# Intel Optane for consumers is here



## TheLostSwede (Mar 27, 2017)

The official link http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/intel-optane-technology.html

And some more details http://www.anandtech.com/show/11227/intel-launches-optane-memory-m2-cache-ssds-for-client-market

For now it's just available as a 16 or 32GB Optane Memory cache, with "SSD" type products coming at some point in the future for consumers. Note that you need at least a Core i3 and a B250 motherboard to use it.

Optane Memory looks like a new take on the mini PCIe SSD caching from a few years ago (was that Z77?) and the USB drive caching crap from Microsoft before that.

Long story short, if you own an SSD it's unlike it's going to matter to you. If you don't own an SSD, 32GB of Optane ($77) is the same price as a decent 128GB SSD or a cheap 240GB SSD...


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 27, 2017)

Don't have any system that could possibly use it and unless there is a big euro/lottery win in my future
don't think that one is in my immediate future


----------



## alucasa (Mar 27, 2017)

I am cheap. I buy cheap. Is Optane cheap?

Me doesn't think so.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 27, 2017)

alucasa said:


> I am cheap. I buy cheap. Is Optane cheap?
> 
> Me doesn't think so.



At $77 for 32GB, not really, no.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 27, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> At $77 for 32GB, not really, no.



Okie, dokie, I will go sulk in a corner and sob for my sorry-poor-life. Call me back when it becomes 50 dollars for 250gb.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 27, 2017)

I voted "huh" ...must see some real world benefits from independent tests before saying yes or no.


----------



## IvanP91v (Mar 27, 2017)

But how fast is random access (4K) in MB/s?
for read and write?

SATAIII SSDs are 30-50MB/s read and 40-65write
I hoped that NVMe drives would be faster, and they are - but not by a whole lot.

How fast would either capacity be with consumer Optane?


----------



## Mike0409 (Mar 27, 2017)

So if I am understanding the market for Optane its mainly for SSD caching since its in small sizes of 16/32 currently?  

Not seeing a solid purpose on adding this to a machine with current gen SSD's? Maybe the Hybrid drives?


----------



## notb (Mar 27, 2017)

Sasqui said:


> I voted "huh" ...must see some real world benefits from independent tests before saying yes or no.


I think this is the only sensible reaction right now.

The price suggests this could be on a level of enterprise-grade SSDs and - honestly - they're simply on a different level compared to what we use in PCs.
Lets wait for some random read/write tests + real-life tests...


----------



## alucasa (Mar 27, 2017)

I smell Optane 2 even before Optane 1 becomes somewhat affordable and useful.


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 27, 2017)

For now deffently not. That would mean if i shut use it, i had to get a new setup and im not ready to let go on my x58 pc yet.

Optane is properly also as every other new type of storage/memory exspensive in the first few gen just as ssd where years back.

I have all the storage and memory i need right now. 4 SSD's (including a samsung 950 pro 256 gb m.2 NVMe ssd for OS and most used games. So i have a fast storage/c-drive) and 12 gb ddr3 ram.

I voted off cause no. Maybe in the future when the teknoligy has imatured and prices got down, but not for now.


----------



## fullinfusion (Mar 27, 2017)

Only if cheap.. I noticed a new BIOS for my board that supports it so who knows but at these prices I can say na


----------



## biffzinker (Mar 27, 2017)

IvanP91v said:


> But how fast is random access (4K) in MB/s?
> for read and write?
> 
> SATAIII SSDs are 30-50MB/s read and 40-65write
> ...


Access speed for 3D XPoint is the same as DRAM so your looking at 1uS-10uS compared to a SSD at 0.5-1mS, and the hard disk drive is all way down at 10s of mS. 3D XPoint also manages to hit it's maximum/advertised transfer speed starting with QD=1 unlike SSDs require QD=4.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 27, 2017)

Simply No, just intel trying to make some money. Just another label that be stuck on a box to make it look even better.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 27, 2017)

notb said:


> The price suggests this could be on a level of enterprise-grade SSDs and - honestly - they're simply on a different level compared to what we use in PCs.
> Lets wait for some random read/write tests + real-life tests...



This is from the Anandtech write-up:

"The very low capacity of the Optane Memory drives limits their usability as traditional SSDs. Intel intends for the drive to be used with the caching capabilities of their Rapid Storage Technology drivers. Intel first introduced SSD caching with their Smart Response Technology in 2011. The basics of Optane Memory caching are mostly the same, but under the hood Intel has tweaked the caching algorithms to better suit 3D XPoint memory's performance and flexibility advantages over flash memory. Optane Memory caching is currently only supported on Windows 10 64-bit and only for the boot volume. Booting from a cached volume requires that the chipset's storage controller be in RAID mode rather than AHCI mode so that the cache drive will not be accessible as a standard NVMe drive and is instead remapped to only be accessible to Intel's drivers through the storage controller. This NVMe remapping feature was first added to the Skylake-generation 100-series chipsets, but boot firmware support will only be found on Kaby Lake-generation 200-series motherboards and Intel's drivers are expected to only permit Optane Memory caching with Kaby Lake processors."


