Gigabyte Z390 AORUS Master review
Intel Core i9 9900K processor review
Intel Core i7 9700K processor review
Intel Core i5 9600K processor review
MSI MEG Z390 ACE review
ASUS ROG Maximus XI Hero review
Crucial P1 M.2 1000GB SSD Review
Corsair Force Series MP510 M.2 SSD Review
MSI GeForce RTX 2070 Armor 8G review
ASUS Turbo GeForce RTX 2070 8GB review
Intel now offers Core i5/i7/i9 Processors Bundled with Optane Cache SSD
As expected with the new Core+ packages, Intel is releasing Core i5/i7/i9 processors paired with an Intel Optane SSD. Initially this will be 8th generation Core processors combined with the low capacity ‘Optane Memory’ caching SSDs.
As you might have noticed, Intel made a slight change in the processor badges and logos. In case if you are wondering what that little + means, well, it simply means that the product is Optane ready and bundled. It was bound to happen, Intel was expected to push its partners to bundle the processors and motherboards with Optane. However, a slight change of things now has been introduced.
| Price with 16 GB Optane | Price of CPU only | PN | |||
| Core i7+8700 | $340 | $302 | BO80684I78700 | ||
| Core i5+8500 | $240 | $205 | BO80684I58500 | ||
| Core i5+8400 | $215 | $179 | BO80684I58400 | ||
** table courtesy Anandtech
However, it now seems that Intel is simply bundling it with the processors. Optane caching was two years ago, however, most users didn’t find the relative little speed improvement worth the considerable higher price as a regular SSD is (for most) the way to go. You can buy a Core i7 8700 + 16GB Optane Memory SSD for $340, the price of the CPU would normally be $302. Amazon sells 16GB Optane Memory SSDs at $35.99, meaning users can save themselves a couple of bucks at best.
We honestly doubt the new Core+ bundle models will become a success.
Tick Tock Tock Says Intel Now As Well - 03/23/2016 07:46 PM
The familiar "Tick-Tock" is a model used by chip manufacturer Intel Corporation start started in 2007 to follow every micro-architectural change with a die shrink of the process technology.
Intel not working on hardware-based antivirus - 04/29/2011 10:54 AM
Weird, despite earlier claims McAfee CEO David DeWalt denied his company is embedding antivirus technology: When Intel Corp. acquired antivirus software company McAfee many believed that the world's ...
Intel not going for USB 3.0 until 2012 - 06/06/2010 03:45 PM
Gigabyte confirmed Intel's USB 3.0 chipset will be delayed until 2012. There's no reason given. It claims to have shipped one million USB 3.0 boards already. Other USB 3.0 chips are coming on the mark...
Intel not planning USB 3.0 until 2012 - 04/14/2010 10:00 AM
The gusy over at
moo100times
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 2012-06-24
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 2012-06-24
#5538171 Posted on: 04/16/2018 06:45 PM
What real advantages will this give over a cheap 120gb SSD for the same price?
What real advantages will this give over a cheap 120gb SSD for the same price?
RzrTrek
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 2012-04-16
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 2012-04-16
#5538173 Posted on: 04/16/2018 06:50 PM
I think I'll pass.
I think I'll pass.
FeDaYin
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 2006-07-20
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 2006-07-20
#5538176 Posted on: 04/16/2018 07:07 PM
So if you buy an Intel SSD, you get a free CPU.
Misleading title...
So if you buy an Intel SSD, you get a free CPU.
Misleading title...
Samishere
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 2017-03-07
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 2017-03-07
#5538180 Posted on: 04/16/2018 07:19 PM
Optane differs from traditional SSDs in that they are lower latency and higher random IOPS. Intel's software can use these drives as a caching medium to speed up reads and writes, thus making your system more responsive.
Most SSD manufacturers already ship software that does this with a portion of your RAM, so if you don't mind losing a few GBs of RAM it's more practical to just use that software.
With all the chipset / cpu / hardware limitations of using optane, Intel has managed to take a pretty straight forward way of enhancing your system's responsiveness and make it as convoluted and expensive as possible.
