If the technology is doing a good job keeping frequently used small files mirrored in the Optane part there is no reason the H10 couldn't have have blazing performance at the 4KQ1T1 level on top of great sequential speed.It'd be nice if you can get everything, but that's just not the reality. It has to be competitive in pricing with other SSDs too.
Sequentials are important in not just marketing, because some people definitely care about that. You probably only need about 100MB/s Q1T1 and anything above that is pretty much as worth the same as super high sequentials. Maybe even 50MB/s is enough and the real advantage from an Optane drive is not so much latency as the stability in performance due to its write-in-place nature of the media.
Sequentials are important in file transfers and while not everyone cares about it, its also a real world metric. A product that's as expensive as Optane drives need a clean sweep win against something like the 970 Pro, and it doesn't because of sequentials.
H10 will be more important because it has the potential to drive volume, and without volume Optane series will simply die.
About the Optane size: DRAM buffers for HDDs and SSDs are tiny, yet they play a tremendous role in performance.Optane part there is no reason the H10 couldn't have have blazing performance at the 4KQ1T1 level on top of great sequential speed.
Not typical sure but Intel is actively standing in the way of Optane's best use case. There really are no typical Optane users.Yea, but you are not the typical user. Actually, quite far from it.
The 8TB Micron SSD really is the only huge capacity solid state option, I imagine that will change as QLC starts to become more popular.While in laptops SSDs have greater marketshare, in desktops HDDs are still dominant, because demand for storage is still increasing very rapidly.
Of course, I was just commenting on my personal experience with anything less than the 58GB Optane modules. 16GB and 32GB were not super impressive when under heavier usage.About the Optane size: DRAM buffers for HDDs and SSDs are tiny, yet they play a tremendous role in performance.
The limitation to adoption is due to price, and price per GB.The 8TB Micron SSD really is the only huge capacity solid state option, I imagine that will change as QLC starts to become more popular.
The lower capacity modules also have much reduced sequential speeds. That will play a role. There's probably a limit to what can be done with a driver, but H10 likely has tigher integration.16GB and 32GB were not super impressive when under heavier usage.
I have the system in my sig, and would you recommend adding a 58GBP P800 to the system and using Primocache as caching software?If the technology is doing a good job keeping frequently used small files mirrored in the Optane part there is no reason the H10 couldn't have have blazing performance at the 4KQ1T1 level on top of great sequential speed.
I am now responsible for 5 systems that use an Optane + SATA SSD configuration and the performance is simply amazing. The 58GB 800P + 2TB SATA SSD combo is currently my go to solution for speed, price and capacity. The 2TB 970 EVO is like $500. The 58GB 800P + 2TB 860 QVO is less than $400. Upgrade to the 118GB 800P and you are still cheaper than the 970 EVO.
I am a little worried about the small Optane cache size on these H10 drives. I have done a lot of experimenting and if you want a bunch of left over Optane cache you really need to use a 118GB 800P. The 58GB modules do pretty good on a more typical setup but if you use a lot of software/games the 58GB buffer is nearly full at all times. I can't recommend the 16GB/32GB modules.
Of course but I as commenting more on how frequently HDD + 16GB and even HDD + 32GB setups felt like just a hard drive when I was doing several things at once. I guess falling back to NAND speed wont be as painful.The lower capacity modules also have much reduced sequential speeds. That will play a role.
I have mixed feelings about going this route. I guess I was hoping a simplified design that wouldn't need DRAM at all so that costs could be reduced.NAND SSDs do with a DRAM buffer of maybe 1GB for the large ones. The H10 PCB has the DRAM buffer for the NAND controller plus Optane.
That is basically what primocache do.Of course but I as commenting more on how frequently HDD + 16GB and even HDD + 32GB setups felt like just a hard drive when I was doing several things at once. I guess falling back to NAND speed wont be as painful.
I have mixed feelings about going this route. I guess I was hoping a simplified design that wouldn't need DRAM at all so that costs could be reduced.
The enthusiast in me has been thinking about a cool 'roll your own' product that Intel could create loosely based on the H10.
Imagine a PCIe AIC that has a DDR4 port, SATA port and M.2 port supporting up to 22110. The intention being for the user to control how much NAND (or HDD), how much Optane cache and how much DRAM cache is on board.
This would allow Intel to unload much of the cost onto the user as they pick out the 3 parts that are right for their specific use case.
Intel Xe is my hope for that. (Well that along with FPGA and NNP)Making 3D XPoint viable requires volume. 25x might be what's required.
One of the fascinating, and I think underplayed, parts of this new card line is an artificial intelligence (AI) component which can be trained to up-convert images. They first render in low resolution and then the AI takes over and converts the image in real time to 4K or 8K. This conversion capability can be applied to most any low-resolution image. The AI learns how to interpolate the needed extra pixels and then reimages the picture or frame to create a far higher resolution result. Interestingly, it can do the same thing with frames in a movie to take a regular speed GoPro-like video file and convert it into the kind of high-speed video file that would typically require a $140K high-speed camera.
I am assuming Intel Xe will have these two capabilities.This powerful ability to, relatively inexpensively, create and modify images in photo-realistic ways will, I believe, fundamentally change the TV and movie industry. We should see increased interest in old shows and movies as they are updated to new digital standards and movies created from scratch which are both less expensive to create and more realistic to watch. Of course, it won’t fix issues with the scripts and editing (two areas that could also use some AI help), but the quality and amount of video content should increase substantially as a result of this.