----------



## Disparia (Mar 27, 2017)

Sasqui said:


> This is from the Anandtech write-up:
> 
> "The very low capacity of the Optane Memory drives limits their usability as traditional SSDs. Intel intends for the drive to be used with the caching capabilities of their Rapid Storage Technology drivers. Intel first introduced SSD caching with their Smart Response Technology in 2011. The basics of Optane Memory caching are mostly the same, but under the hood Intel has tweaked the caching algorithms to better suit 3D XPoint memory's performance and flexibility advantages over flash memory. Optane Memory caching is currently only supported on Windows 10 64-bit and only for the boot volume. Booting from a cached volume requires that the chipset's storage controller be in RAID mode rather than AHCI mode so that the cache drive will not be accessible as a standard NVMe drive and is instead remapped to only be accessible to Intel's drivers through the storage controller. This NVMe remapping feature was first added to the Skylake-generation 100-series chipsets, but boot firmware support will only be found on Kaby Lake-generation 200-series motherboards and Intel's drivers are expected to only permit Optane Memory caching with Kaby Lake processors."



Voted yes thinking Optane would a be way to speed up my all-HDD home server but that's just too limiting.

I'd rather spend a little more and get an Intel 600p 256GB for $99. Ain't as fast, but I'd get so much more value out of it.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 27, 2017)

Jizzler said:


> I'd rather spend a little more and get an Intel 600p 256GB for $99. Ain't as fast, but I'd get so much more value out of it.



Yes... and wait for production on 3D XPoint products to ramp up, it looks like quite the disruptive technology.


----------



## notb (Mar 27, 2017)

Jizzler said:


> Voted yes thinking Optane would a be way to speed up my all-HDD home server but that's just too limiting.
> I'd rather spend a little more and get an Intel 600p 256GB for $99. Ain't as fast, but I'd get so much more value out of it.



I think we're generally too attached to some general concepts like SSD storage.
We look at a 32GB SSD for $80 and we think "nah, I can get something 8x larger".
But what if it turns out that adding an Optane cache worth $80 gets you +10% rendering or database performance? Don't you think that would get some traction?

Honestly, today storage is possibly the main limiting factor in computation, data analysis, AI and so on - not how many cores your CPU has (unlike what many try to tell us).
Just the fact that people are using RAM drives (despite having an SSD) shows that there is in fact a place for such a solution. 

So is $80 a lot? If it doesn't deliver than any price would be.  But if it does?
I just checked: over the last 10 years disks (just a single SSD and many HDD) has cost me twice as much as CPUs. So yeah... I guess I could push another $80 into the storage budget. 

But lets be honest. This caching idea is great for technology launch, but what people actually want is a normal SSD with Optane-like performance. Well... we'll get there sometime, but the tech has to mature and offering it to the customers clearly won't slow this process down.


----------



## silentbogo (Mar 27, 2017)

notb said:


> I think we're generally too attached to some general concepts like SSD storage.


+1, but for different reasons.

Consumer models of Intel Optane drives are used as cache, and apparently are managed by software (unlike SSHDs with hardwired caching algorithms). So my belief is that MS and Intel have decided to cooperate on improving prefetch/superfetch and few other "preloading" features, besides simple HDD caching.
Which means that if you constantly use certain software or few games, it will be preloaded to cache only once, and stay there after restart (thus reducing both OS load times and software startup time, whenever needed). Right now it gets pre-loaded to RAM at each startup (which makes Win10 real pain in the ass without an SSD).
Also, in contrast to SSHDs, the prediction algorithm can be tweaked/patched/improved with a simple windows update, or a new driver version.

It is still kinda expensive for such a small device, but I'd love to get my hands on one of these puppies.


----------



## JalleR (Mar 27, 2017)

if it's not support on X99 then I don't care..... 32gb


----------



## Disparia (Mar 27, 2017)

notb said:


> I think we're generally too attached to some general concepts like SSD storage.
> We look at a 32GB SSD for $80 and we think "nah, I can get something 8x larger".
> But what if it turns out that adding an Optane cache worth $80 gets you +10% rendering or database performance? Don't you think that would get some traction?
> 
> ...



I think you're going wide and generalized while my scope was focused -- consumer Optane available in 32GB and 64GB capacities and how I would use it right now.

The general concept of caching or tiered storage is not new to me; I was using DRAM-based SSDs well before NAND came along  The hang-up I have is the lock-in to a specific platform and OS which is easily 50% of the reason why I'd prefer a 600p in it's place. The other half comes from guesstimating the benefit I'd gain utilizing 256GB 600p vs Optane 32GB and I sided with the former.

It's not that I can't think up a scenario where there is notable use of Optane, it's just that the phrasing of the question included "my hard earned money" and I don't want to spend my money on any of those scenarios at this time. It hasn't reached a value that makes me interested in it. Now if you want to know how I'd use 375GB, 1TB, and 1.5TB Optane in the datacenter; that's another story


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 28, 2017)

Pointless tech as NO ONE seems to use even SSD cache drives anyway. I was one of the odd ones to have hybrid storage system and everyone laughed at me for having it instead of using SSD for "boot drive". Which I think is dumb. So, fast forward 2 years and now I'm 100% on SSD anyway.

