If you were getting a new PC today would you pick SSD or Optane?

[biggles]

Just learned about Intel Optane memory. Comparing these 2 options:
1. Traditional HDD with Optane memory (16 or 32 gb)
2. SSD system drive and secondary data drive that is traditional HDD.

Based on what I have seen option 1 offers comparable speed to an SSD. It might also be cheaper.

Which would you choose?

 

[auntjemima]

I would stick with SSD's. I tend to shy away from Intels' Flavour of the Year™.

 

[cjcox]

Well, there's actually many options out there, from traditional PCIe card, to typical SATA, to mSATA, to M.2 (NVMe or SATA) You can your high speed "flash" via many different mechanisms now.

I think maybe in your case you need to give us your budget. Then people can recommend things that fit into your budget.

 

[Skott]

I'd stick with SSD for now too. Optane is just too pricey. Now if you are a rich person and wanted the fastest... then maybe. If I was rich though I'd be getting SSDs that are 2TB or 4TB in size.

 

[RC-Heli-3D]

SSD, proven...new stuff needs working. Remember when the SSD's came on the market with issues?

 

[rive22]

option 2 without a doubt. os and apps on HDD is like riding a bicycle on the highway for transportation. Optane or not, it's not enough to hold everything.

 

[biggles]

Well, there's actually many options out there, from traditional PCIe card, to typical SATA, to mSATA, to M.2 (NVMe or SATA) You can your high speed "flash" via many different mechanisms now.

I think maybe in your case you need to give us your budget. Then people can recommend things that fit into your budget.

$1500-$1800. I saw a deal on the Alienware Aurora with the optane options. So that is why I was curious.

 

[cjcox]

$1500-$1800. I saw a deal on the Alienware Aurora with the optane options. So that is why I was curious.

Nice budget (which means I'm out). But nice, you should have lots of choices for some fairly ultra high end storage.

 

[Denpepe]

If I would have gone with an Gigabyte mobo iso ASrock I would have received a free optane module but the mobo was more expensive and the modules are only handy when using regular HDD's as boot drive which I was not intending to do, and I doubt few people going X299 would consider doing.

They are not that expensive to buy though, just kind of useless since they only work on kaby lake or newer pc's who are unlikely to use HDD's for the OS.

 

[Aluminum]

The m2s are way too small and the caching thing has always been a joke they try to reinvent over n over.

Don't let that fool you though, optane is the real deal: a tier above ssds and enterprise is snatching them up in the right places for the right reasons. Wenchmark sequential comparisons are pointless, under real I/O loads they are awesome.

Desktop computer won't care still but fun to have, you can ofset the pain a bit with the SC codes if they still have them.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I just installed a 1TB SSD into my Latitude 5175 and it is sweet... so I am going with SSD

 

[daglesj]

Using a HDD for anything but a large data dump is wasting your life.

 

[Deleted member 278999]

Just learned about Intel Optane memory. Comparing these 2 options:
1. Traditional HDD with Optane memory (16 or 32 gb)
2. SSD system drive and secondary data drive that is traditional HDD.

Based on what I have seen option 1 offers comparable speed to an SSD. It might also be cheaper.

Which would you choose?

Optane cache or storage?

 

[olavgg]

Optane, because it will act as additional system memory. With Optane you need less expensive RAM.

Especially consumer level SSD's are just slightly faster than 10k spinners. Every real benchmark where you check latency and write sync/flush they are just horrible. In these benchmarks, Optane is between 5000-10000 times faster than the consumer joke model Samsung 960 Pro.

The Postgresql database comes with a tool called pg_test_fsync, and you can also use fio to simulate these numbers.

Edit(sorry, though this was a discussion for Intel Optane 900p), the 16 and 32gb cache are still great, and will probably perform better than a Samsung 960 pro SSD. But it still depends on the use case. For regular gaming, Windows, browsing it is faster. For video editing or other high bandwidth tasks it will be slower.

 

[daglesj]

Optane, because it will act as additional system memory. With Optane you need less expensive RAM.

Especially consumer level SSD's are just slightly faster than 10k spinners. Every real benchmark where you check latency and write sync/flush they are just horrible. In these benchmarks, Optane is between 5000-10000 times faster than the consumer joke model Samsung 960 Pro.

