Intel: No 200-Series Mobile Chipsets, Optane Memory Support Comes To 100-Series Chipset Instead

Status
Not open for further replies.

CaedenV

Splendid
I really can't wait to see these drives in real-world benchmarks. I just don't get who these drives are marketed to, or how they make any sense at all. I get the feeling that they were in development as a faster m.2 option to SSDs when SSDs were still having trouble saturating the SATA3 interface... and then they were stuck in development so long that they lost their use-case by the time the product materialized. I mean lets look at a few segments for a sec:

1) Ultra low end PC that use this to cache a HDD. Yes, it will offer more performance.... but it will also add tens if not hundreds of dollars to the price tag in a market that is very price sensitive. So that isn't going to work.

2) Midrange PCs, being used to cache a HDD. Sure... it is still going to offer faster performance. But again it adds unnecessary complexity, config, and expense to the system. Plus SSDs are continuing to fall in price, and nobody is having issues selling devices with 256GB SSDs on board. X-Point plus a 1TB HDD? Or a system with a single 256-512GB SSD? I think most people at this point would take the SSD.

3) High end PCs: Here X-Point starts to make sense... but as a drive technology. Only issue is that the drive is no where near large enough (just as 32GB wasn't large enough back when SSDs were used to cache HDDs 6-8 years ago!). So, we can cache the most used 32GB, and have the rest of the data on slow, noisy HDDs.... or we can use our m.2 slot for a single larger SSD that has all of our commonly used stuff on it, and a HDD for the stuff that doesn't matter for performance.

4) So then the pro-server market will surely be able to put this to work then... But no, again it is ONLY 32GB in size! I mean, does intel not look at how much RAM is being put in servers these days? The 4 year old servers in my school district each have 32GB of ram on board... and I work in a poor, small-ish school district that doesn't even care much about technology! These days it is common to see servers with 64-128GB as a STARTING amount of ram installed! Plus, the RAM is still faster than x-Point, has a known track record, and programs are designed to utilize it!
Yes, X-Point does have a few handy features like being persistant through a power failure... but just how common are those? Again, small-town school district, and we have 2 PSUs in our servers, so each is attached to 2 APC battery backups. When power goes out we have a solid 1-2 hours for the power to come back on, or for everything to be saved to disk as the servers spin down gracefully. Businesses have 2 seperate circuits run to ther servers, with backup generators, and failsafes in place... Power just doesn't 'turn off' in these settings... and when they do there is plenty of time to spin everything down gracefully.


When I first hear of X-Point I thought it was a new storage method to REPLACE RAM and HDDs entirely. Want to load up MS Office? Flag it as 'on' and it is open. Flag it as 'off' and it is closed. Want to turn your PC on? just apply power, as it is allready set to go. No need to transfer data from disk to RAM, just cut it all out. Sure, it would be a little expensive, and it might be a little slower than RAM... but it would be such a paradigm shift that it would demand attention, and would eventually take over the market as the price eventually fell.
But no, it is just a HDD cache just like their last caching technology. Too slow, too expensive, and too complicated ever to see the light of day in the real world outside of weird niche uses.
 

Vlad_17

Commendable
Jan 12, 2017
2
0
1,510
0
Windows 10 is 4GB ISO install image and Ubuntu is 2GB. The OS core image is way less, because lots of the drivers are not put to memory, they are activated once the device is plugged or detected. 16GB only for the OS is plenty, and 32 is beyond.
Regarding latency, if the memory speed performance outweights latency lets say 3:1, then this tech will definitely sweep the PC world by storm.
 

ssdpro

Honorable
Apr 10, 2013
162
0
10,680
0
The Optane stuff is a big yawn at least for now. 16GB/32GB is not that useful. Add in boosted performance from cache, what you have is users wasting their time fighting data loss and corruption instead of benefiting from the performance increase. We are still waiting for the big jump where we write directly to storage without a cache layer giving the illusion of performance. Plus, 16-32GB? Come on. Yes, that just enough for a Windows 10 install and plenty for a Linux install but not much else. You would still need a real product to carry the water.
 

PaulAlcorn

Senior Editor
Editor
Feb 24, 2015
791
155
11,160
0


Yes, you can fit Windows, you just cant add many updates :p

If you use such a ridiculously small boot drive then you can't have your games and apps stored on the same drive. I'm all for using an SSD/HDD combination for tiered storage--OS, games and applications on the SSD-- bulk video, photo and archival data on the HDD.

However, having only the operating system on the boot drive is only marginally better, and perhaps worse, than using a caching solution. If you put yourself in a position that a real-time app relies upon an HDD then you will pay the consequences -- be it cached or not. Every flash company (and their dog) have attempted to stuff kludgy caching down our throats for years, and it has never caught on because you can feel the difference.

Sure, you can put an OS on there and do nothing else without using an HDD. Putting Windows 10 on a 32GB storage device, while possible, doesn't make sense for the vast majority of users.
 
G

Guest

Guest
This product makes no sense. I have had 32 Gb of Ram since 2011, and since I rarely use more than 8 Gb, the rest is cache. Not enough? Get 64 Gb of Ram. You'll have easily more than 32 Gb of cache which is going to be a lot faster than this.

Real world benchmarks will show absolutely no performance improvements, as long as the system is not ram starved.
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
0
19,780
0
Intel - So pretty much zero IPC since 2011 and now their new "amazing" optane is only added as a cache layer... it's clear intel have milked to much in the pretty much forgotten desktop area and siphoned that r&d towards other (failed) areas.

I really hope amd can deliver with their new lineup, we need that competition badly or this farse will continue.
 

mavikt

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2011
173
0
18,680
0
The first time I heard about Optane I was stoked. Subsequent news briefs had me; what is this? Now I'm more: "Show me the money"; I simply lost confidence in what this tecknology would bring to the table. All this stalling... or whatever... I'm gladly proven wrong!
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
If you want to understand how we got here, check out Paul's excellent 3D Xpoint guide:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-xpoint-guide,4747.html

Anyway, the idea of using Optane as HDD caching sounds to me like a desperate attempt for someone to save face by "delivering" on a roadmap goal of bringing Optane to market in 2017.

This feature sounds useless, to me. People who want hybrid HDDs should just buy hybrid HDDs. I will happily skip this and wait for nvDIMMs that can replace my SATA and M.2 SSDs.
 

Vlad_17

Commendable
Jan 12, 2017
2
0
1,510
0


The real world benchmarks already showed substantial improvements. Are you living in the cave? Not to mention that is NVM, so probably if the OS can partition the DIM later on when hardware is aval, laptops battery life might jump to days not hours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS