21–30 of 57 posts
This seems fine, they're still going to produce NAND with an Optane cache. That gets you the price and 80% of the performance.
If not, it's so tiny that while it will give you amazing performance on disk and database benchmarks I'm not convinced it will be notably better than an SLC cache when doing anything else. And an SLC cache doesn't require an extra chip.
I'll miss it - we have a Virtualized Windows 2019 Server on it that reboots in 9 seconds. We set it to auto login and it's at the full in the desktop and ready to go. Hopefully Micron will introduce an equivalent version.
Surprised Optane would help that. I would figure boot would be mostly large reads, minimal writes, which flash would do just as well or better, especially on PCIe 4.0.
Optane, at the time we bought it, was significantly faster than any consumer SSD.
With a Windows 10 install mounted on the Optane and installing it to a Optane hosted VM, the install takes four minutes if you have that file that answers the quetions Windows needs to install.
I'd like to express my thoughts on this, from business exec point of view. Consumer-grade Optane SSDs are not competetive with flash memory, simple as that. On performance and write endurance, flash-based SSD are "good enough", while also much better on cost-per-GB vs Optane. This reduces available market for Optane to gaming enthusiasts and similar customers - a very small slice of the total PC market. Now, for ente…
It made more sense a few years ago when they were only 2-3 times more expensive than flash. IDK if they could have predicted flash prices plummeting like they have, but for sure there's no worthwhile consumer reason to buy one now. BTW, I don't think they ever made much difference in gaming. My understanding is that they were optimized for database like workloads, where you get lots of small disparate writes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It made more sense a few years ago when they were only 2-3 times more expensive than flash. IDK if they could have predicted flash prices plummeting like they have, but for sure there's no worthwhile consumer reason to buy one now. BTW, I don't think they ever made much difference in gaming. My understanding is that they were optimized for database like workloads, where you get lots of small disparate writes.
They also make glorious boot/OS drives. Those typically see a heavy mix of reads and writes, which is where Optane's dominance over NAND is strongest. The 900P/905P was pretty much the absolute best C: drive money could buy.
Typical intel move. They start something and then kill it shortly after if the new product did not have the massive impact they hoped for. I would not be surprised if they kill the optane enterprise products or simply dont develop a new version and some improvements in ssds will make optane not very interesting as it would not be much better but dramatically more expensive.
This seems fine, they're still going to produce NAND with an Optane cache. That gets you the price and 80% of the performance.
I'd like to express my thoughts on this, from business exec point of view. Consumer-grade Optane SSDs are not competetive with flash memory, simple as that. On performance and write endurance, flash-based SSD are "good enough", while also much better on cost-per-GB vs Optane. This reduces available market for Optane to gaming enthusiasts and similar customers - a very small slice of the total PC market. Now, for ente…
I don't think it's wise from a long term public good/civic good point of view for consumers to give any sort of apologetic consideration to the business reasons for consumer unfriendly moves. The moment capitalism becomes an excuse for capitalism crony capitalism becomes inevitable. The evils of market segmentation and to a broader degree "value-add" should not be legitimized.