Discussion in 'Memory' started by Efour, Mar 5, 2019.
But the cost of a larger so take drive is the same as a 2tb ssd
No one is finding it hard to figure out - it's just enough form of caching, the likes of which have been available before even from Intel (Rapid Storage Technology - which was deliberately discontinued in order to Sell/Launch Optane).
AMD offer https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/store-mi and there are other software solutions available.
Hardware solutions have been out before e.g. :
Not to mention SSHD "hybrid" hard drives.
Oh good so whilst random access files now get fast access, my sequential files are still capped to hard drive <150MB/s speeds. As opposed to just buying a bigger SSD, and getting both fast random access and >500MB/s sequential
But as the above pricing suggests - it needs to compress 10 fold in order to compete on capacity rather than just buying a bigger conventional SSD for the same price.
I'd also rather not waste any CPU power on compression, it's better used elsewhere, or alternatively not used at all for an energy saving.
I'm not doubting that there is evidence out there. How biased some of the testing is, is however an issue (e.g. Optane+HDD vs HDD, but no test against a "normal" SSD in Intel's own benchmarks.)
All the testing and reviews miss the elephant in the room though - the cost.
Why spend money on a specific optane drive that's 1/10 the capacity for the same price as the equivalent "normal" SSD?
If it was released years ago and at a decent price point, then I could see the advantage, but there's a reason it didn't take off previously, and similarly it won't this time.
Not arguing for the sake of arguing, just genuinely can't see the point of backing a unnecessarily expensive and complex solution rather than a simpler/better alternative.
If anything it seems that a couple of people have bought into the "hype" and now are in full Purchase Justification mode.
Pretty much sums up the issues with it
True,, yeah the start up cost isn't cheap but if you buy a decent sized optane drive, link it up with you games/storage HDD. The games/storage HDD should always be nice and fast as the optane shouldn't have to delete your most used stuff when it gets full. Then when you need a larger games/storage hdd,you just buy a larger HDD for a fraction of SSD prices and still have SSD speeds,, its a win win in the long run, or thats how I look at it..
Yes you can pay stupid money on optane and use it as a ssd drive, but thats not what optane is designed for and a lot of people review these as just drives, so they get terrible reviews. Its like buying a sports car and then go off roading in it.
But compression / decompression is still better then having more HDD IO (solid state beats a physically moving read arm!), Windows computers seldom run at 100% CPU in general usage anyway. It's the same principle as Turbo loading in the 8bit days where decompression was faster then the reduced time loading from cassette tape.
Windows 10 already compresses standby memory as default as compressed standby memory is still faster then increased SSD/HDD IO.
This BTW is where Optane fits in, I do agree it's maybe not worth the cost, however this where it fits in a computers architecture.
CPU Registers (fastest)
L1 CPU Cache
L2 CPU Cache
** Optane **
Also i'll tell you why Optane exists, it's to allow desktop computers to compete in a world of smart phones and tables that boot very fast. It's not really for people like us on here, it's for the general office user so average computers can start faster. I do think the technology has been released 5 years to late.
The biggest issue is it is Intel platform only. Seems another way to tie you into buying their products. As said already just buy a larger SSD, they're getting quite cheap now.
Things can change fast but it's still got another decade in it . Its plenty fast enough for 99% of people . 96% of people don't even have a ssd so sata 2 is mostly good enough...
I think the big pc players know as soon as they bulk ship ssds they must cripple the cpus or hope ms suddenly bloat windows to fill the ssd or cripple the CPU or the User is not buying a new pc for 20 years..
I just think a large optane memory/drive linked up to your 2tb-10tb hard drive that you use for games is ideal, because alot of people still use hard drives for their game collections, no?
Flash prices have dropped alot recently. 2TB drives for £200 make mechanical drives days look short.
A 2tb hard drive is stlll a hell of a lot cheaper then a 2tb ssd...You could buy the biggest and best hard drive for the price of a 4-8tb ssd and probably have money left over, then link the hard drive to Optane... Then you have the best of both worlds,, the speed of a ssd and massive capacity.
Plus you only need to fork out once for the Optane and it will be good to go for years to come, just sitting in the background speeding up your current and future hard drives to ssd speeds..
You see what Im getting at?
I just wanted to show what actual SSD caching does to a HDD. The following is run from my computer just now.
