>intel always delivers

>>59606375
But it's FAST, so it's all right.

>>59606695
The marketing slides compared it to an HDD
It's slower sequentially than Intel's own SSDs
Intel SSDs are terrible compared to Samsung
It has an MTBF of one year

A storage device
That lasts a year

So it's persistent RAM that goes in a PCIe slot.

Why tho?

>>59606695
>But it's FAST
But its not.

>>59606733
>The marketing slides compared it to an HDD
The marketing slides compared it to NAND

>>59606733
Source?

The image in the op compares it to NAND and DRAM

>>59606964
>>59607173
The launch slides did. The marketing slides in the OP are from 2015, which turned out to be total bullshit, are against NAND.

>>59607801
Congratulations, you got the point of the thread.

>>59606941
No, Intel keeps trying to push the whole "Optane is so fast and large you can just use your main storage as RAM, and ditch volatile memory altogether!"

The problem is Optane is not nearly fast enough to be used as system RAM (hell it's even slower some flash based SSDs on the market), and not really dense enough to replace flash. 3D Xpoint has the potential to be a decent replacement to flash if they keep developing it, but "Optane™" is a stinking pile of shit in every regard.

>>59606375
I read an article that suggested the target audience was people with hdd's. "To speed the system up," which makes no sense, as people with hdd's won't have Kaby Lake. Totally worthless.

>>59606375
>slower than RAM
>slower than an SSD
>faster than a HDD

375GB for $1500 starting

Intel's got a winner for sure.

>>59609739
>>59606375
Uh? So whats the fucking point? This was one of the things I was looking forward to..

>>59609831
>Uh? So whats the fucking point?
The point is that they lied all the way to the bank.

>>59606375
>intel always delivers
but is it worth it?

>>59606941
>So it's persistent RAM that goes in a PCIe slot.
>Why tho?
good question

>>59607994
>Intel keeps trying to push the whole "Optane is so fast and large you can just use your main storage as RAM, and ditch volatile memory altogether!"
so slow shit down

>>59609739
>375GB for $1500 starting
Is that supposed to be cheaper than real RAM?

256GB DDR4 ECC 2133 RAM
$2240
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/322290994679

I'd take the RAM any day.

File: r32V794.gif (615KB, 300x190px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 300x190px

>>59609831
>>59609844
You mean...

Whats the xpoint

The news sites I read says good things about it.

https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/03/20/like-flash-3d-xpoint-enters-datacenter-cache/

File: 35c[1].png (31KB, 200x203px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 200x203px

>>59610126
>news sites
not tech sites

Hey man I'm sure as fuck not going to buy a kaby lake chip for it but if it works the way they claim it does and makes hdd storage feel like ssd storage I'm so down.

>>59609920

You can not have 500GB of RAM

>>59606733
You don't know how to read do you? 10x faster than SSD and 10x longer life than that shit TLC they are selling these days.

>>59611597
10x faster in latency and they straight up lied about the lifetime. Even with the massive overprovisioning on the 4800X it has an MTBF of a SINGLE YEAR.

>>59611558
but you can.

supermicro sell boards that can be populated with up to 2TB of ram. I'm sure Dell & HP offer the same.

anyone know just exactly how fast this thing is?

i would assume its significantly faster than an m.2 ssd.

>>59611558
And this isn't RAM. Infact the RAM product variant was scrapped entirely. The closest you get are the small drives that are used as a swap space. Because actual RAM is still faster.

>>59612506
Slower sequentially, faster random. It's got low latencies but when the queue gets warmed up that don't matter.

And by slower I mean slower than Intels crap SSDs, something like a 950 Pro isn't even in the same league.

>>59612533
so its slower than my 960 evo?

How does this technology differ from nand and what are the densest chips currently available?

>>59612553
Yes, it also will last a shorter amount of time, and is far far more expensive.

File: 1435707570126.jpg (36KB, 297x365px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 297x365px

>>59612566
>Yes, it also will last a shorter amount of time, and is far far more expensive.
this wont do at all.

>>59612561
Uses phase change in the material itself, transistors aren't used to store the bits. Not sure about density but they're 16gb dies.

Intel's claim is that it is super fast, but limited by the PCI speed.

Which surely must be a lie. They could have used M.2 instead for their $1500 hard drive if that would have allowed them to be faster. But no, it's slower than any NVME.

>>59612566
They claimed they will last "forever".

>>59612682
And I can claim I shit faires

>>59607801
>The marketing slides in the OP are from 2015
Why are you lying like a shitfaced little child? Intel's old marketing slides compared it to one of their own SSDs, you kike faggot shill.

Your post is literal damage control.

>>59612743
Which is what I said, 2015 slides was vs Intel's own NAND SSD. The launch marketing slides are vs a hard drive.

File: optane more like oplame.jpg (468KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1920x1200px

>>59606375
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

30 SECONDS

30 FUCKING SECONDS

This shit will hit SSDs like a wet noodle

>>59613466
And thats just cache, not a real drive.

>>59606375

They are so fucking scared of AMD right now.

>>59610126

>Intel Sets Out To Revolutionize Storage !!!

(((media headlines)))

>>59614136
>(((media headlines)))
They themselves said the technology was revolutionary, and its a fucking dud.

Not a shill, but 16GB is $45 and 32GB i think is $80. Not sure about the latter.

>>59613466
>Boot time is the important thing
It's meant to be a midpoint between RAM and HDD
It's power comes from industry applicational usage and servers. Not from LMAO IT ONLY TOOK 2 SECONDS TO REBOOT!