I suggest you check out PrimoCache. It lets you cache any / all drives on your system using an L1 RAM cache and L2 SSD Cache (amazing with M.2 Drives). I believe AMD is shipping a software solution like this with their x470 chipsets for Ryzen 2.
What real advantages will this give over a cheap 120gb SSD for the same price?
Optane differs from traditional SSDs in that they are lower latency and higher random IOPS. Intel's software can use these drives as a caching medium to speed up reads and writes, thus making your system more responsive.
Most SSD manufacturers already ship software that does this with a portion of your RAM, so if you don't mind losing a few GBs of RAM it's more practical to just use that software.
With all the chipset / cpu / hardware limitations of using optane, Intel has managed to take a pretty straight forward way of enhancing your system's responsiveness and make it as convoluted and expensive as possible.
I suggest you check out PrimoCache. It lets you cache any / all drives on your system using an L1 RAM cache and L2 SSD Cache (amazing with M.2 Drives). I believe AMD is shipping a software solution like this with their x470 chipsets for Ryzen 2.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5538186 Posted on: 04/16/2018 07:39 PM
Useless waste of an M.2 socket. It would be much better to place an NVMe SSD of a decent size into that socket instead. If it was instead a real Otane SSD of a usable size, heavily discounted when bought in that package with a CPU, it would make a lot more sense. Now it's obvious Intel manufactured too many of those Optane cache things and are trying to get rid of them using any means imaginable.
Useless waste of an M.2 socket. It would be much better to place an NVMe SSD of a decent size into that socket instead. If it was instead a real Otane SSD of a usable size, heavily discounted when bought in that package with a CPU, it would make a lot more sense. Now it's obvious Intel manufactured too many of those Optane cache things and are trying to get rid of them using any means imaginable.
DLD
Senior Member
Posts: 737
Joined: 2002-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 737
Joined: 2002-09-14
#5538188 Posted on: 04/16/2018 07:51 PM
Useless+stewpid. Intel obviously "thinks" they are over+Intel+igent, whereas the rest of the world sleeps in diapers... What I see is: Intel itself is in a deep sleep + in a $hi*ty diapers... It's gonna be a deep$hit wake-up one fine day.
"
Useless waste of an M.2 socket..."
Useless+stewpid. Intel obviously "thinks" they are over+Intel+igent, whereas the rest of the world sleeps in diapers... What I see is: Intel itself is in a deep sleep + in a $hi*ty diapers... It's gonna be a deep$hit wake-up one fine day.
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 13931
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 13931
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5538189 Posted on: 04/16/2018 07:55 PM
Does Optane memory actually help? M2 speeds are already pretty high, so not sure how Optane will help with that?
Does Optane memory actually help? M2 speeds are already pretty high, so not sure how Optane will help with that?
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 7610
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 7610
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5538192 Posted on: 04/16/2018 08:02 PM
Seagate Firecuda did prove that it is not some kind of miracle. In some cases it did perform bit better than normal HDD in some cases worse. 8GB SSD which it has is not enough. 16GB makes no difference.
What makes difference is user having brain and using adequate drive type for each data type.
Seagate Firecuda did prove that it is not some kind of miracle. In some cases it did perform bit better than normal HDD in some cases worse. 8GB SSD which it has is not enough. 16GB makes no difference.
What makes difference is user having brain and using adequate drive type for each data type.
JamesSneed
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: 2017-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: 2017-02-14
#5538198 Posted on: 04/16/2018 08:19 PM
Can they sell these as regular, plus and premium?
Can they sell these as regular, plus and premium?
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 515
Joined: 2005-08-05
Senior Member
Posts: 515
Joined: 2005-08-05
#5538203 Posted on: 04/16/2018 08:41 PM
Optane 900p helps
Perfect for OS, programs and games. 4k random read @ QD=1 is way faster than m.2 nvme ssd's
Does Optane memory actually help? M2 speeds are already pretty high, so not sure how Optane will help with that?