LEFT is a Western Digital 2TB Gold drive
RIGHT is the same Western Digital 2TB Gold drive + SSD caching.
I'm using a reclaimed 6 year old Samsung PRO 840 as the caching SSD that also contains my Page File and HDD index locations.
4K Q32 is showing an almost 600% increase in read speeds. Where as 4k is showing over a 2000% increase in read speeds. Large files show no change.
I like this setup as I have 2 x 2TB + 2 x 1.5TB HDD's and the caching is covering all my HDD space. My computer is a i7 8700 with 32GB of RAM and despite having a 2TB Gold HDD as it's C drive it honestly does not feel slow.
Just flipped through several pages of this talk about OPTANE ... some good, some a little misinformed,yes it can boost HDD drive performance but the real power is the new buzz word called VROC
I'm researching heavily ATM with this new Monopoly/concept that Intel has cooked up ... in a nutshell it's called "VROC" ... So instead of the bandwidth limitation over PCH , VROC will allow direct to CPU access over PCIe lanes with there new "X" series Intel processors (hard core count 6 and above) ... so imagine a single card eg Hyper M.2 x 16 v2 riser card (£40) then add 4 x Intel 760p or even 905p NVME if you have stupid money .... now bifurcate one Pcie x16 slot into 4x4x4x4.
So intel stitched us up to use there NVMEs with VROC (currently) but how does 7000 MB/s + to 6000 MB/s + read and writes sound ? ... and yes! bootable
Best bang for buck ATM looks to be 760P Nvme sticks x 4 , density 512gb each at around £00.19p per GB ... so that would = 2TB "BOOT" drive in raid 0 ... sound interesting ?
I'm currently working on ways to get around this infernal "Roc Key" mandatory purchase to get raid 1,5 and 10 .... NOTE! you will not need a hard ware key if only using raid 0 ... only intel has this limitation , AMD Z399 users can use this feature even with non intel Nvme's like Evo 970 Plus or Pro, BARGAIN!!!
Except that Optane drives are ridiculously priced for their tiny size.
Normal SSD and PrimoCache is lot better for getting good cache capacity while giving also real SSD for OS.
Some 50GB cache could actually hold decent amount of data and wouldn't run out so fast even with newer games.
Caching is only usefull if data isn't evicted from cache before its next use.
Actually primary M.2 slot usually connects directly to CPU's PCIe lanes.
And when normal NVMe SSDs give very little real world home use performance advantage over SATA signaled SSDs, anything even more is just Intel wanting to rape and rob consumers even more than with CPUs.
Ummm yeah, I have been looking at normal ssd drives as a cache drive but the writes/reads are so much slower and I dont know if the super fast read and write speeds with the optane has an advantage when your using it as cache..
I have been browsing the net and apparently the 800p and 900p drives hasn't been made to use as cache for a drive, but just as a ssd drive. The only ones that had been made to be used as cache is the 16gb and 32gb ones..
So I would love to know if anyone has the 800p or 900p drives and managed to get them working with the intel optane software, as some people have been able to. I was really considering getting the 280gb or 480gb 900p drive, but its a tad pointless if I cant use it for cache.
You can have both! ... lets say you choose a 900p ... set it up as a seperate drive letter .... in windows you allocate say 40% of the that drive for cache and point the operating system to that drive letter (X) and the other 60% as a extra drive storage on the same drive letter ... win 10 makes this process easy peasy. .... 905p is just about to be released which should give you Evo 970 plus/pro speeds .... best bang for buck though if you want full intel compatibility is the 760p ... works out at about 18p per gb.
they come in 256gb and 512gb ... bargain
EDIT ....https://www.wepc.com/tips/ssd-cache/ this should help you with all of the above
The 905p drive are already released.. What cache software is the best to use because if I get the 900p, I might have to use different software?
Looks like someone else has the 900p working properly as a cache, but its the U.2 version
The u.2 and m.2 900p drives are identical - only the cables are different
EDIT lol i thought you was talking about an Optane drive
I have just ran a ATTO and CrystalDiskMark benchmark to compare my 32gb Optane memory with the Optane 900p, both linked up to hard drives. As you can see there's a huge difference, with the write speed being so much faster on the 900p.
My 32gb optane memory
Someone's 280GB Optane 900p
I am thinking to buy the pcie x4 add in card version now, if I do get the 900p
Separate names with a comma.