Intel Launches its Blazing-Fast Optane SSD 900P SSD

[Ubersonic]

Odd that PCI-E and 2,5" form factor have the same price. 2,5" should be cheaper.

The 2.5" drives use the U.2 connector, it's the successor to SATA and the standard connector for desktop NVMe drives.

You don't see it much because most other SSD manufacturers make M.2 drives instead to save money, M.2 is the successor to mSATA and was originally designed for laptop use (hence some overheating issues without additional cooling).

 

[newtekie1]

1st they limited it to Z270. Well this i can sort of understand regarding RST and caching.
2nd they limited to caching only SATA drives.
3rd they limited it to caching only primary OS drive and not data drives.

#1 and #3 you can do with any SATA SSD using Intel's RST. You can accelerate any SATA HDD with any SATA SSD as long as they are both connected to the Intel ports. Intel supports this on old chipsets too, I think Z67 and newer.

There are some draw backs and limitations, but it works pretty well for accelerating HDDs. The biggest limitation is you can only use 64GB of SSD space as a cache(but hey, its bigger than 16 and 32). This set up I like to use is locating a 60GB partition on the larger main SSD to be used as a cache for the HDD in the system. So if I put a 480/500GB SSD in the system as the main system drive, and then a HDD storage drive, I make a 60GB partition on the main SSD. And then assign that as a cache for the storage HDD.

The funny thing is, the technology that Optane uses for caching has been in place by Intel for years but it used standard SSDs to accelerate HDDs. Now they are using faster drives trying to accelerate standard SSDs and HDDs. To me, Optane drives for caching is a waste of money. If you want to accelerate a HDD, just use a standard SSD, you don't need an Optane drive. And the minimal performance improvement you get from accelerating an SSD with Optane isn't worth the cost of the Optane drives.

 

[StrayKAT]

The funny thing is, the technology that Optane uses has been in place by Intel for years but it used standard SSDs.

It has, but this is much faster.

Not sure about these new drives though.

 

[newtekie1]

It has, but this is much faster.

Not sure about these new drives though.

Sorry, I re-phased that a little. The technology they are using for caching has been in place for years.

Yes, the drives are a lot faster, but it really doesn't help the caching scenario in a noticeable way.

 

[StrayKAT]

Sorry, I re-phased that a little. The technology they are using for caching has been in place for years.

Yes, the drives are a lot faster, but it really doesn't help the caching scenario in a noticeable way.

I haven't tested. I have m.2 SSD as well, but decided to put it in another computer. I'm OK for now. Optane should hold me off until large SSDs get cheaper.

Speaking of, the good thing about Intel bringing this new stuff to market is maybe they'll get popular... and maybe other SSDs actually WILL get cheaper.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

Sorry, I re-phased that a little. The technology they are using for caching has been in place for years.

Yes, the drives are a lot faster, but it really doesn't help the caching scenario in a noticeable way.

caching media plays a big role...not sure what your talking about. NAND vs XPoint vs RAM all perform very differently.

 

[Prima.Vera]

https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...s/optane-900p-series/900p-480gb-aic-20nm.html

I'm going to stick with the 960 Pro from Sammy. Faster, cheaper and M.2 format too.

 

[StrayKAT]

https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...s/optane-900p-series/900p-480gb-aic-20nm.html

I'm going to stick with the 960 Pro from Sammy. Faster, cheaper and M.2 format too.

This is better than Samsung. Not sure what makes you think otherwise. But you're right about cheaper. It's impossible to beat atm.

Anandtech has a review now. https://www.anandtech.com/show/11953/the-intel-optane-ssd-900p-review

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

This is better than Samsung. Not sure what makes you think otherwise. But you're right about cheaper. It's impossible to beat atm.

Anandtech has a review now. https://www.anandtech.com/show/11953/the-intel-optane-ssd-900p-review

yea i was scratching my head too on the faster statement. Latency is key to a faster system and XPoint is key to the next big step but that controller is a let down.

 

[newtekie1]

caching media plays a big role...not sure what your talking about. NAND vs XPoint vs RAM all perform very differently.

I'm pretty sure I already explained what I meant.

When caching a HDD, you can use a cheaper standard SSD that is a larger size. This is a better solution than using an Optane cache drive. And normal SSDs are already fast enough that using an Optane cache drive with those makes no noticeable difference.

 

[StrayKAT]

I'm pretty sure I already explained what I meant.

When caching a HDD, you can use a cheaper standard SSD that is a larger size. This is a better solution than using an Optane cache drive. And normal SSDs are already fast enough that using an Optane cache drive with those makes no noticeable difference.

Not sure why I need more space. I just want faster boot times and common app launches. This works well enough.