I mean, SSD caching existed for ages and it was cheap and it worked. And it worked great. It worked great because cache was larger than garbage 8GB on SSHD's. But again, no one used it even though it was cheap way to augment speed to almost SSD levels while retaining capacity advantage of HDD.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 28, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Pointless tech as NO ONE seems to use even SSD cache drives anyway. I was one of the odd ones to have hybrid storage system and everyone laughed at me for having it instead of using SSD for "boot drive". Which I think is dumb. So, fast forward 2 years and now I'm 100% on SSD anyway.
> 
> I mean, SSD caching existed for ages and it was cheap and it worked. And it worked great. It worked great because cache was larger than garbage 8GB on SSHD's. But again, no one used it even though it was cheap way to augment speed to almost SSD levels while retaining capacity advantage of HDD.



It worked in some scenarios, but just as with this, it had a lot of limitations imposed by Intel, such as only supported in certain configurations, only for the boot drive etc. and it added a fair chunk of cash which could've been better spent in the first place on a larger SSD. It sort of made some kind of sense when a 64GB SSD was $300, but now, not really.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 28, 2017)

I had 2TB HDD paired with 128GB M.2 SSD, both connected together into hybrid system with PrimoCache. Zero Intel imposed caching limits that they had with their RAID kind of system...


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 28, 2017)

Clearly a recent thing then and not like in the Z77 days when you got a 16 or 24GB Mini PCIe Intel SSD as cache...
This really is a repeat of that crap, just better at QD1/QD4 and much much faster overall.

For those that are interested in the specs back then http://ark.intel.com/products/66291/Intel-SSD-313-Series-24GB-2_5in-SATA-3Gbs-25nm-SLC

So 12x improved read latency, 9x random read improvement and 7.5x sequential read improvement. Not bad in five years, but even so...


----------



## Delta6326 (Mar 28, 2017)

It's a No for me. Both my m.2 slots are taken.










Source: 








My PC
Boot 39.74
Excel 1.19Sec. Word 1Sec.
I don't have the others to test.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 28, 2017)

32 second boot... I boot in like 10 seconds with my NVMe drive... 20 seconds on my latop with a SATA drive.
It's clearly not useful for games, only smaller programs, which might be useful for some, but you'd see the same from a regular SSD I'd say, while getting an overall more responsive system if you install the OS on it.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 28, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Clearly a recent thing then and not like in the Z77 days when you got a 16 or 24GB Mini PCIe Intel SSD as cache...
> This really is a repeat of that crap, just better at QD1/QD4 and much much faster overall.
> 
> For those that are interested in the specs back then http://ark.intel.com/products/66291/Intel-SSD-313-Series-24GB-2_5in-SATA-3Gbs-25nm-SLC
> ...



I've had Sandisk's ReadyCache 32GB cache years ago. It was like 35€.


----------



## Ahhzz (Apr 24, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> The official link http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/intel-optane-technology.html
> 
> And some more details http://www.anandtech.com/show/11227/intel-launches-optane-memory-m2-cache-ssds-for-client-market
> 
> ...


Gizmodo did a short take on it here, looks like it even helps SSDs


----------



## Ferrum Master (Apr 24, 2017)

I can only see making a hybrid SSD using optane as SLC cache.

This? Looks like a scream from 90ties.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Apr 25, 2017)

Ahhzz said:


> Gizmodo did a short take on it here, looks like it even helps SSDs



Great, but would you pay $77 for it?


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 25, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Great, but would you pay $77 for it?



No, in fact I wouldn't even use this if I had an HDD.  I'd use the already readily available Intel Smart Response that uses a standard SSD in the same exact way to speed up HDDs.


----------



## notb (Apr 25, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Great, but would you pay $77 for it?


Well.. 1TB HDD costs $50, when a 1TB SSD is $400.
If it turned out to be true that a HDD + Optane performs similarly to an SSD (in general daily use), it would make Optane extremely good value.


----------



## erocker (Apr 25, 2017)

If I still used HDD's, yes I'd get one. $44 for the 16gb version and $77 for the 32gb.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Apr 25, 2017)

Except you'd need a new motherboard and possibly a new CPU and RAM as well, since this only works with the 200-series chipset...


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 25, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> since this only works with the 200-series chipset...


Should also work with the 170 series PCH as well if not for Intel creating artificial segmentation.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Apr 25, 2017)

biffzinker said:


> Should also work with the 170 series PCH as well if not for Intel creating artificial segmentation.



Shoulda, coulda, woulda... well, it doesn't so why even bring it up?


----------



## Nuckles56 (Apr 25, 2017)

I really dislike the fact that the biggest benefit comes from low end systems which are only using HDDs still, but they cannot make use of it because you need a Z270 or a Q270 motherboard which these systems clearly don't have. Maybe in a few years when intel drops the price and increases capacity I would consider using it, especially if they give us it in DIMM form soon (seeing as I have no m.2 or PCI-E slots available.


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 25, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Shoulda, coulda, woulda... well, it doesn't so why even bring it up?


