Intel Optane Exclusive Hands On - SSD Crushing Performance

[Markmjb]

Apart from the thing everyone stated, that we wonder about pairing it with an SSD,

I wonder what the target group of this technology is.

 

This product is not for a-technical people who want the newest hardware, the "complete" systems a-technical people buy are usually 1 or more years behind the newest technology.

This product is not for a-technical people who have old hardware, because you need newer hardware to enjoy this.

And this product is not for us enthusiasts, because we'd rather buy a bigger ssd. 

 

SSD's are easily sell-able, even to people who know nothing about technology, because you leave the old computer intact and just put a faster hard drive in it. And because you "upgrade" , you still have the old hard drive at that point to use as a data drive. 

 

So I like them pushing new technology, but who is going to buy this ?

[Space Reptile]

3 hours ago, Space Reptile said:

i see the graph of boot times , and then i go

"wait a second , the garbage Pentium G620 mashines here w/ 4gb ram and a 500gb WD blue boot to Windows 10 in less than 20 seconds"

 

WHY DOES YOUR HIGH END MASHINE TAKE OVER 2 MINUTES

To back this claim, here's a gif

4_5967572103891779600.mp4

 

Or mp4 according to my phone

.__. 

[samcool55]

It's nice it's basically plug and play. But honestly as a person that has basically an ssd boot drive in almost every system i use, it's sort of pointless.

However, it would be nice if i could for example decide to cache only specific drives or just tell it to cache completely or partially a game.

Not needing to actually move the game and telling the software where the game is located now but having it cached on a fast drive would be nice.

 

[nzpancakes]

5 hours ago, Proesterchen said:

There's not benefit from separating the OS from the rest, the benefit demonstrated in the video is solely from putting the OS files needed during boot-up on much faster media, hence reducing the time the PC is waiting for them to be read.

 

Which is what brings me to the complete lunacy of this technology: It's great for doing things a second time. 

 

Reboot after having run your PC for days, weeks, or the full month? Prepare to be waiting for a long time, because few of the above-mentioned boot files should still be cached on the quick storage (here: Optane, but the same was true for the old NAND-based version of the same caching technology), because they should be replaced with applications and data that you have used more recently.

 

But boy howdy, after that first reboot, your next one is going to be, well, quicker. Why you would reboot again after already waiting to get back to work? No idea. Probably to show that this product has any merit.

 

So lets not reboot, and instead go to work, or "work" as I call it. Open your applications of choice (game), open your files (fav list of servers), and open your browser if you desire contact with the world at large. Will any of that significantly benefit from this brilliant technology? Of course not, because most of the data once present in the caching module was just replaced with OS boot files, you know, to make that coveted second reboot that much quicker!

 

But soon everything will be great again, because the software has now recognized your desire to hasten that particular application and will do its best to cache important parts of it on the tiny module. Of course, that will again slow down reboots, should your overclock crap out and lock-up your PC.

 

And what if, pray tell, you'd like to play another game? Well, I see what you did there my friend, and back to HDD-ville just for that! You are a savage! You are not worthy of caching technology! You might indeed be the use-case for an already established, non-proprietary, always-performing technology!

 

Let me introduce you to the magic of SSDs ...

Wow, this was very helpful and sarcastic all at the same time! , wait, but he said the files would not go away like ram, so wouldn't that mean after your first reboot with the octane in it would affect all further reboots?

[Okjoek]

Is this like an SSD where I need to put the programs onto it or is this some sort of passive module that you don't put files on it.

 

And what about drivers? does it need any?

 

It doesn't sound like something I would need because I plan to just get an NVMe SSD as my primary anyway.

[knightslugger]

...so it's an Apple Fusion Drive...?

[Appletax]

14 hours ago, CPotter said:

Are you guys excited for Optane? Or nah?

 

Thanks to Intel for sponsoring this exclusive look at their new Optane technology!

Learn more about Intel Optane: http://geni.us/anGeaJU

 

 

BUT: Is it M.2 SSD-crushing performance ???????????

[JoostinOnline]

6 minutes ago, Appletax said:

BUT: Is it M.2 SSD-crushing performance ???????????

I think you mean NVMe SSD crushing performance.  And since NVMe drives are barely faster for reading small files, it's a low bar.

[Appletax]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

I think you mean NVMe SSD crushing performance.  And since NVMe drives are barely faster for reading small files, it's a low bar.

No sir

 

I mean M.2 SSD NVMe (e.g. Samsung 960 Pro), which reads at 3.5 GB/s, whereas an NVMe SSD (e.g. Samsung 850 Pro) which reads at ~550 MB/s.

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, Appletax said:

No sir

 

I mean M.2 SSD NVMe (e.g. Samsung 960 Pro), which reads at 3.5 GB/s, whereas an NVMe SSD (e.g. Samsung 850 Pro) which reads at ~550 MB/s.

You're mixing up form factor with interface.  M.2 is just the shape.  The 850 Pro is a 2.5" SATA drive.  The 960 Pro is NVMe capable M.2 drive.  SATA-III has the 6Gbps data cap.  NVMe   There are M.2 SATA drives.