It's also doing something I didn't expect: Even defrag process is faster, and for some reason it tricks the OS into thinking the HDD is an SSD. So it trims instead of defrags. Do other cache drives do this? I don't get this at all, but whatever. I know it needs a reboot to set up and do some funky low level adjustments, but it's mysterious (like this).

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

I'm pretty sure I already explained what I meant.

When caching a HDD, you can use a cheaper standard SSD that is a larger size. This is a better solution than using an Optane cache drive. And normal SSDs are already fast enough that using an Optane cache drive with those makes no noticeable difference.

you are referring to write caching but read caching is a different story. Optane offers far better read caching results over SSD.

 

[newtekie1]

Not sure why I need more space. I just want faster boot times and common app launches. This works well enough.

Because a the larger the cache, the more likely the the data you want to access is in that cache. For the cost of the 32GB Optane drive(roughly $80), you can get a 240GB SATA SSD. You can partition out 60GB to use as a cache, and that leave 180GB to install your OS and a few commonly used programs. Than you have a 60GB cache you can use to accelerate your HDD. This method of cache acceleration is pretty much just as fast as using an Optane drive with an HDD.

It's also doing something I didn't expect: Even defrag process is faster, and for some reason it tricks the OS into thinking the HDD is an SSD. So it trims instead of defrags. Do other cache drives do this? I don't get this at all, but whatever. I know it needs a reboot to set up and do some funky low level adjustments, but it's mysterious (like this).

What are you using to defrag then? Because most defrag programs won't run on an SSD. They instead just do a trim function, which is normally super fast anyway. Using a normal SSD to accelerate a HDD need a reboot too to set up. It goes through basically the same setup process.

you are referring to write caching but read caching is a different story. Optane offers far better read caching results over SSD.

No, I'm talking about both read and write caching. When accelerating an HDD, there is no noticeable difference between using and Optane drive and 60GB of a standard SSD. Yes, there is a measurable difference, but not a noticeable one. You won't notice that Windows is booting 1 second faster(literally, that is the difference, 1 second), you won't notice that Chrome opens in 2.5 seconds instead of 3 seconds. You just won't.

And if you are trying to accelerate a normal SSD with an Optane SSD, you are wasting your money. Because, again, the difference isn't noticeable.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

Because a the larger the cache, the more likely the the data you want to access is in that cache. For the cost of the 32GB Optane drive(roughly $80), you can get a 240GB SATA SSD. You can partition out 60GB to use as a cache, and that leave 180GB to install your OS and a few commonly used programs. Than you have a 60GB cache you can use to accelerate your HDD. This method of cache acceleration is pretty much just as fast as using an Optane drive with an HDD.



What are you using to defrag then? Because most defrag programs won't run on an SSD. They instead just do a trim function, which is normally super fast anyway. Using a normal SSD to accelerate a HDD need a reboot too to set up. It goes through basically the same setup process.



No, I'm talking about both read and write caching. When accelerating an HDD, there is no noticeable difference between using and Optane drive and 60GB of a standard SSD. Yes, there is a measurable difference, but not a noticeable one. You won't notice that Windows is booting 1 second faster(literally, that is the difference, 1 second), you won't notice that Chrome opens in 2.5 seconds instead of 3 seconds. You just won't.

And if you are trying to accelerate a normal SSD with an Optane SSD, you are wasting your money. Because, again, the difference isn't noticeable.

patently false

You can see and feel the difference between ~50ms, ~120ms, and ~250ms load times. Sub second response times are key to productivity.

windows 7 fade animation is 250ms 17 frames on a 60z screen. turn off fade animation and your down to 50 (3 frames), 70 (4-5 frames), and 120ms (7 frames) for various load times.

you can see and feel the difference quite easily.

here is a study that has been around since 1982 that says you are 100% wrong across the board.
https://jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html

 

[newtekie1]

patently false

You can see and feel the difference between ~50ms, ~120ms, and ~250ms load times. Sub second response times are key to productivity.

windows 7 fade animation is 250ms 17 frames on a 60z screen. turn off fade animation and your down to 50 (3 frames), 70 (4-5 frames), and 120ms (7 frames) for various load times.

you can see and feel the difference quite easily.

here is a study that has been around since 1982 that says you are 100% wrong across the board.
https://jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html

Yeah, no. The user can't feel the difference. I've used both, the difference isn't actually noticeable. We are getting to the point of diminishing returns.

 

[R0H1T]

patently false

You can see and feel the difference between ~50ms, ~120ms, and ~250ms load times. Sub second response times are key to productivity.

windows 7 fade animation is 250ms 17 frames on a 60z screen. turn off fade animation and your down to 50 (3 frames), 70 (4-5 frames), and 120ms (7 frames) for various load times.

you can see and feel the difference quite easily.

here is a study that has been around since 1982 that says you are 100% wrong across the board.
https://jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html

Nope that study made sense 3 decades back not now, the latency you're talking about is of the order of a few ms & only adds up (massively) in industrial scale automated tasks, that add up to thousands of hours over the course of a single year.

