So Optane was basically pointless?

[MageTank]

5 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

But RAM is more expensive than optane. The question is whether its intermediate place is justified in more specialized use cases, like Wendell intended to try on his storage array (with all its hardware/software restrictions, probably not even then). 

The whole "make your home HDD faster", though... I think it came a little late to the party

 

Ram is indeed expensive, but as I said before, you can use ANY SSD to block-level cache an HDD. You can get 480GB NVMe drives for $200, or 240GB for $115. For Optane, you have to spend $80 for just 32GB. That's a very small cache, even from a block-level perspective. 

 

Here is my dad's cheapo $115 MydigitalSSD BPX 240gb: 

 

Optane 32GB SSD: 

As you can see, it's only real advantage is 4k, and even then, the only real advantage it has is on 4k reads. Writes are still very similar, and with a better NVMe drive (the BPX is the cheapest NVMe drive on the market, not exactly a performance drive) you can certainly beat it's 4k results with relative ease. In fact, the larger BPX drive has better performance than the 240GB all around, at $200. The $:GB is far superior than Optanes for the performance you get. 

 

If you already have ram, using it as a level 1 cache is also a great idea. Let's face it, a lot of people buy 32GB of ram and never really use it. Most people do it just to have it. Creating a 20GB block-level cache to defer writes from your SSD is great for those people. They end up with performance that looks like this: 

 

For applications that are very demanding with 4k, you just cannot beat fast ram. That's just dual channel too, quad will have even more bandwidth for those that need it. 

 

My point is, Optane is a locked down proprietary tech. You NEED a new platform, a new Kaby+ CPU, and an Optane drive to utilize it. Primocache is platform agnostic, works with platforms/CPU's that are older than dirt, and works with literally any SSD, HDD, memory, etc. Rather than spend money buying a new platform, CPU, and Optane drive to utilize this tech, you are better off just buying your own block-level cache program (I prefer primocache, but other options do exist, some of which actually ship free with motherboards and SSD's) and a real SSD. The price at the end should equal out, and you will have a much better cache size as a result, without impacting performance in a negative manner. 

 

I should add a small disclaimer: Using your SSD as a cache for your HDD, means a ton of writes will hit your SSD. If you are using weak TLC nand, your lifespan is going to diminish rapidly. I highly recommend MLC (those cheapo BPX drives are Toshiba MLC for example) as they are far more durable, and are designed to take this kind of beating. If you need a drive that is extensively good at 4k, Intel's high end PCIe SSD's are amazing for this application if you have the funds to invest in one. Just figured I would add this information before people try to buy a ton of 850 Evo's and kill them after a year or two, lol. 

[Thinkfreely]

15 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Ram is indeed expensive, but as I said before, you can use ANY SSD to block-level cache an HDD. You can get 480GB NVMe drives for $200, or 240GB for $115. For Optane, you have to spend $80 for just 32GB. That's a very small cache, even from a block-level perspective. 

 

Here is my dad's cheapo $115 MydigitalSSD BPX 240gb: 

 

Optane 32GB SSD: 

As you can see, it's only real advantage is 4k, and even then, the only real advantage it has is on 4k reads. Writes are still very similar, and with a better NVMe drive (the BPX is the cheapest NVMe drive on the market, not exactly a performance drive) you can certainly beat it's 4k results with relative ease. In fact, the larger BPX drive has better performance than the 240GB all around, at $200. The $:GB is far superior than Optanes for the performance you get. 

 

If you already have ram, using it as a level 1 cache is also a great idea. Let's face it, a lot of people buy 32GB of ram and never really use it. Most people do it just to have it. Creating a 20GB block-level cache to defer writes from your SSD is great for those people. They end up with performance that looks like this: 

 

For applications that are very demanding with 4k, you just cannot beat fast ram. That's just dual channel too, quad will have even more bandwidth for those that need it. 