Skylake - Kabylake is there really a remarkable difference between either or the accompanying PCH? Not that I'm aware of. Just Intel being Intel, nothing new. Seems like a missed opportunity to sell more on Intel's part.


----------



## notb (Apr 25, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Except you'd need a new motherboard and possibly a new CPU and RAM as well, since this only works with the 200-series chipset...


Even if one has to buy a new PC, this could still be good value. . I could include quite a decent 200-series PC in the HDD+Optane vs SSD difference with my storage needs (6TB at this point and growing...).

Keep in mind the 200-series limitation is just for the M.2 cache drive.
You can get an Optane-based SSD (when available) and setup it as a cache using Intel Smart Response. M.2 cache drives might be more optimized, but you'd still benefit from the excellent Optane's characteristics.



Nuckles56 said:


> I really dislike the fact that the biggest benefit comes from low end systems which are only using HDDs still, but they cannot make use of it because you need a Z270 or a Q270 motherboard which these systems clearly don't have. Maybe in a few years when intel drops the price and increases capacity I would consider using it, especially if they give us it in DIMM form soon (seeing as I have no m.2 or PCI-E slots available.


Consider the fact that there are different needs regarding disk's size and speed. It's all about the workflow.
If you're a gamer, you'll be fine with a small SSD and a HDD for storage.
But for people that need a lot of space, HDDs are still the only cost-effective option. For them SSD caching is an excellent solution.

Good example: photographers and videographers. Even as a hobbyist, you can easily generate 1TB of photo files a year (way more for video).
Storing everything on SSDs would cost *a lot*. Yet, you'll want fast browsing and editing. Caching is just fantastic.

Generally speaking, I'd recommend SSD caching to anyone who has to edit large files. Most apps freeze while saving (and autosaving - e.g. in Excel), which can be really frustrating at times.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Apr 25, 2017)

> Consider the fact that there are different needs regarding disk's size and speed. It's all about the workflow.
> If you're a gamer, you'll be fine with a small SSD and a HDD for storage.
> But for people that need a lot of space, HDDs are still the only cost-effective option. For them SSD caching is an excellent solution.
> 
> ...



If you are generating 1TB+ of photos, you are going to have a big, fast NAS where all the photos are stored on and only the active projects are stored locally on a much smaller SSD, removing much of the requirement for a Optane+HDD combo


----------



## Frick (Apr 25, 2017)

biffzinker said:


> Skylake - Kabylake is there really a remarkable difference between either or the accompanying PCH? Not that I'm aware of. Just Intel being Intel, nothing new. Seems like a missed opportunity to sell more on Intel's part.



Doesn't matter, if Intel says it'll only work on certain chipsets that's how it'll be.

The interesting thing about this is that you can adress it as you could RAM (as opposed to flash memory), paving the way for some really disruptive stuff. Where closer to the point when RAM=storage.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 25, 2017)

This seems exactly the same as buying a hybrid SSHD drive with the 32GB cache already on it

maybe future variants of the tech will be more appealing, but this first wave just seems... redundant


----------



## notb (Apr 25, 2017)

Frick said:


> The interesting thing about this is that you can adress it as you could RAM (as opposed to flash memory), paving the way for some really disruptive stuff. Where closer to the point when RAM=storage.


You can also do that with other NVMe PCIe disks. 

But yup, we'll most likely see DIMM SSDs in 2018.
So yeah, maybe in few years we won't have M.2 slots - just DIMMs.
Mind you, if a PCIe SSDs is connected via something else than RAM slot, adding it to RAM pool is possible, but fairly pointless.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 25, 2017)

Mussels said:


> This seems exactly the same as buying a hybrid SSHD drive with the 32GB cache already on it
> 
> maybe future variants of the tech will be more appealing, but this first wave just seems... redundant



Except there are no SSHD drives with 32GB cache. Just garbage 8GB so it passes with nice numbers in benchmarks, but it won't work well in real world. If they had 32GB, they'd sell like hot cakes. For a ~30€ premium over normal HDD.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 25, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Except there are no SSHD drives with 32GB cache. Just garbage 8GB so it passes with nice numbers in benchmarks, but it won't work well in real world. If they had 32GB, they'd sell like hot cakes. For a ~30€ premium over normal HDD.



you know what i mean tho - it hardly seems superior, other than being a larger cache.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 25, 2017)

Seems superior what? Not quite sure what you mean there...


----------



## Frick (Apr 25, 2017)

notb said:


> You can also do that with other NVMe PCIe disks.



I'm pretty sure you can't. Those are still flash disks, 3D X-point is not. Unless you mean you can do it over the NVMe interface, which I have no idea about.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 25, 2017)

Maybe in like 5 years when it's adopted by others, or on board cache is a thing by then and it will be obsolete by HBM stacks on the CPU is a thing.


----------



## notb (Apr 25, 2017)

Steevo said:


> Maybe in like 5 years when it's adopted by others, or on board cache is a thing by then and it will be obsolete by HBM stacks on the CPU is a thing.