The bottom line is that for applications that require a larger memory footprint than can be supplied by DRAM, Optane DC has clear potential, with cost becoming a deciding factor. The situation is more complicated when using Optane DC as an in-memory storage device replacement, since results appear to be more sensitive to application type and the degree of software optimization that the customer is willing to pursue.
Aurora also comes armed with "a future generation" of Intel's Optane DC Persistent Memory using 3D XPoint that can be addressed as either storage or memory. This marks the first known implementation of Intel's new memory in a supercomputer-class system, but it isn't clear if the reference to a future generation implies an upcoming version of the Optane variant beyond Intel's first-gen DIMMs.
Maybe instead of Xe dGPU connected over PCIe x16 the Xe GPU will connect to the Xeon CPU over EMIB so the Xe GPU will have full speed access to the Optane DIMMs.
On either side of the CPU clusters are a total of four GPU clusters, each consisting of two GPU chiplets on a respective active interposer. Upon each GPU chiplet is a 3D stack of DRAM (e.g., some futuregeneration of JEDEC high-bandwidth memory (HBM) ).The DRAM is directly stacked on the GPU chiplets to maximize bandwidth (the GPUs are expected to provide the peak computational throughput) while minimizing memory-related data movement energy and total package footprint. CPU computations tend to be more latency sensitive, and so the central placement of the CPU cores reduces NUMA-like effects by keeping the CPU-to-DRAM distance relatively uniform.
The Aurora system is announced to use the just announced CXL interconnect. That's actually the perfect fit for CPU to GPU.Maybe instead of Xe dGPU connected over PCIe x16 the Xe GPU will connect to the Xeon CPU over EMIB so the Xe GPU will have full speed access to the Optane DIMMs.
IntelUser2000, M15 is available in up to 128GB.....but if 64GB M15 can do 1GB/s write then Intel must have moved on to smaller dies for increased parallelism (reason: the current Optane dies are only good for ~150 MB/s Sequential write each).Update on Optane Memory M15: Up to 64GB capacity, specs same at Up to 2.1GB/s Read, 1GB/s Write
The 128GB doesn't do any better.(reason: the current Optane dies are only good for ~150 MB/s Sequential write each).
Hence, the update.IntelUser2000, M15 is available in up to 128GB
Yes.You mean 300 MB/s per channel right?
The 16 and 32GB versions are rated identically to the Optane Memory.Optane M10 (and 800p) is also 300 MB/s per channel.
Well yeah, 32GB is identical and the 16GB is very very close (almost identical). The main difference is active power.The 16 and 32GB versions are rated identically to the Optane Memory.
If looking at the 64GB M10 it has 3.25W TDP (this, in contrast, to the TDP of 2.5W and 2W for 32GB M10 and 16GB M10 respectively) and it is also the fastest per die at 160 MB/s write (reason it has 4 dies and 640 MB/s write). The 16GB M10 has 150 MB/s write and the 32GB M10 has 290 MB/s write (or 145 MB/s per die)There's no TDP difference between the 16GB and the 32GB in the original version, while there's quite a bit of difference on the M10, leading me to believe the lower bandwidth might have been due to power as well, and 145MB/s per channel being a power-related limit.
If you look at this review: https://techreport.com/review/33338/intel-optane-ssd-800p-58-gb-and-118-gb-solid-state-drives-reviewed/3
There's an indication that its throttling at some points. If there's zero active power management, TDP levels have to be set conservatively, since it'll run at that speed all that time. If active power management exists, it can be made to run faster in all but the worst case scenarios.
Further data based on the M.2 P4801X: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=149364,149365,149367,149366
Capped write speeds are likely related to TDP limits.
PCMs offer unique opportunities for low-power data storage, and appear to be among the few nonvolatile memory candidates whose properties (e.g. energy consumption) signifi-
cantly improve with downscaling of the memory cells.
The switching time and energy consumption of the PCM cell are dependent on cell dimensions. Scaling PCM cells to nanometer dimensions decreases the thermal time constant as well as the heat capacity of the cell. Therefore, PCM devices improve with scaling in terms of energy consumption and switching speed. Nonetheless, the temperature rise, electro-thermal properties, and thermoelectric effects of nanometer-scale PCM cells have only been recently investigated.
That's funny, because the 900P/905P already does. M15 likely will do 50% better at same power.Thinking about how poorly write scales at lower power I can't imagine it doing that much better at higher power.
Remember how you were talking about using even smaller capacities(maybe 8GB?) to get more channels thus more bandwidth? If its power limited then you won't get much higher bandwidth. Conversely, if its not power limited, you get 905P.But getting back to performance per die it really does look to be not much greater than 150 MB/s....at least at the TDPs Intel is willing to supply.
Still 7-channels, thus 300MB/s. That's why 900P/905P has die counts in the multiples of 7. Channels matter, not dies. Dies per channel matter for NAND, because they are fundamentally slow.
Channels are the limiting factor.....but there also needs to be enough Gen 1 dies to fill the 300 MB/s capacity of each channel.Still 7-channels, thus 300MB/s. Channels matter, not dies.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|I||Article Intel sitting on 2 years' worth of Optane inventory||Memory and Storage||6|
|G||Question What is this connector on a thin client?||Memory and Storage||6|
|N||Question AA3200D4DR8S/32G <- is this product legit?||Memory and Storage||7|