 

When it comes to caching data or booting Windows, it's reading small files that matters.  The speed there for all SSD drives, no matter the interface, is usually between 20-30MBps.  That's why you won't notice a difference if you switch from a (quality) SATA drive to an NVMe capable one.

[Appletax]

10 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

You're mixing up form factor with interface.  M.2 is just the shape.  The 850 Pro is a 2.5" SATA drive.  The 960 Pro is NVMe capable M.2 drive.  SATA-III has the 6Gbps data cap.  NVMe   There are M.2 SATA drives.

 

When it comes to caching data or booting Windows, it's reading small files that matters.  The speed there for all SSD drives, no matter the interface, is usually between 20-30MBps.  That's why you won't notice a difference if you switch from a (quality) SATA drive to an NVMe capable one.

M.2 is an interface, just like SATA. M.2 & SATA both allow drives to be plugged into the motherboard.

 

The max speed that Intel Optane Memory can ever run at is 3.9 GB/s because that's the max. real world throughput of the M.2 PCI-e 3.0 x4 slot. 

 

The Sammy 960 Pro operates at 3.5 GB/s, nearly saturating the M.2 bus, so there's very little room to go faster than the 960.

 

So, I doubt that Intel Optane Memory M.2 chip can offer much of a performance boost when reading data from a Sammy 960.

 

Perhaps the Intel Optane Memory's massively lower latency/seek time will make a difference.

 

I reached out to Intel directly for comment on this.

 

I plan to build a system with a Sammy 960 Pro to store OS/apps/some games, a Sammy 850 Evo, and a WD HDD.

 

I suspect that if I were to add an Intel Optane Memory module that apps/games stored on the Sammy 850 EVO and HDD will receive a performance boost but not the stuff stored on the M.2 SSD.

 

Or maybe there'll be no performance boost because the Intel Optane Memory will just cache into itself data from the M.2 SSD because that's where my most frequently used data will reside. So Optane will not cache much data from the regular SSD and the HDD.

 

*MY BRAIN*

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Appletax said:

M.2 is an interface, just like SATA. M.2 & SATA both allow drives to be plugged into the motherboard.

It's a form factor.

[Appletax]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

It's a form factor.

K! Well it's still a spot to connect an SSD just like a SATA port  

 

Thanks for responding to the other stuff I wrote /s

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, Appletax said:

K! Well it's still a spot to connect an SSD just like a SATA port  

 

Thanks for responding to the other stuff I wrote /s

M.2 being an interface was the only thing I ever disagreed with you on.  It's not even just for drives.  You can plug things like WiFi modules into it.

 

Optane isn't meant to replace actual SSD's.  Even if it was faster than a 960 Pro, it would still offer slower performance, because it only caches files.

[Appletax]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

M.2 being an interface was the only thing I ever disagreed with you on.  It's not even just for drives.  You can plug things like WiFi modules into it.

 

Optane isn't meant to replace actual SSD's.  Even if it was faster than a 960 Pro, it would still offer slower performance, because it only caches files.

Interface: 

COMPUTING

Connect with (another computer or piece of equipment) by an interface.

 

M.2 SSD connects to Motherboard via M.2 slot....so it is an interface....and a form factor???

 

Yea, I figured that Intel Optane Memory is not meant to compete with M.2 SSDs because it's job is to cache.

 

Wonder if caching data from a Sammy 960 M.2 SSD would offer a performance benefit.

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Appletax said:

Interface: 

COMPUTING

Connect with (another computer or piece of equipment) by an interface.

 

M.2 SSD connects to Motherboard via M.2 slot....so it is an interface....and a form factor???

 

Yea, I figured that Intel Optane Memory is not meant to compete with M.2 SSDs because it's job is to cache.

 

Wonder if caching data from a Sammy 960 M.2 SSD would offer a performance benefit.

Well I just found out you have to use RAID, making it basically the same as RST, and pointless.  That means reinstalling Windows.  Sponsored videos have been advertising it as just sticking it in there and booting up.

[NumLock21]

Those who says Optane has not use, just don't get it. Optane does have its use. For budget builds, it's a great option to have cause there is no way you can get a build with a 1TB SSD for $500 or less. With Optane, while the performance will not be faster than a true SSD. It's now possible to do a budget build with a 1TB HDD+Optane and get SSD like performance for $500 or less.

 

Here is PCPP cheapest 1TB SSD

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Storage: Mushkin Reactor 1TB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($259.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $259.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-28 16:19 EDT-0400

 

Here is 1TB HDD + Optane (32GB)

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($49.33 @ OutletPC)
Other: Intel Optane SSD 32GB ($77.00)
Total: $126.33
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-28 16:23 EDT-0400

 

BTW: Intel Optane setting in the bios

 

[Guest Darth Revan]

4 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Those who says Optane has not use, just don't get it. Optane does have its use. For budget builds, it's a great option to have cause there is no way you can get a build with a 1TB SSD for $500 or less. With Optane, while the performance will not be faster than a true SSD. It's now possible to do a budget build with a 1TB HDD+Optane and get SSD like performance for $500 or less.

