So, when I looked at the driver control page, it did imply that I have "64gb" of ram. I've got 32GB + the 32GB from the Optane.. Very misleading.Intel revealed that they are actually encouraging the shady and misleading practice of marketing low-end computers with 4GB RAM and a 16 GB optane SSD as having "20GB memory".
Was the 64GB Optane not >$100 though? Between that + the cost of a WD Black, you could actually have a 2TB boot SSD (of an NVMe flavor...)I bought a 64GB M10. I have been using it about a month and a half with a 2TB WD Black. Computer boots noticeably faster and most programs that I have installed on it, launch immediately. It almost feels like I have a 2TB boot SSD.
It's true and I agree about the price, it was a splurge for testing really. I was curious. What can you do. I may use it as a boot drive in a mini PC that I plan to use as a Minecraft server in the near future. It won't got to waste.Was the 64GB Optane not >$100 though? Between that + the cost of a WD Black, you could actually have a 2TB boot SSD (of an NVMe flavor...)
It's just a cost aspect where Optane falls down, IMO.
With the prices of SSDs continuing to fall, the viability of a glorified cache drive just doesn't appeal to me.
The idea is solid.... but the benefits were predominantly aimed at the budget space. A 1TB HDD + a 16GB Optane cache puts you in the ~$80 range.
At this point, budget 1TB SSD's can be had for <$100....
"boot time" is but one, rather unimportant, indicator.My father-in-law wanted an inexpensive laptop last Christmas. We got an Acer Swift 3 with 15" FHD screen, 8th generation i5 with 4 cores, 8 G memory, 16G Optane + 1TB 5400 rpm HDD for $400. This machine boots up Windows 10 between 15 to 18 seconds consistently. It is responsive most of the time just like my main computer which is a Dell 8700 i7 with SSD boot drive and 2 TB HDD.
I am quite amazed by the difference a 16G Optane drive made to a 5400 rpm HDD. The lowly Acer actually boot up Windows 10 faster than my wife's 2018 Macbook Pro when booting up Mojave.
For non-technical folks, I think a low end, high capacity HDD + Optane will be more practical than low capacity SSDs, especially in laptops.
And given ever dropping SSD prices...Like many gaming enthusiast the question for me is still SATA SSD vs nvme SSD?
For a new build I would consider an small Optane boot drive and 1TB SATA SSD if the Optane drive made a noticeable improvement (which many had posted that it does not).
The conventional wisdom seems to be that Optane + SSD = marginal benefit, but Optane + HardDrive is almost equal to SATA SSD.
Bragging rights. Sometimes I like to play a random game from years ago. Honestly, I don’t even know anymore. Who am I? Why do I game? There’s got to be a better way!I'm still reading the article, but one thing I don't understand is, why do you need to have all your Steam library downloaded at once? I have a large library as well, and I'm willing to bet you have a decent enough Internet speed. What's wrong with just installing a few that you play at a time?
The problem comes down to cost. That 16GB Optane cache costs around $33 (at least for consumer pricing). Add to that the cost of the 1TB drive, and you're looking at spending close to $80 for that partially-cached 1TB hard drive with unpredictable performance. Sure, the laptop manufacturer probably gets better bulk pricing on these things, but some 500GB SSDs can be had for as little as $50 now, and would provide better performance overall, along with superior impact resistance and reduced power use, which are worth considering for a laptop. Or, for one who needs the capacity for bulk storage, keep the hard drive in the system, but add a 250GB boot SSD for about the same cost, providing better performance for everything installed to the SSD, and 25% more storage in total, albeit with the need to sort things between two drives. Or, to avoid that, just go the 1TB SSD route, which start at around $100, which is somewhat more, but again, provides better overall performance. It probably won't be long before even that price difference evaporates though.For non-technical folks, I think a low end, high capacity HDD + Optane will be more practical than low capacity SSDs, especially in laptops.
Another option would be to send those extra games over to the hard drive when not being played, and then back to the SSD when you start playing them again. Steam includes the option to move games between libraries on different drives, and doing that should be quicker than re-downloading. Or just play them from the hard drive if load times aren't too bad. If it's a game that's not played often, the files are likely to not be in the Optane cache anyway, especially for the lower-capacity units.What's wrong with just installing a few that you play at a time?