When it's you, an individual, doing the work 20ms or even 200ms is not a deal breaker. I've also used caching, 24GB RAM with primocache (R+W) accelerating a RAID 0 512GB SSD (system) drive, the same was tested without any sort of caching.

Unless the programs you're using are highly I/O latency sensitive, you'll be hard pressed to see the difference in real world. In fact I'd like you to point us to such applications & real world difference please, ATSB is not real world.

 

[StrayKAT]

What are you using to defrag then? Because most defrag programs won't run on an SSD. They instead just do a trim function, which is normally super fast anyway. Using a normal SSD to accelerate a HDD need a reboot too to set up. It goes through basically the same setup process.

I know what trimming is (it's just the built in Windows tool btw). My point is my system doesn't even see an HDD anymore and trims it as an SSD instead. Same with the device manager (there's no longer a WDBlack, but an IntelOptaneHDD). It's weird.

Like so: https://preview.ibb.co/jjEhVm/optane_defrag.jpg

As for all of this debate on Optane, it does what I expected. It does it well. I don't why people are so inclined to debate with me about using a product I already have. lol. If anyone is getting the impression I'm trying to sell them on it though, please don't. Not my intention.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

Yeah, no. The user can't feel the difference. I've used both, the difference isn't actually noticeable. We are getting to the point of diminishing returns.

Nope that study made sense 3 decades back not now, the latency you're talking about is of the order of a few ms & only adds up (massively) in industrial scale automated tasks, that add up to thousands of hours over the course of a single year.

When it's you, an individual, doing the work 20ms or even 200ms is not a deal breaker. I've also used caching, 24GB RAM with primocache (R+W) accelerating a RAID 0 512GB SSD (system) drive, the same was tested without any sort of caching.

Unless the programs you're using are highly I/O latency sensitive, you'll be hard pressed to see the difference in real world. In fact I'd like you to point us to such applications & real world difference please, ATSB is not real world.

lol....the way human brain works does not change and if you actually ever tested this which i have you can clearly see and feel the difference between 250ms and 50ms responses within an OS turning off windows fade is a prime example in feeling the difference in response times. Humans as that study proved benefit from lower response times and 300ms is not the limit. Your ignorance is astounding. These things do not change lol. The close to instant responses the more productive you are. It all comes down to transactions per hour. If you are not clicking and loading things many times an hour it doesnt matter. If you sit and read for 60 mins you wont notice it but if your installing, loading, clicking, moving, and so on the difference adds up. This is an irrefutable fact.

 

[R0H1T]

lol....the way human brain works does not change and if you actually ever tested this which i have you can clearly see and feel the difference between 250ms and 50ms responses within an OS turning off windows fade is a prime example in feeling the difference in response times. Humans as that study proved benefit from lower response times and 300ms is not the limit. Your ignorance is astounding. These things do not change lol. The close to instant responses the more productive you are. It all comes down to transactions per hour. If you are not clicking and loading things many times an hour it doesnt matter. If you sit and read for 60 mins you wont notice it but if your installing, loading, clicking, moving, and so on the difference adds up. This is an irrefutable fact.

We're not talking about windows fade are we? If you wish to compare graphical effects with I/O latency & in fact go further than that, then sure be my guest.

You have zero anything to back your statements apart from a study wrt mainframes well over 3 & a half decades back? Is that what you call relevant in context to something like SSD or Optane?

Get back to us when you can demonstrate the effects outside of servers, there I agree it can make a huge difference, out of that human interaction will make a greater difference, on a per application basis of course.

 

[newtekie1]

I know what trimming is (it's just the built in Windows tool btw). My point is my system doesn't even see an HDD anymore and trims it as an SSD instead. Same with the device manager (there's no longer a WDBlack, but an IntelOptaneHDD). It's weird.

Like so: https://preview.ibb.co/jjEhVm/optane_defrag.jpg

As for all of this debate on Optane, it does what I expected. It does it well. I don't why people are so inclined to debate with me about using a product I already have. lol. If anyone is getting the impression I'm trying to sell them on it though, please don't. Not my intention.

That is why I asked, because you said it made it defrag faster, but if it is seeing it as an SSD, then it isn't defragging it at all it is performing Trim. Trim is a totally different function, and is a much much faster operation than defragging. Especially if it is only Trimming a 16 or 32GB drive(the Trim operation doesn't apply to the hard drive, only the SSD).

