Radeon RX 6500 XT review
MSI Vigor GK71 Sonic keyboard review
MSI GeForce RTX 3080 Suprim X 12GB review
TeamGroup A440 PRO Special 5eries 4TB NVMe review
Core i5 12400 processor review
MSI MAG B660M Mortar WIFI review
Biostar Z690 Valkyrie review
TeamGroup A440 PRO PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe review
DDR5 scaling with G.Skill TridentZ5 6000 CL36 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 3070 Noctua OC review
Intel Shows Optane SSD writing at 2GB per second
Over at IDF in China a prototype of an Optane SSD from Intel has been showing some staggering numbers. The SSD is based on 3D XPoint storage technology and while copying a 25GB file it did so at 2 GB/s, less than 15 seconds.
While current nVME technology already can achieve the similar results it remains impressive none the less as this is early technology and thus just a starting point for what's to come. Intel also talks about 15TB SSDs thanks to stacked technology.
3D XPoint (3D Crosspoint) technology was announced back in 2015 with the story it could be up-to a 1000x faster than conventional NAND memory.
It looks like that the first SSDs based on this tech will be released this year already. Intel clearly mentioned that the SSD shown was an early engineering sample prototype unit. For the test setup Intel used two similar PCs with with different SSDs. The left one used traditional NAND flash memory (doh!) and the right one the Optane SSD. Both units have been connected with Thunderbolt 3.
During the transfer the NAND SSD showed a write perf of roughly 280 MB/sec (indicative for Toggle TLC NAND), the transfer for the Optane SSD to the right was roughly 1,95GB/s in a very constant flow. You can watch the IDF presentation here in this stream. The storage segment starts at roughly 49 minutes, the demo starts at 54 minutes.
Intel shows Core i7-6950X specs at 3,5GHz and 25MB cache - 04/04/2016 10:34 AM
Intel posted info on their Core i7-6950X over the weekend on their website. The 10-core processor will get a 3,5GHz base clock and 25MB cache. Other then some snippets of info, nothing specific is m...
Intel shows Broadwell, Quark and new phone SoCs - 09/11/2013 08:56 AM
At the Intel developper forum CEO Brian Krzanich exposed a preview upcoming chips. 14nm Broadwell processor will start ship to Intel's customomers at the end of the year and will be available to con...
Intel Shows New Technologies for Efficient Cloud Datacenters - 09/05/2013 08:56 AM
Intel Corporation today introduced a portfolio of datacenter products and technologies for cloud service providers looking to drive greater efficiency and flexibility into their infrastructure to supp...
Intel shows first fully patterned 450mm wafer - 01/22/2013 10:04 AM
Intel presented world's first fully patterned 450mm wafer at last week's SEMI Industry Strategy Symposium. No further details were shared by Intel at the event but previous reports indicate the chip...
Intel ships 32nm Sandy Bridge CPUs without GPU - 01/31/2012 01:44 PM
Reported a couple of times altready, Intel now has ofiically added three new IGP-less Core i5 processors to its official price list. The chips come with their GPUs disabled and can be identified by t...
evilkiller650
Senior Member
Posts: 4804
Joined: 2005-07-08
Senior Member
Posts: 4804
Joined: 2005-07-08
#5259101 Posted on: 04/16/2016 11:32 AM
Damn. So fast!
But, unless you're some kind of person that requires insane drive speeds (can't think of anything off the top of my head at the moment), is speeds like this really necessary for gamers?
My 3-4 year old Samsung 840 Pro is doing me perfectly. It loads most games in 10~ seconds. Windows loads in 3 seconds. Programs and software run near instantaneous without any delay or hitching.
Damn. So fast!
But, unless you're some kind of person that requires insane drive speeds (can't think of anything off the top of my head at the moment), is speeds like this really necessary for gamers?
My 3-4 year old Samsung 840 Pro is doing me perfectly. It loads most games in 10~ seconds. Windows loads in 3 seconds. Programs and software run near instantaneous without any delay or hitching.
strength
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 2015-04-03
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 2015-04-03
#5259105 Posted on: 04/16/2016 11:55 AM
The image shown for comparison is bull****. So why in the first picture show me a graph with 284 mb/s, while in the first few second the ssd was driving with what ???? 3500 mb / s. Don't tell that already had 284 mb/s, but the graph is in error.
The image shown for comparison is bull****. So why in the first picture show me a graph with 284 mb/s, while in the first few second the ssd was driving with what ???? 3500 mb / s. Don't tell that already had 284 mb/s, but the graph is in error.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 2737
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2737
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5259108 Posted on: 04/16/2016 12:07 PM
Can I buy one?
I have two arms and two legs to offer.
It's Intel we are talking about. Better offer one of your kidneys as well and some marrow just to be sure.
The image shown for comparison is bull****. So why in the first picture show me a graph with 284 mb/s, while in the first few second the ssd was driving with what ???? 3500 mb / s. Don't tell that already had 284 mb/s, but the graph is in error.
Nah. It's the sort of ram buffer/cache many SSD suites offers. As for why the speed drops to 285MB/s, I reckon Intel purposefully took some cheap TLC SSD for this comparison, so it will show slower write speeds than SATA3 grants. But then again, despite what I said up there, perhaps this means Intel won't overcharge if they have the guts to compare it to an affordable mainstream SSD?
Can I buy one?
I have two arms and two legs to offer.
It's Intel we are talking about. Better offer one of your kidneys as well and some marrow just to be sure.
The image shown for comparison is bull****. So why in the first picture show me a graph with 284 mb/s, while in the first few second the ssd was driving with what ???? 3500 mb / s. Don't tell that already had 284 mb/s, but the graph is in error.
Nah. It's the sort of ram buffer/cache many SSD suites offers. As for why the speed drops to 285MB/s, I reckon Intel purposefully took some cheap TLC SSD for this comparison, so it will show slower write speeds than SATA3 grants. But then again, despite what I said up there, perhaps this means Intel won't overcharge if they have the guts to compare it to an affordable mainstream SSD?
Bogeyx
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 2013-12-03
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 2013-12-03
#5259109 Posted on: 04/16/2016 12:10 PM
The image shown for comparison is bull****. So why in the first picture show me a graph with 284 mb/s, while in the first few second the ssd was driving with what ???? 3500 mb / s. Don't tell that already had 284 mb/s, but the graph is in error.
they say it was the cache.
The image shown for comparison is bull****. So why in the first picture show me a graph with 284 mb/s, while in the first few second the ssd was driving with what ???? 3500 mb / s. Don't tell that already had 284 mb/s, but the graph is in error.
they say it was the cache.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 328
Joined: 2013-03-06
Can I buy one?
I have two arms and two legs to offer.