THANK YOU BASED INTEL

>optane is meant as a cache for your SSD
No. It's meant as a replacement for NAND-based SSDs.

I've run some benchmarks with a Optane 900P, and it's literally faster than the RAM-disk I have from PMC-Sierra.

Not a replacement, it's basically another tier between DRAM and NAND.
3D NAND is getting too cost effective to be replaced by any new meme memories.

>Not a replacement, it's basically another tier between DRAM and NAND.
The 905P has a capacity of 960 GB. This is definitively not intended as a cache, but rather as storage in itself.

It will definitively take some years, until the tech gets cheaper, but keep in mind that these are first generation products from Intel. NAND-based storage has hit its peak, which is why every NAND-based disk vendors are just cramming as much RAM onto their disks as possible so they can prefetch as much as possible.

>Optane is still shit until someone finally shits out a memory-mapped product (aka Apache Pass DIMMs you silly Intel shill).
The NVMe controller is so fast there's literally no need for that. The nv-based persistent storage API in Linux is more than fast enough to handle that shit. Also, see . The PMC-Sierra disk I have has an option for memory-mapping the entire disk, but the NVMe-based optane disk is still faster.

>but rather as storage in itself.
Another tier between DRAM and something colder like NAND, as I said.
Capacity and price is not there yet to do anything to 3D NAND.
>until the tech gets cheaper
It won't, it's a chalcogenide-based PCH with something arsenic for selector.
The cost structure is just nuts.
>NAND-based storage has hit its peak
No way fag, 3D NAND is still far and away from hitting it's peak, some vendors are yet to touch string stacking, lmao.
>vendors are just cramming as much RAM onto their disks as possible
Still 1:1 flap mapping DRAM:NAND.
>The NVMe controller is so fast there's literally no need for that.
Nowhere near as fast as not-FB-DIMM hanging off the DDR bus.

What's wrong with it?
Literally the first SSD ever to make significant improvements in random read speeds.
Pretty impressive stuff if you ask me.

Attached: 74398543.png (680x1418, 179K)

>What's wrong with it?
Price.
Real-world performance (only some datanceter workloads actually benefit from it).

>The 905P has a capacity of 960 GB. This is definitively not intended as a cache, but rather as storage in itself.

Your thinking of this at a consumer level. Large compute jobs benefit from large low latency scratch disks. This is 100% a high performance computing product.

Also, the benefit of optane is the read and write latency... Not so much the throughput. It's great for high intensity write applications (like a SLOG device for zfs)

Price doesn't matter here since it is the best product on the market.
There will always be people who don't care for price/performance and simply buy the very best thing available. Those same people buy nvidya titans for $3000.
Not to mention, this is still new technology, in a few years it will most certainly become cheaper.

>Price doesn't matter here since it is the best product on the market.
It's not the best in sequental, and random speeds it offers are not really a dealbreaker for most client stuff.
>There will always be people who don't care for price/performance and simply buy the very best thing available.
A niche among niches, and we're talking memory, aka the definition of commodity market.
>Not to mention, this is still new technology, in a few years it will most certainly become cheaper.
Read everything I've said about the cost structure.
Also stacking layers of 3DXP is way trickier than in 3D NAND.

>how much more retarded can they get
Even more if you let them I rekon.

when your intel hardware runs better on ryzen youtube.com/watch?v=wbl2dYgjMQ4

delid dis

Attached: 1517515392434.png (1134x206, 19K)

Attached: intel shill.png (1452x588, 298K)

Alphacool has a waterblock just for this