The Postgresql database comes with a tool called pg_test_fsync, and you can also use fio to simulate these numbers.

Edit(sorry, though this was a discussion for Intel Optane 900p), the 16 and 32gb cache are still great, and will probably perform better than a Samsung 960 pro SSD. But it still depends on the use case. For regular gaming, Windows, browsing it is faster. For video editing or other high bandwidth tasks it will be slower.

And in real life you'll never notice the latency difference between Optane and a decent off the shelf SSD.

We are mostly in the realm of synthetic benchmarks need only apply.

 

[4330thgink]

#2.

OS and essential programs on m.2 drive. Other programs and mass storage on spinner.

 

[drescherjm]

If you were getting a new PC today would you pick SSD or Optane?

I would get a 1TB or 2TB SATA SSD from Crucial or Samsung.

 

[Brian_B]

I was hyped about Optane when it was first announced. Having a device that could be both storage and system memory at the same time seemed like an awesome concept (and still does, actually).

Now that it's out, and SSDs have matured, it's underwhelming, to say the least. Optane had a lot of promise, but now it's being pitched primary as cache... and we already had that with the hybrid HDDs, which meh, those were already a dying breed with the rapidly lower pricing of SSD

 

[Archaea]

Optane benchmarks look really good to me.

Basically in real world use they are indistinguishable from a SSD - so it's reasonable to consider a 8 TB 7,200RPM and Optane for about the same price as a 1TB SSD.

SSD is the safe old choice, but intel products are generally well supported (NOT flavor of the year as another poster put it), and this one has excellent benchmarks. Those who say otherwise probably couldn't even really honestly say they've really evaluated the benchmarks.

 

[brentsg]

I'd go SSD for sure. I played with Optane for a bit just for giggles and the software side (config tools, etc) were half baked.

 

[dvsman]

I'm all about novelty and trying new things. I'd get Optane just to try it out since I've never seen one before. Especially if it would be cheaper to get it via OEM than on my own. If you don't like it or outgrow it, you can always change your storage later. The thing with Dell / AW is that their storage options / upgrades sometimes cost more than you just buying a bare drive off of Amazon or ...

 

[c3k]

Just learned about Intel Optane memory. Comparing these 2 options:
1. Traditional HDD with Optane memory (16 or 32 gb)
2. SSD system drive and secondary data drive that is traditional HDD.

Based on what I have seen option 1 offers comparable speed to an SSD. It might also be cheaper.

Which would you choose?

Option 2.

 

[Emission]

SSD all the way.

 

[Archaea]

I'd stick with SSD for now too. Optane is just too pricey. Now if you are a rich person and wanted the fastest... then maybe. If I was rich though I'd be getting SSDs that are 2TB or 4TB in size.

How is optane too pricey? It's $60 bucks, in addition to your spinning drive.
https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Optane-Memory-Module-MEMPEK1W032GAXT/dp/B06XSXX3NS

Pair it with a 8TB 7,200 RPM drive like those shucked Western Digital Reds from Best Buy and you'd have a 8TB SSD performance level drive for a wee bit over $200 total.

Look at benchmarks on this tech...it's the real deal...100% score.

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8157/intel-optane-memory-32gb-2-nvme-ssd-review/index.html

 

[Archaea]

Option 2 by far. Optane isn't going to give SSD performance from an HDD. It does give a nice boost, but it's not made from pixie dust.

you

read this:
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8157/intel-optane-memory-32gb-2-nvme-ssd-review/index.html

and in case you, or the other fellows in this thread, are too dang lazy to click a spoon fed link, or so full of presumptive prejudice to not bother actively learning about new tech - let me help you out by offering a few cliff notes.


review snippet:
4K read = 488.0 MBs is equivalent to 124,928 IOPS. This is 7.5x the performance of a 960 Pro running on Server 2008.

review snippet:
Optane Memory running on the modest system provided by Intel has 4x lower (better) latency than the best NVMe SSD running on our high-performance Z170 test system

conclusion snippet:
"Who would have thought that just by adding a little 32GB Optane Memory module to cache an HDD you could actually get better system response in most scenarios than you will get from the best flash-based SSD? In reality, it is the most effective low cost storage solution devised to date. Optane Memory is changing the game, in a way that is likely to breathe new life (at least for few years) into the quickly fading mechanical HDD industry."