IMO these desktop caches exist mostly to give new tech some traction. Let's be honest: Intel aims for laptop domination.
They've already announced that next mobile CPU gen will include WiFi, but the Optane thing is even more important.
Think about the current situation:
1) To get a notebook with decent NVMe disk one usually has to prepare over $1000.
2) Notebooks priced between $500 and $1000 have lesser SSDs which can still be improved by a fast cache.
3) However, low-end is really interesting. Here you end up with either a slow HDD or some awful flash memory that could be even slower than those 5400rpm.

With a cost-efficient Optane cache (and the prices will drop with large volume), you can make all these laptops feel a lot more similar in daily consumer-ish tasks (browsing, casual gaming etc) and some more advanced stuff as well.
This is not just a performance boost. It's a significant qualitative change - something relaly worth looking forward to.

I find it pretty shocking that people here commonly believe in a soon-to-happen 8-core software optimization (because now maybe 2% of consumers will have them instead of 1% ), but at the same so few believe in caching solutions. 
In truth an increase in core number really mattered only once: when we got the second one.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Apr 25, 2017)

Yes, because so many budget notebooks use ready cache, right? This is going to be just as successful.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 25, 2017)

I frankly don't see why they even bothered with Xpoint. Sure, it's a nice proof of concept but nothing you couldn't do with SSD already. Especially at thse sizes. At 32GB, it costs peanuts for SSD. Every motherboard could come with it integrated to be used with this. They could evolve storage into so much more without forcing users to buy SSD drives. But they threw all that away with silly marketing moves...


----------



## notb (Apr 25, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> If you are generating 1TB+ of photos, you are going to have a big, fast NAS where all the photos are stored on and only the active projects are stored locally on a much smaller SSD, removing much of the requirement for a Optane+HDD combo


Good theory. Why exactly should I keep my files on a NAS, not on the PC?


----------



## Nuckles56 (Apr 26, 2017)

notb said:


> Good theory. Why exactly should I keep my files on a NAS, not on the PC?


Lets see, much more storage volume and redundancy as well


----------



## Devon68 (Apr 26, 2017)

I watched an LTT video on this today and while is is good to have when you only have a mechanical HDD, for the price of this I would just get an SSD for the system and call it a day.


----------



## notb (Apr 26, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> Lets see, much more storage volume and redundancy as well



I don't see how a NAS gives more storage volume. Magic? I can simply put those disks in my PC (and not have to pay for NAS host).

As for redundancy - again, NAS is not a magic box with unique properties. It's just a low-cost server.
I have a 3-level storage policy for important files (PC > external backup > off-site backup). For essential files there is 4th one: cloud (it's for personal data, documents, financial history etc).
I feel pretty covered on the redundancy front. 

Sure, NAS is a great solution in some scenarios - e.g. if you're main PC is a notebook or a desktop with limited number of 3.5" bays. But what you've said is by far too general.


----------



## P4-630 (Apr 26, 2017)

Not that I'm buying.....But...
Prices at my country...:


----------



## Devon68 (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Full system SSD for 70 bucks?


Yes a 120gb ssd for the os and a mechanical 1 tb for storage.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

That's not full system SSD... That's just a garbage useless boot drive and a 1TB HDD. Oh, dear god...

Look, I'll explain it one more time.

*120GB SSD boot drive + 1TB HDD*
SSD speed only for things that you have specifically installed on SSD. Everything off 1TB drive will be at garbage HDD speeds.

*120GB SSD + 1TB HDD in hybrid configuration*
Basically SSD speeds across entire 1TB capacity. Whatever you use the most simply gets cached and will be at near SSD speeds. When you change your habits and apps or games, they get boosted automatically. Where on above boot drive crap, you have to shuffle data around to have it on SSD. But with hybrid, you essentially get a 1TB SSD drive for a price of that 120GB SSD.

Just try PrimoCache app, it comes in free trial and see for yourself. It's cheap anyway if you buy it (using Intel's Smart Response is limited to 64GB I think). PrimoCache can use ANY SSD capacity you have.

I've only gone full SSD because I sleep in same room and I wanted 100% silence, otherwise I'd stick with SSD+HDD hybrid config.


----------



## Devon68 (Apr 26, 2017)

OH now I get what you mean. You was talking about not being able to buy an SSHD for 70$. Well then I have to agree.


----------



## RejZoR (May 1, 2017)

SSHD's are nice because they are a single drive, but they only have 8GB cache which essentially makes them useless. They'll speed up your OS and small apps, but if you'll play a big modern game a lot, algorithm will throw out the OS and app fiels from the cache, meaning game will load slightly faster, but your boot times and apps will most likely suffer because cache will be taken over by the game data.

I personally believe anything below 32GB cache is pointless. I'd recommend 128GB as minimum when using normal SSD. They are cheap anyway. I mean, you can get a Samsung 850 Pro 128GB for 95€. That's 4x the capacity with some pretty sick TBW characteristics. But you can get decent SSD's at this capacity for as low as 52€. If you include the ~30€ cost of PrimoCache and you're at around 80€. And I can assure you you'll have a FAR better experience than with Optane for same/lower price.


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2017)

Deja vu from another thread...

