I guess that modern SSD are just so fast, that going faster is not that big deal. But if you want the best SSD for non-server workloads, Optane is a way to go.
Anyway, the big difference with Optane is that its performance is more similar to having more system memory. I have not benchmarked this, but I believe a system with just 8GB ram + Optane will run better than a system with 16GB ram and Samsung 970 pro for workloads using up to 16GB of ram. There is a reason Intel announced its memory drive technology for Optane DC4800x https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/software/intel-memor...
EDIT: adding a link to lwn.net article explaing the use of swap/memory overcommit https://lwn.net/Articles/704478/
No, not even close. PCIe is still way slower than DDR4. Once your working set grows beyond available RAM, the Optane SSD will be a better swap device than any flash-based SSD, but you still notice your system slowing down drastically from all the swap activity.
Intel's Memory Drive Technology is really intended for situations where you have multiple Optane SSDs, and a workload that wants a large amount of total RAM but seldom has a true working set larger than actual DRAM capacity.
Traversing the root complex can take upto 100 cpu cycles each way.
PS: DDR4-3200W in quad channel mode is crazy fast and should break 100GB/s though sill a long way from a 1080Ti 484 GB/s.
On the other hand, Optane does have a big advantage at QD=1, which is the point people are making here. Looking at NVMe as an indication of Optane performance is the wrong approach since it has very different performance characteristics.
https://img.purch.com/r/711x457/aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1p...
(of course you're not incorrect that games aren't really using access patterns that are optimal for superfast SSDs)
Typical database load is an example of big queue depths. You have dozens of queries executing simultaneously and you're interested in throughput. So Samsung SSD is fine there (and raids are even better), unless your database is not typical and serves only a single client with low latency requirement.
Also because that was a bottleneck. Now the CPU is often the bottleneck, so I doubt you'd notice Optane (most people can't even notice NVMe vs. SATA).
Streaming video from the internet does not use the SSD at all, and a high-quality 1080p video file is maybe 5-10 MB/s of bitrate, you can easily pull that off a spinning HDD that was manufactured 20 years ago.
Video editing at 4K or 8K is one of the few use-cases where NVMe's sequential performance does provide a big benefit... assuming you are not editing using proxies.
Optane's QD=1 random-4K performance does present an opportunity for big speedups on consumer use-cases. But Intel really has to get the prices down if they want to see consumer adoption, right now there is an obvious benefit to cheaper SATA SSDs that allow you to get more data off spinning-rust drives vs a smaller, massively expensive Optane drive (even if it is incredibly fast).
Also, on PS3 it runs in less than 256 MB of RAM... where is it loading these assets to? Most games have RAM consumption on the order of 4-8 GB in most situations, not all of that is assets, and not all of that is read sequentially.
Having the ability to handle a large volume of random writes, relatively cheaply, makes building reliable, fully restartable software much simpler.
Many storage engines that I make use of are B trees or LSMs these days. These engines are usually selected because they provide very good read performance, and acceptable write performance.
Improved random access writes only make these engines more attractive and performant. For instance, boltdb, which is similar to LMDB, requires 2 iops to perform a durable write. In the benchmark for 4K random writes, Optane achieved 180,000 iops. This gives us 90,000 writes per second, sustained. Possibly more at peak, since presumably that's how they get the claimed write iops of 550,000.
That's a phenomenal number of writes. It makes in-memory stores like redis irrelevant for a wide range of applications that would have required it not long ago.
Full disclosure: I work for Redis Labs.
Funny enough, I skipped over SSD entirely, and upgraded to Optane from HDD.
It was like trading in a Model T for a Model X.
My biggest issue is that it's only a 512, the biggest available at time of purchase (mid 2016; I only replace my systems every 5-6 years or so; 6850k/32gb mem was my limit then).
Also, doing benchmarking stresses loads up the thermals and when it hits 70c after a little while perf is throttled down somewhat; this doesn't happen in normal use, but nevertheless I've ordered a NVME heatsink which I hope will be good for it.
I see the Optane is a PCIE solution. Seeing as my m2 slot is filled, and noone makes u2 drives (the only other spare slot for such things my motherboard has), that'd make it the perfect upgrade extension for myself if I can fit it in between the GPU and SB card - hopefully it'll come down in price a bit over time.
[1] https://www.treehugger.com/gadgets/plasma-tvs-suck-electrici...
Watt is a measure of energy/time. It doesn't make sense to say watts per hour.
I believe this is what the GP was referring to - the sustained usage of 300-600W over the course of an hour. Thus being very expensive to run for long periods of time.
In my area I’m charged at 16.56 pence per kilowatt hour, meaning at an average consumption rate of 450w - that television would cost me in the region of £13.41 a month to run, assuming 6hours usage per night. Which is quite expensive.
Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that Plasma TVs are generally more expensive to run than modern LCD or OLED TVs. [1]
Pioneer's 9th generation Kuro KRP-600A had an operating power consumption of 478 watts. [2]
[1] https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/led-oled-power-consumption-a...
That isn't intel only either[0], although IIRC their hardware implementation is intel only.