 

Here is PCPP cheapest 1TB SSD

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Storage: Mushkin Reactor 1TB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($259.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $259.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-28 16:19 EDT-0400

 

Here is 1TB HDD + Optane (32GB)

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($49.33 @ OutletPC)
Other: Intel Optane SSD 32GB ($77.00)
Total: $126.33
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-28 16:23 EDT-0400

 

 

What are you talking about? Did you not understand how this works?

If you get Optane and combine it with a 1tb Hard Drive, you don't get the equivalent of a dedicated 1tb SSD. That's not how it works.

Optane is nothing more than Cache disk with a limit amount to 32gb at this moment. It's like having a hybrid HDD.

 

[NumLock21]

3 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

What are you talking about? Did you not understand how this works?

If you get Optane and combine it with a 1tb Hard Drive, you don't get the equivalent of a dedicated 1tb SSD. That's not how it works.

Optane is nothing more than Cache disk with a limit amount to 32gb at this moment. It's like having a hybrid HDD.

 

What the fudge are you reading. I know exactly how Optane works. much like a hybrid drive. SSHD. Not a true SSD.

[TheAvokadoMan]

What NAND drive faster then HDD no way!!! I never knew that. 

Are u kidding me?

easier to get SSD. 

That idea is more of the very much fail SSHD

[Princess Luna]

Am I the only one in here who still doesn't understand why aren't SATA3 SSD enough? Speaking objectively on real world performance the only pro I can think for the M.2 is its good size for ridiculous small mini-ITX builds, otherwise I would always rather the bigger storage capacity for cheaper from the good and old 2,5' SSDs.

[♠FlamieMeister♠]

When your pc has a cheap ssd and it gets 47 seconds boot but an optane module that's limited to 1 platform from the info we know is 37 seconds boot:

 

"SSD crushing performance"

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

Those who says Optane has not use, just don't get it. Optane does have its use. For budget builds, it's a great option to have cause there is no way you can get a build with a 1TB SSD for $500 or less. With Optane, while the performance will not be faster than a true SSD. It's now possible to do a budget build with a 1TB HDD+Optane and get SSD like performance for $500 or less.

If I had $80 to spend, I would rather get a 120GB Samsung 750. At least I can ensure most of my daily drivers are going to be on the faster SSD rather than hope cache still retains them if I somehow blew it away loading 32GB of stuff. I care more about my daily drivers and OS operating quickly than I do games, because most games are designed with being on hard drives in mind. i.e., most of the assets are clumped into a handful of files, it makes seeking happen less often.

 

57 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Am I the only one in here who still doesn't understand why aren't SATA3 SSD enough? Speaking objectively on real world performance the only pro I can think for the M.2 is its good size for ridiculous small mini-ITX builds, otherwise I would always rather the bigger storage capacity for cheaper from the good and old 2,5' SSDs.

In a manner of speaking, SSDs are basically a giant RAID0 of flash chips. So either the controller has issue addressing say 16 chips, or it's impractical to try to split up your data 16 ways (the most I've seen on a 2.5" SSD is 8 chips and it appears that physically as well, that's the limit).

 

Also 2.5" formfactors can use the U.2 connector, which allows them to use NVMe.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

 

18 hours ago, JurunceNK said:

For anybody mentioning the fact that Linus compared an Optane SSD to a WD Blue HDD, they were not provided with a SATA or PCIe NVM Express SSD to compare them to, and they had to work with whatever they had access to on site.

I don't think we can blame them for the test platform. But the point remains that we can't derive many conclusions from what they had.

 

2 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

Those who says Optane has not use, just don't get it. Optane does have its use. For budget builds, it's a great option to have cause there is no way you can get a build with a 1TB SSD for $500 or less.

But that comparison makes no sense: you are going from HDD+optane to the most expensive SSD possible. Why would that be relevant to anyone on a budget?

Instead, the real alternative is to get system SSD as most people tend to do these days, and still use mechanical drives for mass storage. In your example, the optane disk adds $77 to the cost: for that price, you can get a 240-256 GB SSD. Hence, the real comparison is

 

1TB HDD + 32GB Optantg

or

1TB HDD + 250GB SSD

 

for the same price?

[NumLock21]

24 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Snip

Your looking at it from a enthusiast perspective, which is why most don't get it. Need to look at it from a pc builders perspective to the masses. What is easier to manage for the average joe and jane? A single 120gb ssd + 1tb hdd for storage or just a single 1tb hdd with optane to give provide speed almost like a ssd.

 

 

17 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

Snip

I was comparing total storage space and getting the 32gb optane, price is still less than a actual 1tb ssd.

Just remember there are 1tb sshd by seagate. Can't remember how much cache it has. Wd has some too, 4tb for 3

5" and 1tb for 2.5".