Cache and hybrid drived are played out. They have their place, indeed, but, with how cheap ssd's are, just grab a ssd, 256gb+...


----------



## infrared (May 1, 2017)

What the hell... Is he STILL bleating on about how a cached hard drive is "vastly superior" to an SSD?????? Honestly wow.

I'll repeat my thoughts on this...

500GB is enough active storage for most people. A 500GB SSD isn't crazy expensive. Following this through to the conclusion, if everything you do fits on an SSD that you can afford then it is MUCH better than having a cached hard drive.

And who cares how fast the 1-2+TB storage drive is... it's for cold storage of films, downloads, whatever... it doesn't need to be fast as the boot drive.

It won't be long until 1TB SSD's are affordable, and then the tenuous reasoning for a cache drive becomes even more tenuous.

As EarthDog said, Cached hard drives are played out.


----------



## silkstone (May 1, 2017)

notb said:


> Well.. 1TB HDD costs $50, when a 1TB SSD is $400.
> If it turned out to be true that a HDD + Optane performs similarly to an SSD (in general daily use), it would make Optane extremely good value.



My 750 GB SSD was $100. Unless prices have gone up ridiculously, you aren't saving much with optane


----------



## RejZoR (May 1, 2017)

infrared said:


> What the hell... Is he STILL bleating on about how a cached hard drive is "vastly superior" to an SSD?????? Honestly wow.
> 
> I'll repeat my thoughts on this...
> 
> ...



I suggest you first learn to read before you accuse others of garbage like this. I've said hybrids are superior to HDD's in every single aspect. And they still beat every SSD in price and capacity and in terms of day to day use come essentially on SSD territory of performance. But whatever, insist on shitty boot drives. Ignorance really is a bliss. Even if 512GB isn't "crazy" expensive, it's still just 512GB. 2005 called and it wants its capacity back... Boot drive. Laughable.


----------



## infrared (May 1, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> I suggest you first learn to read before you accuse others of garbage like this. I've said hybrids are superior to HDD's in every single aspect. And they still beat every SSD in price and capacity and in terms of day to day use come essentially on SSD territory of performance. But whatever, insist on shitty boot drives. Ignorance really is a bliss. Even if 512GB isn't "crazy" expensive, it's still just 512GB. 2005 called and it wants its capacity back... Boot drive. Laughable.


----------



## Ahhzz (May 1, 2017)

infrared said:


> View attachment 87327


Sorry, lemme help. 
*
"I suggest you first learn to read before you accuse others of garbage like this. I've said hybrids are superior to HDD's in every single aspect. And they still beat every SSD in price and capacity and in terms of day to day use come essentially on SSD territory of performance. But whatever, insist on shitty boot drives. Ignorance really is a bliss. Even if 512GB isn't "crazy" expensive, it's still just 512GB. 2005 called and it wants its capacity back... Boot drive. Laughable.*"


----------



## notb (May 4, 2017)

silkstone said:


> My 750 GB SSD was $100. Unless prices have gone up ridiculously, you aren't saving much with optane


It's great that you got yourself such a deal. How is this even relevant in this discussion?
Low-mid range 500GB hover around $160 on Amazon, with high-end models easily reaching $250-300.
You can get a 1TB for $280, but that will be a slow 2.5" model (e.g. MX300). To get a 1TB NVMe you'll have to spend the $400 that I've mentioned or a bit more (e.g. Samsung 960EVO is $480).

And we should compare the Optane cache to NVMe drives, not the cheap SATA models. Why?
Because in typical usage scenario - when you boot the OS, check e-mail, browse web or start one of your 2-3 favourite games/applications - the "live" performance will remind that of Optane, not the slower HDD behind it. Everything needed often and quickly will be in the cache.
Yes, HDD will work in the background loading other OS files or game graphics, but this should not be noticeable - the ~100MB/s that modern HDDs offer is really enough.

Of course a pure-SSD setup has many advantages: no noise/vibrations and universally good performance - even when loading data that you seldom use. But you'd expect that given the huge price premium. 

The popular SSD+HDD setup (SSD for OS, Documents and software), however, is not optimal, because you're wasting a lot of expensive SSD space.
In such scenario the SSD has to keep many irrelevant files (half of the Windows directory, most games' data, things in ./Documents that you haven't used for years etc).
And unless you have a large SSD (~1TB), you're limited by the size as well. You either fill it and are forced to move other files to HDD (less important games etc) or you end up using just a small part. As a result quite a lot of people have half of their SSD empty or filled with rubbish (mp3 or something).

Also, the small size could be a problem e.g. for avid Steam users. If you have a lot of Steam games, chances are that your Steam directory will not fit in your SSD. I'm not sure if you can divide it between multiple partitions (maybe via Windows links).

On the other hand, the idea of cache (Optane or not) is so much easier. You still live in a comfortable reality with big HDD-like partitions - you don't have to worry about space, move things around etc. But most of the time this setup is every bit as fast as NVMe SSD-only for a fraction of price.
*In cache setup your fast and expensive SSD is always used optimally - storing just the things you need.* Half of Windows, half of each game, the 1% files from ./Documents that you've opened this month and so on.