Review score 100%

 

[Charlie_D]

Okay, I honestly find that interesting, and I've seen decent articles from there before... but I'd be interested in a few comparative pieces, including load and access times in games like FO4, BF4, etc., if there are any differences between hard drive sizes / programs being cached (he used a 1tb HDD, what about a 4, 6, 8? Program sizes? A caching drive is worth less than the box it came in when it has to fall back on the platters). Does caching an SSD have an effect? Is it enough to make any difference?

The review is a little too limited. But it's positive none the less.

 

[Batboy88]

optane or have ok speeds now with external usb now. why not do that? sata side is dead on the cx650 lol

 

[biggles]

Optane memory is sold in 2 configurations, 16 gb and 32 gb. It would be good to know the performance differences to see if the extra cost is justified for 32 gb. I have not seen a review yet that compares the two.

 

[Archaea]

Optane memory is sold in 2 configurations, 16 gb and 32 gb. It would be good to know the performance differences to see if the extra cost is justified for 32 gb. I have not seen a review yet that compares the two.

consensus is the 32GB is worth the price delta. 16GB = $35 vs. $60 for 32GB.

 

[face2palm]

That Tweaktown review impressed the hell out of me. I always thought Optane was a joke too. Sadly, none of my machines support it.

 

[brentsg]

I'll elaborate a bit more on my own testing, but just a bit since I never got it working all that well.

Just remember that if you go down this road, you need to make a full backup of potentially affected data before you make any significant changes. Do this before you enable Optane. Do this before you try to disable Optane. Naturally this should always be standard procedure for any changes like this, but don't be lazy and take the shortcut.

I had no issues ultimately because I was all squared away in this regard, but my testing never did get off the ground all the way, and Intel wasn't able to fix it. When I went to remove it, which should be a simple procedure, the utility failed to break the link and left the system unable to boot.

 

[Tyns]

There’s still a lot of OS/driver optimization to be done to get even more performance out of Optane drives, but 3DXP won’t truly shine until they release DIMMs

 

[Lateralus]

What about the Optane 900P? I thought it was "the new hotness" in terms of SSDs.

Intel's Optane SSD 900P is the New King of the SSD Hill

Intel Optane SSD 900P review: Optane finally starts to live up to the hype

 

[ajrettke33]

Optane is nice, and incredibly fast no doubt....but do you really have a workload to justify the massive cost of regular NVMe SSD's like the 960 pro?

 

[somebrains]

You guys see the the 960 Pro is on sale everywhere?
Think it's an inventory reduction, or the replacement 970/980 is on it's way?

B&H, Newegg, Amazon, direct from Samsung the 512gb is $199 and the 1tb is $449.

I'm leaning towards buying a 512gb right now for some dedicated workloads.

 

[brentsg]

You guys see the the 960 Pro is on sale everywhere?
Think it's an inventory reduction, or the replacement 970/980 is on it's way?

B&H, Newegg, Amazon, direct from Samsung the 512gb is $199 and the 1tb is $449.

I'm leaning towards buying a 512gb right now for some dedicated workloads.

No, not seeing it. You must be looking at the 960 EVO. Unless someone sold out and everyone else stopped matching.

 

[somebrains]

No, not seeing it. You must be looking at the 960 EVO. Unless someone sold out and everyone else stopped matching.

Some sale link yeasterday had 960 Pro in it, my bad, Evo is it.

 

[daglesj]

If someone tossed me a 16/32GB Optane drive I'd maybe use it for the Pagefile. I see that Windows 10 now likes to have a 'system optimised' or much larger one now as it pushes commit size much harder than previous versions.

 

[Shintai]

Option 2 obviously and I would remove the HD all together. Haven´t used a HD for many years now.

However if the choice was between NAND based SSD vs Optane based SSD....

 

[James21]

The Optane drive is useful if you have a very specific use case & can spend the money on one of the bigger ones.
Otherwise get the fastest & biggest NVMe SSD that you can & 16 to 32gb of fast memory and you'll be better off for most applications.

The Optane caching drives are basically a way for Intel to get rid of the first generation product that wasn't quite useful in the market.