As for Optane caching and your use, I'm not saying it doesn't work or doesn't work well. It does work well. What I'm trying to say is that there are alternatives to Optane caching, that are less restrictive(not limited to Z270, can accelerate non-system drives) and can also be more cost effective. It isn't really anything against you, what really annoys me is that most talk about Optane caching never even mention that you've been able to use a standard SSD to do the same thing for years now. Most reviews of Optane cache drives don't even bother to test with a standard SSD accelerating an HDD as well to see how minimal of a difference the Optane drive actually makes in caching vs a standard SSD used for caching.

lol....the way human brain works does not change and if you actually ever tested this which i have you can clearly see and feel the difference between 250ms and 50ms responses within an OS turning off windows fade is a prime example in feeling the difference in response times. Humans as that study proved benefit from lower response times and 300ms is not the limit. Your ignorance is astounding. These things do not change lol. The close to instant responses the more productive you are. It all comes down to transactions per hour. If you are not clicking and loading things many times an hour it doesnt matter. If you sit and read for 60 mins you wont notice it but if your installing, loading, clicking, moving, and so on the difference adds up. This is an irrefutable fact.

You're talking about Windows fade, but that is something specifically that is going to stay exactly the same regardless of if you are using an SSD as a cache drive or an Optane drive as a cache.

This is also a function that is very quick in the first place, going from 50ms to 250ms is a 500% increase. The entire thing takes 250ms. But when we are talking about a Windows booting, that is something that takes 15 seconds, so the difference of 1s is a 6% difference. See how that is a lot less noticeable? These are the scenarios that improve with Optane cache/SSD cache. We are talking about things that take multiple seconds to complete, not a few ms. We aren't talking about things that we click and expect a near instant response.

 

[StrayKAT]

That is why I asked, because you said it made it defrag faster, but if it is seeing it as an SSD, then it isn't defragging it at all it is performing Trim. Trim is a totally different function, and is a much much faster operation than defragging. Especially if it is only Trimming a 16 or 32GB drive(the Trim operation doesn't apply to the hard drive, only the SSD)..

The Optane drive is the volume at the bottom of my pic in the earlier post. The top is a WDBlack, but pretending to be SSD. That's the only thing that can be optimized. What is it actually trimming when the only actions are being done to the HDD?

If you're right, you're right. But there isn't much written about any of it.. or what it 's doing at the setup process. You say this like you know, when Intel doesn't bother telling anyone anything. No offense, but..

 

[newtekie1]

The Optane drive is the volume at the bottom of my pic in the earlier post. The top is a WDBlack, but pretending to be SSD. That's the only thing that can be optimized. What is it actually trimming when the only actions are being done to the HDD?

If you're right, you're right. But there isn't much written about any of it.. or what it 's doing at the setup process. You say this like you know, when Intel doesn't bother telling anyone anything. No offense, but..

Sigh, when you apply Optane caching to a HDD, it makes it look like a SSD to Windows. Windows will not defrag an SSD, this is a known fact. Your picture even shows that Windows is Trimming the drive, it says "14% Trimmed", not defragging it. Because of the way the cache is linked, the trim command would be applied to the SSD cache.

 

[StrayKAT]

Sigh, when you apply Optane caching to a HDD, it makes it look like a SSD to Windows. Windows will not defrag an SSD, this is a known fact. Your picture even shows that Windows is Trimming the drive, it says "14% Trimmed", not defragging it. Because of the way the cache is linked, the trim command would be applied to the SSD cache.

I know. I purposely snapped the shot real quick at 14% just to show you. I know defrag and trim is different. Why are you "sighing" lol. You're the one being frustrating

I'm just asking what it's actually doing. I just wanted details about the process. If it's just the cache, then there isn't a point in doing at all then.

 

[newtekie1]

I know. I purposely snapped the shot real quick at 14% just to show you. I know defrag and trim is different. Why are you "sighing" lol. You're the one being frustrating

I'm just asking what it's actually doing. I just wanted details about the process. If it's just the cache, then there isn't a point in doing at all then.

It is Trimming the cache SSD. I'm sighing because you are still thinking there is some kind of magic going on. You can't Trim a HDD. The entire idea of Trim only applies to flash based media.

 

[StrayKAT]

It is Trimming the cache SSD. I'm sighing because you are still thinking there is some kind of magic going on. You can't Trim a HDD. The entire idea of Trim only applies to flash based media.

I just said it was mysterious. But I asked you "What is it actually trimming when the only actions are being done to the HDD?" If you know, that's cool. You're saying it's just the cache. If I'm going to express skepticism on anything, it's just your apparent expertise on everything Optane. I've found myself debating a product that works well for me, and it's a little annoying to be told it's not. If it was a toaster, and someone wanted to criticize that, I'd get annoyed too. It's nothing personal. It's been worth it to me.

That all said, it appears 32GB trim takes as long as my 256 and 512 SSDs. They're all that fast.