The improvement is performance at low queue depth, eg. QD=1 which is what your PC is running at like 99.99% of the time. SSDs in comparison suck at QD=1 and only reach a fraction of advertised speed/IOPS.
"which is what your PC is running at like 99.99% of the time." Er, no it doesn't, and if you insist it does please support it with some link to evidence. Optane is impressive at QD=1, and a major part of everyday computing relies on QD=1, but it certainly is not anywhere close to 99.99% of it.
Of course, those who do run queue depths like this for menial browsing and MS Orifice tasks do not need Optane nor will they notice any benefit from it.
Yep. Optane beats ssd hands down but those power consumtion Numbers Are worrying. Waiting to see test results. Definitely gonna consider those as boot drives!
Big problem for Intel is all SSD prices dropping in half over the last 6 months. Where's the half price Optane to compete? The competitive position is much worse now than 6 months ago.
Who cares about Optane. The real life difference between Optane and say Samsung 960 in 99.99% business applications and games will be within error bars. This is why Anandtech shows for SSD only synthetic benchmarks.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
13 Comments
Back to Article
austinsguitar - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
its kinda sad how bad optane is. i mean thats a huge premuim... with not much impovement to something like a 970 pro or 970 evo...beginner99 - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
The improvement is performance at low queue depth, eg. QD=1 which is what your PC is running at like 99.99% of the time. SSDs in comparison suck at QD=1 and only reach a fraction of advertised speed/IOPS.Santoval - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
"which is what your PC is running at like 99.99% of the time."Er, no it doesn't, and if you insist it does please support it with some link to evidence. Optane is impressive at QD=1, and a major part of everyday computing relies on QD=1, but it certainly is not anywhere close to 99.99% of it.
Amandtec - Monday, September 24, 2018 - link
Probably not anyone's pc on this site - but for people who just use their browser and MS office 90% is probably not far off.ballsystemlord - Thursday, September 27, 2018 - link
Where are my fellow power users when I need them...philehidiot - Sunday, September 30, 2018 - link
Of course, those who do run queue depths like this for menial browsing and MS Orifice tasks do not need Optane nor will they notice any benefit from it.erinadreno - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
The performance of Optane is actually much better than traditional ssd under Windows. Especially when installing large programs, like CAD software.surt - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
Is there really a big audience that cares about software install speed? I mean, isn't that something most people do once a month or less?ballsystemlord - Thursday, September 27, 2018 - link
Not when you are using Gentoo Linux because it is FASTEEERRRR!** No, Linux users can't afford it, so my comment does not make any sense.
haukionkannel - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
Yep. Optane beats ssd hands down but those power consumtion Numbers Are worrying. Waiting to see test results. Definitely gonna consider those as boot drives!jerrytsao - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
its kinda sad how little knowledge some had about optane, yet still made a comment about something he never usedAlistair - Friday, September 21, 2018 - link
Big problem for Intel is all SSD prices dropping in half over the last 6 months. Where's the half price Optane to compete? The competitive position is much worse now than 6 months ago.SanX - Friday, September 28, 2018 - link
Who cares about Optane. The real life difference between Optane and say Samsung 960 in 99.99% business applications and games will be within error bars. This is why Anandtech shows for SSD only synthetic benchmarks.