----------



## silkstone (May 4, 2017)

notb said:


> It's great that you got yourself such a deal. How is this even relevant in this discussion?
> Low-mid range 500GB hover around $160 on Amazon, with high-end models easily reaching $250-300.
> You can get a 1TB for $280, but that will be a slow 2.5" model (e.g. MX300). To get a 1TB NVMe you'll have to spend the $400 that I've mentioned or a bit more (e.g. Samsung 960EVO is $480).
> 
> ...



Only relevant in that consumer drives aren't all that expensive, especially if you hunt around for a deal.

How I understand Optane is that you'd be getting a excellent performance in a few situations over an SSD (a few ms?), but vastly inferior performance in other situations. This is not going to have much effect, if any, on productivity to power users who do more than read e-mails and browse the web. A large SSD can easily handle a few games; not having your entire steam library is not really a problem with fiber and backups, but not only that it will handle applications that move and manipulate large amounts of data (anything adobe) with ease in comparison to Optane.

That is not to say that some people wouldn't want or need to spend the extra for a full SSD, but I'm assuming they'd be in the minority on TPU.
Those that really want to save money and get good performance should os RejZoR suggested and use PrimoCache. For the same cost as Optane, you can get a very fast 128 Gb SSD and use 64GB of it as Cache and then the other 64 GB dedicated to whatever takes your fancy.


----------



## RejZoR (May 4, 2017)

Why stop at 64GB ? PrimoCache doesn't have any limitation like Intel Rapid Response had. You can stick a 1TB SSD cache to a 10TB HDD if you want. Or you can use half of SSD for boot drive if you really want it and other half for SSD cache accelerating the attached HDD. It's a very flexible thingie. And I believe going with slightly slower, but larger regular SSD cache over Optane would be more beneficial. More data being able to be cached means more of everything will essentially behave like it's on SSD. Even if you bounce between several large modern games.


----------



## silkstone (May 4, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Why stop at 64GB ? PrimoCache doesn't have any limitation like Intel Rapid Response had. You can stick a 1TB SSD cache to a 10TB HDD if you want. Or you can use half of SSD for boot drive if you really want it and other half for SSD cache accelerating the attached HDD. It's a very flexible thingie. And I believe going with slightly slower, but larger regular SSD cache over Optane would be more beneficial. More data being able to be cached means more of everything will essentially behave like it's on SSD. Even if you bounce between several large modern games.



Just to illustrate that even if you were to use 1/2 the space, it would be better value than Optane for a lot of people.

In other news, prices on SSDs are coming down again, a 1TB drive can be obtained for $226. http://www.pcgamer.com/get-a-1tb-ad...source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_pcgamerfb

Not that many people would require 1TB. So far I'm using 300 GB of 750 GB. Media and archived stuff is on my 2 TB drive while movies and music are on my plex server. The only way I could imagine filling my SSD is if I got super lazy over the next year with where I stored my stuff and with deleting things. I'm sure that Optane would give me a boost to boot times, maybe 3 seconds over 5 (Bios actually takes up most of that time) and I don't mind waiting the entire 2 seconds it takes to open up outlook, which is my slowest loading application due to the mailbox size and plugins.


----------



## EarthDog (May 4, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Why stop at 64GB ? PrimoCache doesn't have any limitation like Intel Rapid Response had. You can stick a 1TB SSD cache to a 10TB HDD if you want. Or you can use half of SSD for boot drive if you really want it and other half for SSD cache accelerating the attached HDD. It's a very flexible thingie. And I believe going with slightly slower, but larger regular SSD cache over Optane would be more beneficial. More data being able to be cached means more of everything will essentially behave like it's on SSD. Even if you bounce between several large modern games.


id look i to how optane works a bit more deeply if yoy think that. 

Optane is, supposedly a lot faster than a 
hybrid catching from what i read...


----------



## RejZoR (May 4, 2017)

It's not. Having more stuff in cache will benefit you more than having little in a faster cache. That's why difference between SSD and HDD is massive, but between SATA3 and M.2 NVMe it's almost non existent even though on paper, NVMe should win hands down. It's the same with Optane.


----------



## notb (May 5, 2017)

silkstone said:


> Only relevant in that consumer drives aren't all that expensive, especially if you hunt around for a deal.
> How I understand Optane is that you'd be getting a excellent performance in a few situations over an SSD (a few ms?), but vastly inferior performance in other situations.


You get excellent performance in a very wide range of scenarios. For most PC users this could mean basically all that they do.


silkstone said:


> This is not going to have much effect, if any, on productivity to power users who do more than read e-mails and browse the web.


You'll have to define a "power user".
Is software designer / coder a power user? Is a data analyst a power user? Photo processing specialist? CAD designer?
Generally speaking, if one's way to use PC (as a "power user") is copying files from one place to another for a hobby, he won't benefit much from a cache. But quite a lot of people will and it clearly doesn't stop at reading e-mails.



silkstone said:


> A large SSD can easily handle a few games; not having your entire steam library is not really a problem with fiber and backups, but not only that it will handle applications that move and manipulate large amounts of data (anything adobe) with ease in comparison to Optane.


