any good, and I hope it is

Yes, but what I'm saying is that there isn't enough data in benchmark tools to test how data gets phased out.  Everything is going to get cached, and stay cached until the test is over.

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Yes, but what I'm saying is that there isn't enough data in benchmark tools to test how data gets phased out.  Everything is going to get cached, and stay cached until the test is over.

and why does it matter?!

does it do it's job? by the looks of it, yes

 

so, why/how does it matter what data gets cached and what isn't

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, zMeul said:

and why does it matter?!

does it do it's job? by the looks of it, yes

 

so, why/how does it matter what data gets cached and what isn't

Because that shows optimal results, not realistic ones.  It's like how SSHD's benchmark at almost the same speed as SATA SSD's, when in reality they're never that fast.

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Because that shows optimal results, not realistic ones.  It's like how SSHD's benchmark at almost the same speed as SATA SSD's, when in reality they're never that fast.

what reviews have you been reading!? SSHDs have never been shown to have SSD performance - as far as I'm aware

and ps: I have a SSHD in my system and it does not perform like a SSD no matter what - is it faster than a regular HDD? yes

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, zMeul said:

what reviews have you been reading!? SSHDs have never been shown to have SSD performance

I said they benchmark at SSD performance.

[zMeul]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

I said they benchmark at SSD performance.

meaning what?!

[MageTank]

7 minutes ago, zMeul said:

and why does it matter?!

does it do it's job? by the looks of it, yes

 

so, why/how does it matter what data gets cached and what isn't

 

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

what reviews have you been reading!? SSHDs have never been shown to have SSD performance - as far as I'm aware

and ps: I have a SSHD in my system and it does not perform like a SSD no matter what - is it faster than a regular HDD? yes

 

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

meaning what?!

Why do you always respond with an exclamation point followed immediately by a question mark? Are you that overly sensitive to people having a difference of opinion to the content of your news posts? Dial it back like, 20 levels man.

[JoostinOnline]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

meaning what?!

Meaning if you run CrystalDiskMark on a SSHD, it will give results close to a SSD.  But we all know they aren't actually that fast.

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

Why do you always respond with an exclamation point followed immediately by a question mark? Are you that overly sensitive to people having a difference of opinion to the content of your news posts? Dial it back like, 20 levels man.

Been feeling like he thinks I stomped on his new puppy or something

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Meaning if you run CrystalDiskMark on a SSHD, it will give results close to a SSD.  But we all know they aren't actually that fast.

Been feeling like he thinks I stomped on his new puppy or something

He reminds me of this classic animation: (warning: language and cartoon gore!?!) 

[Curufinwe_wins]

10 minutes ago, zMeul said:

what reviews have you been reading!? SSHDs have never been shown to have SSD performance - as far as I'm aware

and ps: I have a SSHD in my system and it does not perform like a SSD no matter what - is it faster than a regular HDD? yes

This is true, but if you have ever looked up single package NAND performance, it is actually pretty bad. Like more than an order of magnitude worse than Xpoint.

 

Now, this is a mixed statement here, but somewhere in the comments of one of these reviews one of the writers made a pretty good point to basically the only (and a decent to be fair) use case where getting one of these is actually probably a really nice idea.

 

 

(reworded by me)

 

So not saying this is a good argument, but suppose you are a gamer and content consumer. You probably want more than just 256GB or even 500GB of storage. A 1TB meh SSD will cost you something like 250 dollars atm (god NAND prices suck ATM, got my 960GB for 179.99), and for basically same price you can get 32GB optane and a 6TB X300 HDD. (250 vs 260 dollars but still). And that is assuming you went with a "not very good TLC" SSD (A better MX300 costs 290 dollars and the 850 Evo costs a whopping 330 dollars) which honestly might preform worse for most day to day tasks than optane+HDD based on optane's truly untouchable latencies right now.

 

Now admittedly, this is a pretty damn fringe use case, and someone who can get by on 500 GB or less should basically always just go SSD only instead.

[zMeul]

21 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Meaning if you run CrystalDiskMark on a SSHD, it will give results close to a SSD.  But we all know they aren't actually that fast.

nope! I tested, and not speaking from hearsay

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, zMeul said:

nope! I tested, and not speaking from hearsay

Also in fairness (since I also have one of those shitty laptop SSHD's) they take the bottom basement HDDs and pair them with bottom basement NAND and then it turns out they preform about as well as mid-range HDDs. Not good, but certainly still a bit of an improvement over just the 5400rpm laptop HDDs by themselves.

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

nope! I tested, and not speaking from hearsay

What speeds did you get?

 

And I'm speaking from experience.  But seriously, chill out.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

What speeds did you get?

 

And I'm speaking from experience.  But seriously, chill out.

Mine tops out at 115 MBps sequential read on 1GB transfer. Pretty terribad.

[zMeul]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

What speeds did you get?

 

And I'm speaking from experience.  But seriously, chill out.

nothing spectacular, not even saturating the SATA interface

 

chill out?! regarding what? I kinda' like the truth, eh

[zMeul]

Just now, Curufinwe_wins said:

Mine tops out at 115 MBps sequential read on 1GB transfer. Pretty terribad.

I'm guessing you got one of those 5400rpm drives .. pretty shitty

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

nothing spectacular, not even saturating the SATA interface

 

chill out?! regarding what? I kinda' like the truth, eh

That's not an answer.  Show me a screenshot, I'm curious.  And saturating SATA would make it a high end SATA drive.  SSHD's usually show around 300MB/s on sequential speeds in my experience.

 

And you could dial back on the exclamation points, as well as accusing me of "speaking from hearsay".

[MageTank]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

nothing spectacular, not even saturating the SATA interface

 

chill out?! regarding what? I kinda' like the truth, eh

Regarding these. ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Misanthrope]

5 hours ago, zMeul said:

here's the thing: at 32GB, the cache can completely cover a base Windows install

But let's say a user like me goes that route. How is that going to help through extremely annoying shit like GTA V loading times on a mechanical? 

 

Given the prices of 500gb SSDs and such it hardly seems worth the trouble.

[zMeul]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

That's not an answer.  Show me a screenshot, I'm curious.  And saturating SATA would make it a high end SATA drive.  SSHD's usually show around 300MB/s on sequential speeds in my experience.

 

And you could dial back on the exclamation points, as well as accusing me of "speaking from hearsay".

aren't you funny?

you speak of 300MB/s transfer speeds and you ask me for screenshots? how about you .. eh

 

the best case scenario:

• Seagate ST1000DX001 
• 850EVO