Intel Optane vs SuperFetch

[Fanaticcell]

So SuperFetch preloadeds programs to your ram am, I correct? Intel optane preloads the programs onto itself whats the difference?

[Electronics Wizardy]

Optane/ssd is non volatile.

 

Ram is much faster.

 

There both used at the same time

 

 

[Jurrunio]

RAM gets wiped when you turn your system off, but Optane doesnt.

[Enderman]

Which is one of the reasons why optane is useless, when a program is being used most of the code and resources are loaded into ram anyway, so the performance of that program is no different when you have optane.

 

[vanished]

22 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Which is one of the reasons why optane is useless, when a program is being used most of the code and resources are loaded into ram anyway, so the performance of that program is no different when you have optane.

 

Well I wouldn't say it's useless... a 32 GB optane stick is going to hold more than your RAM if you're a normal person and have 8 or 16 GB, with ~4 used for Windows and programs.  And as mentioned it is persistent from one boot to the next, so it will accelerate boot times where as superfetch will not.

[Enderman]

15 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well I wouldn't say it's useless... a 32 GB optane stick is going to hold more than your RAM if you're a normal person and have 8 or 16 GB, with ~4 used for Windows and programs.  And as mentioned it is persistent from one boot to the next, so it will accelerate boot times where as superfetch will not.

1) The only programs that will need that much space in ram are huge games or video editing, both of which would be perfectly fine running on a regular SSD.

 

2) It's slower than ram, so stuff that would normally be cached to a drive still won't be as fast. If you're video editing then buy more ram.

 

3) It takes multiple times for it to decide what to put on those tiny 32GB, so the first time you open something it will not be fast at all. When you want to change what programs or files you access, then it will be slow again. Unless you literally use the exact same program every day, all you will get is a bunch of random slow downs and speed ups.

And if you do use the same program every day, then just get a normal SSD and stick the program on it.

 

4) If all you want is faster boot time, that is a waste of money. The point of an SSD is for faster file and program access. The size of an optane cache drive is almost useless for this.

 

5) It is a cache drive and will be constantly be moving files back and forth depending on what programs/files you use most often. Not only does this wear on the SSD, but it also increases your other HDD or storage drive usage when transferring files back and forth.

 

So my point is that it is a much better option to simply buy a regular storage SSD/optane drive, NOT a cache drive, and actually choose yourself what you put on it.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) The only programs that will need that much space in ram are huge games or video editing, both of which would be perfectly fine running on a regular SSD.

I don't really get what you mean by this

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

2) It's slower than ram, so stuff that would normally be cached to a drive still won't be as fast. If you're video editing then buy more ram.

Yes true but it's better than a HDD which is the point

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

5) It is a cache drive and will be constantly be moving files back and forth depending on what programs/files you use most often. Not only does this wear on the SSD, but it also increases your other HDD or storage drive usage when transferring files back and forth.

Optane is very resilient with regard to TBW though

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

3) It takes multiple times for it to decide what to put on those tiny 32GB, so the first time you open something it will not be fast at all. When you want to change what programs or files you access, then it will be slow again. Unless you literally use the exact same program every day, all you will get is a bunch of random slow downs and speed ups.

And if you do use the same program every day, then just get a normal SSD and stick the program on it.

 

4) If all you want is faster boot time, that is a waste of money. The point of an SSD is for faster file and program access. The size of an optane cache drive is almost useless for this.

 

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

So my point is that it is a much better option to simply buy a regular storage SSD/optane drive, NOT a cache drive, and actually choose yourself what you put on it.

Well yes an SSD is for sure a better option, but again, if it at least provides some benefit, which it does, I couldn't call it useless personally

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I don't really get what you mean by this

Yes true but it's better than a HDD which is the point

Optane is very resilient with regard to TBW though

 

Well yes an SSD is for sure a better option, but again, if it at least provides some benefit, which it does, I couldn't call it useless personally

It is useless because you could save that money and get a normal SSD, or not waste the money on a 32GB cache drive at all.

Would you upgrade from an 8350 to an 8370 "because it is better" ? No, that would be absurd.

Save the money and spend it on something more useful.

Optane is literally just bigger HDD cache, and for the money it costs it is basically useless.

[vanished]

6 minutes ago, Enderman said:

It is useless because you could save that money and get a normal SSD, or not waste the money on a 32GB cache drive at all.

You're equating useless with unnecessary though, and I'm not sure that's valid.  I think optane is unnecessary, meaning it has a use, but you could get the same or better function in other ways.  Being truly useless implies it has no beneficial function.

 

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

You're equating useless with unnecessary though, and I'm not sure that's valid.  I think optane is unnecessary, meaning it has a use, but you could get the same or better function in other ways.  Being truly useless implies it has no beneficial function.

NVME would be unnecessary, because it actually does give benefits, although not much for most people.

optane (cache) is useless just like a an i5 would be if an i7 cost the same price.

 

In this case it is not functionally useless, but it is "useless" to consumers where the point is to buy products that make sense.

[vanished]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

NVME would be unnecessary, because it actually does give benefits, although not much for most people.

optane (cache) is useless just like a an i5 would be if an i7 cost the same price.

 

In this case it is not functionally useless, but it is "useless" to consumers where the point is to buy products that make sense.

Not sure I would describe NVME quite like that but I agree with the rest of it