 

My point is, Optane is a locked down proprietary tech. You NEED a new platform, a new Kaby+ CPU, and an Optane drive to utilize it. Primocache is platform agnostic, works with platforms/CPU's that are older than dirt, and works with literally any SSD, HDD, memory, etc. Rather than spend money buying a new platform, CPU, and Optane drive to utilize this tech, you are better off just buying your own block-level cache program (I prefer primocache, but other options do exist, some of which actually ship free with motherboards and SSD's) and a real SSD. The price at the end should equal out, and you will have a much better cache size as a result, without impacting performance in a negative manner. 

 

I should add a small disclaimer: Using your SSD as a cache for your HDD, means a ton of writes will hit your SSD. If you are using weak TLC nand, your lifespan is going to diminish rapidly. I highly recommend MLC (those cheapo BPX drives are Toshiba MLC for example) as they are far more durable, and are designed to take this kind of beating. If you need a drive that is extensively good at 4k, Intel's high end PCIe SSD's are amazing for this application if you have the funds to invest in one. Just figured I would add this information before people try to buy a ton of 850 Evo's and kill them after a year or two, lol. 

I have said this before with others "Slow Claps" congrats, you just won the internet.

[Vacras]

11 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Which is the price of a 120-128GB SSD, negating the supposed trade-off between optane+HDD vs just SSD: if you can afford optane+HDD, then you can afford SSD+HDD, which is superior. It would have to be easy cheaper than that to have a place. 

 

Also, it will work on Ryzen, but as a regular SSD (I assume in non-Kaby Lake intel as well), without the dedicated caching functionality. 

Yeah pretty much ...

just get a ssd and be happy lol 

[MyName13]

16 hours ago, Thinkfreely said:

So I was just thinking about this. I am doing a build for the wife with Ryzen 3 which is a value build (Because budget builds are basically f*cked right now). It got me thinking about Intel Optane, which I know is not compatible with Ryzen and I wouldn't buy it regardless, but It was marketed as a budget solution to improve Hard drive speed and pc performance. I was curious did anyone actually buy it, or use it?

Why are budget builds fcked right now?

[Thinkfreely]

6 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Why are budget builds fcked right now?

Because of mining, the GPU's that most gamers would use in a budget build like a RX 570-580 or a GTX 1060 6gb are all $100-$150 over MSRP due to mining. So your stuck either going down to a 1050ti or RX560, or just saying F*ck it and buying high end.

[Frankenburger]

Intel's support on Optane is questionable, IMHO. I bought an Optane module not too long ago. I didn't realize until after I bought a module that it requires Kabylake or newer. I double checked the box to make sure I wasn't going crazy, and sure enough, nowhere on the packaging did it say it won't work on older CPUs. Like...effing really?

[JoostinOnline]

Originally I thought it was cool.  A dedicated SSD is better, but from the way it was announced (and some reviews that were shown), it seemed like all you had to do was attach it, enable something in the BIOS, and it would work.  That would mean someone could add an Optane drive to a pre-built computer without having to worry about cloning or a new Windows install. I later found out that RAID was necessary, which meant a fresh install of Windows.  It takes away the hassle-free benefit that made me interested.

[knightslugger]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

Originally I thought it was cool.  A dedicated SSD is better, but from the way it was announced (and some reviews that were shown), it seemed like all you had to do was attach it, enable something in the BIOS, and it would work.  That would mean someone could add an Optane drive to a pre-built computer without having to worry about cloning or a new Windows install. I later found out that RAID was necessary, which meant a fresh install of Windows.  It takes away the hassle-free benefit that made me interested.

that's pretty much what it really is beneficial for. i could buy a, say 1TB SSHD, but is there such a thing as a 10TB SSHD?

 

with optane, it's possible. And on the fly.

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

that's pretty much what it really is beneficial for. i could buy a, say 1TB SSHD, but is there such a thing as a 10TB SSHD?

 

with optane, it's possible. And on the fly.

I don't know if you've ever used an SSHD, but in my experience there is almost no performance improvement.  Also keep in mind that Optane only works for your boot drive.