>>59614397
>It's meant to be a midpoint between RAM and HDD
Why not just get an enterprise SSD though? It's faster, cheaper, and more reliable to do the exact same shit.

>>59614397
Why did they even bother trying to make a consumer product out of it, then? And with such ridiculous restrictions, too (Kaby Lake i3/i5/i7, 200 series mobo, spare m.2 slot, etc.)

My shit trash netbook with soldered on slow as fuck eMMC takes 30 seconds to boot, that includes me clicking the login screen and typing my password. http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1472884#DRIVE

>>59614446
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/intels-first-optane-ssd-375gb-that-you-can-also-use-as-ram/
>Memory Drive Technology uses a middleware layer that boots before, and is transparent to, the operating system, and it combines regular DRAM with the SSD to make a single large pool of volatile memory
>The biggest benefit may be from substantially increasing the amount of physical memory in a server: 2 socket Xeon systems can hold up to 3TB of RAM, but 24TB of Optane, and 4 socket systems support up to 12TB RAM, but 48TB Optane. This could be a huge boost for applications that need truly enormous quantities of memory.

If you don't understand why you can't just slap an SSD in to achieve the same result, then I can't help you.

>>59614460
>takes 30 seconds to boo
Because it has nothing to do with boot time. That isn't a category it's intended to significantly help with, although it can.

>>59614474
That is literally it's entire point as a $50 consumer product. Faster boot/launch times.

>>59614464
Are you about to drop the spare change on one of those?

>>59614490
Launch times, yes. Boot times, probably not.
I could see a lot of people working with huge video files getting a great speed improvement with an extra 16-32GB of "memory". Easy drop-in upgrade.

>>59614506
No because I don't have a need for it.

>>59614507
If you're relying on Intel's software to cache those video files, it probably won't. If you're doing it manually, I'm not sure how much time you're going to save copying raw video files onto it and off of it.

>>59614464
I'm still have trouble seeing the need.

When AMD had to demonstrate why it's so important that it supports 4TB of RAM compared to the competing 3TB of a compareable dual socket Xeon system, they had to pointlessly quadruple a workload that would only normally be done once.

4TB is a fuckload of RAM.

And if more is really needed, usually something can be programmed to move to and from RAM and SDD. Sort of like tiling.

You also have another example like the HBCC in Vega which could be applied to system memory where you can have memory addressed but not actually in RAM itself, and brought from SSD to RAM as needed.

>>59614560
SAP HANA databases. For when you really do need that much in memory.

File: 1483326645137.png (201KB, 280x395px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 280x395px

>>59614536
You. Don't. Do. Any. Of. That.
It boots before the goddamn OS. It tells the OS that it is RAM. The OS sees the actual DRAM and Optane as one big fucking pool of RAM.
This has the disadvantage of being slightly slower , but the advantage of now you have a shitload of extra memory workspace.
It's also different from just "throw more SSDs at it!" because it's byte addressable, and without destructive erasure.

>>59614560
>I'm still have trouble seeing the need.
And 10 years ago people had trouble seeing the need for two screens.
Just because you can't personally imagine a situation to use it in doesn't mean they aren't out there, and I've already given you several real world examples.

Either way, I'm not here to convince you to buy one of these. But to say "its fucking nothing" is just ignorant.

>>59614610
>And 10 years ago people had trouble seeing the need for two screens.
No they didn't, fucktard.

File: intel_turbo_memory.jpg (90KB, 495x370px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 495x370px

>>59606375
Back in my days we had Intel Turbo Memory cache.

>>59613466
no comparison with ssd?
>oi vey

No caching solution has been successful so far.

>Turbo Memory was barely used
>Smart Response is barely used
>SSHDs account for like 0.5% of HDD market
>Apple went full SSD and no longer offers Fusion Drive

>>59606375

>busy buying $15B dual camera self-driving memes

>>59614676
Yes they did, friendo.

The Intel CEO needs to resign, billions of R&D to make a hybrid HDD. What's next intel zip disks?

Optane is 3 years late to market. The entreprise version might find it's niche but the customer thing ? There's just no point.

Intel have been fucking up a lot lately.

>>59617356

Krzanich need to hang himself. With a non-engineer as a CEO, Intel is pulling a RIM. They have enough funds to survive and recover but R&D isn't done overnight.

>>59606941
>Why tho?
It's Intel exclusive.

File: 1490070929718.jpg (108KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x720px

>>59606375
1 0 0 0
0
0
0

>>59606375
They need to call Microsoft and have Microsoft issue an update that makes all W10 computers unusable without this new technology. Without 3d XPoint, the operating system simply won't function as intended. It's progress.

>>59619338
O N E
T H O U S A N D
P E R C E N T
F A S T E R

>>59613466
>using linus drop tips benchmarks

>>59614397
The usage as a customer product is non existent. It's probably has some usage in server market precisely with extending ram but that is much that it can do. It requeries os support.

Such a waste right now. Fast non-volatile RAM needs operating systems designed around it, and the way it's being used in these units doesn't even make any sense.

We're not going to see any real movement on this until after the patents expire, are we?

>>59621945
It was all Intel's setup. Linus just ran a stopwatch. That's literally all he did.

>>59621911
1000x is not the same as 1000% faster.

>>59622807
Micron has a part in it too, they're just holding off on making a product until the MTBF isn't A SINGLE FUCKING YEAR