I totally agree. But then there are people here saying that their Steam library is over 1TB. So if one has e.g. 50+ games installed all the time, but he (I suppose) plays just a few of them in a ~month window, caching could work. He'll spend <$100 for Optane or a different small NVMe SSD, setup it as cache and it'll make the latest few games of choice work faster. The rest of Steam stuff will remain on a cheap HDD. Compared to that getting a 1TB SSD ($250 for something cheap, double that for fast NVMe) seems expensive and wasteful.


silkstone said:


> Those that really want to save money and get good performance should os RejZoR suggested and use PrimoCache. For the same cost as Optane, you can get a very fast 128 Gb SSD and use 64GB of it as Cache and then the other 64 GB dedicated to whatever takes your fancy.


I think people are too attached to the idea that Optane is a cache. At this point it's just a showcase of a new, better SSD tech that will move to other product types in coming years. That's some proper innovation going on.
Furthermore, I struggle to understand the price arguments and constant comparisons to simply getting a fast SSD. Cache is not a replacement for SSD. It should work with disks, boosting their performance.
We're still waiting for proper real-life tests of Optane caches, but, honestly, we should not expects miracles - Optane could give a few % performance boost in some productivity tasks.
But hold on. Few % for under $100? How much people here spend on OC that quite often gives similar benefits?
Suddenly we arrive to a conclusion that spending a $1000 on OC (high-end RAM and mobos, watercooling, high-end cases/PSU) is awesome, but spending $100 on a cache is pointless and lame.


----------



## RejZoR (May 5, 2017)

Just got a word from moderator. Apparently me debunking SSD caching myths and telling people how to save money and still have great performing system is now an offensive thing. Got it. Everyone buy awesome SSD for boot drive. And 5400 RPM HDD for storing of data. It's excellent. If everyone use such configuration, they can't possibly be wrong... I apologize for being helpful.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 5, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Just got a word from moderator. Apparently me debunking SSD caching myths and telling people how to save money and still have great performing system is now an offensive thing. Got it. Everyone buy awesome SSD for boot drive. And 5400 RPM HDD for storing of data. It's excellent. If everyone use such configuration, they can't possibly be wrong... I apologize for being helpful.



Well to me your story made a lot of sense. FWIW


----------



## Tatty_One (May 5, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Just got a word from moderator. Apparently me debunking SSD caching myths and telling people how to save money and still have great performing system is now an offensive thing. Got it. Everyone buy awesome SSD for boot drive. And 5400 RPM HDD for storing of data. It's excellent. If everyone use such configuration, they can't possibly be wrong... I apologize for being helpful.


No you just got word from me that your insults and attitude are not welcome in this thread or anywhere else, feel free to give your opinions and advice at any time.


----------



## alucasa (May 5, 2017)

I have wondered one thing while reading this thread and I don't think I still have the answer for it.

What's wrong with storing data on regular HDD?


----------



## Ahhzz (May 5, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> No you just got word from me that your insults and attitude are not welcome in this thread or anywhere else, feel free to give your opinions and advice at any time.


I assume this attitude also received a notice....
_
"What the hell... Is he STILL bleating on about how a cached hard drive is "vastly superior" to an SSD?????? Honestly wow._"


----------



## alucasa (May 5, 2017)

I get cautioned frequently by mods. It's nothing to worry about.


----------



## erixx (May 5, 2017)

LOL. Maybe it's the fact that with summer nearing and temperatures rising forums tend to get overly "crispy" and unuseful? Adding a punch to every argument?


----------



## newtekie1 (May 5, 2017)

alucasa said:


> I have wondered one thing while reading this thread and I don't think I still have the answer for it.
> 
> What's wrong with storing data on regular HDD?



Nothing. For data, like movies, music, documents, pictures, storing them on a normal hard drive is just fine.  There is no need to access this data faster.

In fact, IMO, installing games on a non-OS HDD isn't really that bad either. Since the HDD isn't loaded down and thrashing due to OS access, so the slow random read isn't as bad for games.  Load times are still longer than with an SSD, but not what I would call terrible.  However, having a SSD cache on that HDD does help out, and is worth it, IMO, as long as the SSD is cheap enough(like I said, my limit is about 128GB right now).



Ahhzz said:


> I assume this attitude also received a notice....
> _
> "What the hell... Is he STILL bleating on about how a cached hard drive is "vastly superior" to an SSD?????? Honestly wow._"



That isn't really as bad as RejZor was.  Saying using SSDs as boot drives is "retarded" is likely the offensive part that got him warned.  Of course, now he's flying off that handle spinning like they are trying to stop him from talking about SSHDs not acknowledging the fact that he's called thing "retarded" and been insulting, and that is why he got warned...


----------



## alucasa (May 5, 2017)

My current config is SSD-OS SSD-App HDD-data (Backup disk where data is duplicated at least once per month).

I used to have SSD-OS HDD-app HDD-data.

Honestly, I cannot tell much of speed advantage on the app disk where Steam games, GIMP, Blender, etc are installed between SSD and HDD.


----------