Optane 900p helps
Perfect for OS, programs and games. 4k random read @ QD=1 is way faster than m.2 nvme ssd's
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 13931
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 13931
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5538205 Posted on: 04/16/2018 08:59 PM
I get that part, but does is actually make a noticeable difference? Not something like the OS loads .1 seconds faster, or puts your FPS from 50 to 51 or your frame timing little better, is it a worthwhile addition to an Intel system?
Optane 900p helps Perfect for OS, programs and games. 4k random read @ QD=1 is way faster than m.2 nvme ssd's
Perfect for OS, programs and games. 4k random read @ QD=1 is way faster than m.2 nvme ssd'sI get that part, but does is actually make a noticeable difference? Not something like the OS loads .1 seconds faster, or puts your FPS from 50 to 51 or your frame timing little better, is it a worthwhile addition to an Intel system?
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3238
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 3238
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5538209 Posted on: 04/16/2018 09:06 PM
Seeing as Windows is still terrible at handling paging files in system with oodles of RAM, I think one of these drives would be ok as a dedicated paging file drive. I still wouldn't buy one, though.
For a capacity this small, I'd rather just partition my RAM as a scratch disk.
Seeing as Windows is still terrible at handling paging files in system with oodles of RAM, I think one of these drives would be ok as a dedicated paging file drive. I still wouldn't buy one, though.
For a capacity this small, I'd rather just partition my RAM as a scratch disk.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 7610
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 7610
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5538213 Posted on: 04/16/2018 09:24 PM
No. I put OS on any SSD, old, new 3Gbps / 6Gbps, does not matter. IOPs is benefit on its own. And for OS drive where data are mainly loaded at boot time, it is waste to use 3200MB/s M.2 drive.
And for games, it is actually bit opposite, IOPs are secondary bonus which any half decent SATA SSD has plenty. Main thing is actual read speed as today games have easily 40GB+.
This 16GB cache may help tiny bit here and there. But mainly old good HDD can benefit.
And if someone feels that content which is on HDD performs badly, then ti should be moved to SSD.
I run steam libraries on HDD and SSD. HDD is for games where loading times are good (small games or have good caching). Those which misbehave go to SSD.
I would rather put money aside for M.2 than to buy this thing. Even 64GB is not worth it for home user as it takes valuable M.2 slot.
I get that part, but does is actually make a noticeable difference? Not something like the OS loads .1 seconds faster, or puts your FPS from 50 to 51 or your frame timing little better, is it a worthwhile addition to an Intel system?
No. I put OS on any SSD, old, new 3Gbps / 6Gbps, does not matter. IOPs is benefit on its own. And for OS drive where data are mainly loaded at boot time, it is waste to use 3200MB/s M.2 drive.
And for games, it is actually bit opposite, IOPs are secondary bonus which any half decent SATA SSD has plenty. Main thing is actual read speed as today games have easily 40GB+.
This 16GB cache may help tiny bit here and there. But mainly old good HDD can benefit.
And if someone feels that content which is on HDD performs badly, then ti should be moved to SSD.
I run steam libraries on HDD and SSD. HDD is for games where loading times are good (small games or have good caching). Those which misbehave go to SSD.
I would rather put money aside for M.2 than to buy this thing. Even 64GB is not worth it for home user as it takes valuable M.2 slot.
The Goose
Senior Member
Posts: 2139
Joined: 2008-02-25
Senior Member
Posts: 2139
Joined: 2008-02-25
#5538242 Posted on: 04/16/2018 11:01 PM
As far as comparing...say a 32 gig optane vs 32 gig of ddr 4, yes ddr 4 is faster but also a lot more expensive, seems to be a lot saying optane is a waste of money but has anyone bought one and given it chance to learn what files to give cache priority. Also using ram as a cache drive means all data needs loading at startup where as optane...as far as i know is non-volatile so data is already loaded.
As far as comparing...say a 32 gig optane vs 32 gig of ddr 4, yes ddr 4 is faster but also a lot more expensive, seems to be a lot saying optane is a waste of money but has anyone bought one and given it chance to learn what files to give cache priority. Also using ram as a cache drive means all data needs loading at startup where as optane...as far as i know is non-volatile so data is already loaded.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: 2006-11-25
ReadyBoost reboot ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost