Intel Optane SSD 900P drives deliver a big chunk of next-gen storage to desktops

Intel’s Optane SSDs are coming to consumer systems for the first time today. The Optane SSD 900P Series will encompass 280GB and 480GB NVMe drives with PCIe 3.0 x4 interfaces. Intel will initially offer the SSD 900P as an add-in card in 280GB and 480GB capacities, and as a U.2 2.5″ SSD in a 280GB form factor. Other capacities are in the pipe for future releases.

Like Intel’s 750 Series SSDs of years past, the Optane SSD 900P drives enjoy a data-center pedigree. They’re built with the same controller as the DC P4800X, albeit with different firmware that omits some data-center-specific features.

Although the sequential read and write numbers Intel provides may be the first figures that many may look to for an idea of the performance of these SSDs, sequential performance has never been the highlight of Optane products. Intel reminds us that the benefits of Optane lie elsewhere. The major selling point for Optane media is its exceptionally low latency (a claimed 10 microseconds or better) for a non-volatile device and its high random I/O performance at the low queue depths typical of desktop workloads.

Just as with its Optane Memory caching device, Optane SSDs could offer a major responsiveness boost under random workloads. Back when it first announced Optane Memory, Intel released a range of performance data from its internal testing that showed most applications top out with a queue depth of four, and the vast majority of workloads it tested didn’t exceed QD2. Thanks to its low latency, Optane can provide higher performance than NAND devices at those low queue depths.

On top of those impressive characteristics, Optane’s claimed latency remains similar even as I/O requests scale to astounding rates. Intel’s own testing showed that the Optane SSD DC P4800X can service workloads in under 30 microseconds even under 2 GB/s of random write pressure. Intel is also highlighting Optane’s endurance: an astounding 8.76 petabytes written for the 480GB drives. For reference, that’s about seven times the endurance of Samsung’s 960 Pro 2TB NAND SSD.

To the stars

It’s fair to say that a non-volatile storage device like this has never existed for desktop PCs before, and cultivating ways to take advantage of it is clearly on Intel’s mind. The company says it’s been working with Roberts Space Industries, developer of the Star Citizen massively multiplayer space sim, to find ways to showcase Optane’s potential benefits for future applications. RSI chief operating officer Carl Jones joined Intel during the Optane briefing to talk up the ways that Star Citizen is being built to take advantage of an Optane SSD.

Jones says that with the ambitious scale of Star Citizen, the game’s development team understood that the game would need to stream in large numbers of assets in order to provide the kind of experience it envisioned for players, but the team expects to be moving so much data around that it’ll simply exceed the capacity of RAM in the average system. As a result, Star Citizen will apparently need to rely on streaming in assets from disk, and that’s where Optane SSDs come in. Intel and RSI believe that Optane will provide an ideal platform for this streaming-heavy environment thanks to its ability to juggle large numbers of concurrent I/O requests with consistent quality of service.

Although my memory is a little hazy, I believe that Intel itself noted that Optane SSDs will require time to become useful to the average enthusiast, simply because developers haven’t had to (or haven’t even been able to) consider a storage device with these kinds of characteristics before now. Any new technology is going to require outreach and evangelism to be adopted, so the fact that Intel is working with a prominent game developer like Roberts Space Industries to find ways that gaming experiences might benefit from Optane is a good start.

Even if it can benefit from Optane SSDs, however, Star Citizen‘s developers will undoubtedly have to find ways to maintain good performance on systems that don’t have one of these drives inside, so I have to wonder just how much of an upgrade to the experience Optane SSDs will provide.

The Raven ship that will only be available to Optane SSD buyers

Gamers will get a copy of Star Citizen and an exclusive in-game ship with the purchase of any Optane SSD for now, though, so there will be some incentive to pick one of these drives up ahead of the game’s eventual launch. 

Future games may benefit from Optane SSDs, but today’s workstation users might see immediate performance boosts with an Optane SSD in their systems. Intel touted a couple promising performance boosts from the SPECwpc workstation benchmark that show substantial boosts in some workloads.

Intel also showed that in the Houdini procedural animation application, rendering a complex seven-second scene on an Optane SSD-equipped system required about 6.3 hours in its testing, compared to 17.3 hours . That speedup apparently comes from the fact that the Optane SSD is able to get data to the CPU faster and thus increase occupancy compared to a traditional NAND SSD.

At $599 for the 480GB add-in card and $389 for the 280GB drive in U.2 or add-in card flavors, the Optane SSD 900P is clearly a product for the crazy ones, the misfits, the folks who need the unique characteristics of the Optane medium to get the best performance out of their workloads. Optane drives should have stellar performance and responsiveness, though, so if you want to be an early adopter, I’m betting the payoff will be handsome.

Comments closed
    • hansmuff
    • 2 years ago

    Star Citizen will be about 100GB install size, according to the studio. Putting that onto an Optane drive is a very expensive proposition. Then again, when SC finally releases, Optane memory will be $0.10/GB.

      • the
      • 2 years ago

      You’re not being optimistic enough. By the time Star Citizen finally launches, you’ll be able to find PC’s with P900 drives being thrown away on street corners because they’re so old. That’s $0/GB there.

        • nexxcat
        • 2 years ago

        Star Citizen will launch pretty much never at this rate.

      • Goty
      • 2 years ago

      DOOM is already around 100GB, so that future is already here.

    • BIF
    • 2 years ago

    Optane, Schmoptane. These capacities are too low to convince me to give up a PCIe slot.

    Now, of course I don’t mind them being available to people who don’t need a lot of space. To each his own.

    But come on, what about the rest of us? If I’m going to dedicate a slot to this sleek plastic-coated set of memory chips, then manufacturers should make it useful and meaningful enough to make it worth my while.

    There should be reasonably priced 1TB, 2TB, 4TB, and 8TB options available. And there should be equally-matched HDD versions available, for backups.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 years ago

      Why would you want to back up to Optane memory?

        • the
        • 2 years ago

        Longer non-powered endurance perhaps?

        However, I am disappointed too that capacities weren’t larger and only the smallest 280 GB model offered in U.2 form factor. It is nice to have hot swap via U.2 for the RAS crowd.

        • Goty
        • 2 years ago

        I don’t think this is being marketed as “memory” in the same way the smaller drives were. I believe these are meant as main system storage solutions, not caching drives.

      • UberGerbil
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]convince me to give up a PCIe slot. [/quote<] [i<]stares inside my case at several permanently-empty PCIe slots[/i<]: wut? I mean, yeah, if you're building mITX I get the complaint, but otherwise...

        • K-L-Waster
        • 2 years ago

        ^^This^^

        I don’t remember the last time I had more than one card installed at a time.

        If this has as much performance advantage over NAND as it sounds, it would make more sense to put one of these in there than a PCI flash drive (assuming you have a use case that can take advantage of the IO).

    • Mr Bill
    • 2 years ago

    Maybe its time to optimize a Linux kernel for this kind of storage?

      • the
      • 2 years ago

      The real optimizations will come with Cascade Lake Xeons next year which will coincide with Optane DIMMs. This gives an opportunity to drop traditional storage hierarchies in favor of one that is all ‘in-memory’ meaning more specifically non-volatile memory. Replacing DRAM with this will certainly be slower but the software stack reduction, potentially memory capacity increases[b<]*[/b<] and the RAS feature of surviving a sudden power loss with ease, there is an interesting niche for it. [b<]*[/b<]The potential for larger data sets cannot be overlooked. Optane DIMMs are supposed to scale up to 1 TB per DIMM. Combine that with large socket systems (think 8 or more) and what used to take multiple systems and storage arrays could be done on a single large node. The problem here is that the 900P series is coming in at the low end in terms of capacity making me doubt if the initial Optane DIMMs will be larger than their DRAM counter parts. If there is no capacity win to enable new applications, there is little incentive to rewrite the software stack.

        • Beahmont
        • 2 years ago

        Sure, but Intel and Micron have a year yet to increase production and/or increase viable yields to improve $/GB.

        Given how much both Intel and Micron seem to want this market, I think they will get close enough to work at the very least.

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        Look at the price of the 280 GB P900 SSD.

        Now shrink that 280GB down to 256GB on a DIMM.

        Now look at what a 256GB Registered DDR4 DIMM costs.

        Even if Intel only produces 256GB DIMMs next year there will definitely be a market.

        • DavidC1
        • 2 years ago

        the-

        1TB seems like a near future thing. To achieve 1TB with current chips they’d need 64 of them. When they demoed the DIMMs they were available in up to 512GB capacities. That seems doable.

        Optane DIMMs will not replace DRAM. DRAM will be needed because the endurance isn’t high enough for full DRAM replacement, and the write performance is still a quite a bit slower than DRAM. DRAM will act as a write cache and for endurance reasons.

        I believe the ratio of Optane to DRAM will be 4:1, meaning you’d need 128GB DRAM working with 512GB Optane to achieve 512GB DRAM-like capacities. Performance loss with Optane-only is likely too severe, not to mention endurance being too low, but with DRAM acting as a cache it should be good.

          • Waco
          • 2 years ago

          The latencies for read and write are a few orders of magnitude behind DRAM. They’re closer than flash, but there’s still a huge gap between Optane and DRAM.

            • DavidC1
            • 2 years ago

            They might be few binary orders of magnitude apart for reads. They won’t be decimal orders of magnitude apart.

            Writes, its likely.

            • UberGerbil
            • 2 years ago

            And for some tasks involving very large datasets, vastly-larger-but-vastly-slower [url=https://www.itworld.com/article/2947839/big-data/mit-comes-up-with-a-no-memory-solution-for-big-data.html<]turns out to be quicker overall[/url<].

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            Nanoseconds versus microseconds/milliseconds is a pretty big gap.

            • DavidC1
            • 2 years ago

            I was responding to the’s post about Optane DIMMs.

    • DancinJack
    • 2 years ago

    Does anyone know what process the controller is based on? They really need to get that power down.

    Hopefully Samsung can make a challenge with Z-NAND next year.

      • Mr Bill
      • 2 years ago

      Read [url=https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/How-3D-XPoint-Phase-Change-Memory-Works<]How 3D XPoint Phase-Change Memory Works[/url<] and I think you will see that the controller is less of a factor than the memory itself.

      • DavidC1
      • 2 years ago

      Z-NAND 1st gen uses SLC and 2nd gen uses MLC to lower cost.

      It’s rated at 750K/170K Read/Write IOPS meaning there’s still a significant gap between Sequential and Random throughput. The sequential is rated at 3.2GB/s for both read and write. 3.2GB/s should mean 800K IOPS. Optane achieves identical throughput of 2GB/s sequential write and 500K random write.

      It’s similar with Intel’s Datacenter P3700 drive. 1900MB/s sequential write but 180K IOPS, falling short of 475K IOPS.

      Micron’s QuantX aims for even higher throughput with up to PCIe x8 versions coming. The PCIe x4 version can achieve 900K IOPS Mixed R/W and 1.8 million Mixed R/W with the x8 version. Pretty much matching sequential throughput even at that level of throughput.

      Where the NAND enterprise SSDs really fall behind are in low queue depth and consistent performance.

      Samsung has tons of different SSD implementations that most of us are not aware of. When I compared the spec sheet for Z-NAND versus other more enterprised focused SSDs they had, it didn’t look like anything special.

      I reckon some special sauce exists, but its mostly marketing.

      Regarding Power use: The 750 PCIe SSD is rated at 9/12W for R/W power consumption on the lowest capacity and 22W for the highest capacity part, with 4W idle. So, Optane SSD 900P is on par for power consumption with the lowest capacity 750/P3700 SSDs. 750 is to P3700 as 900P is to P4800X.

    • Prototyped
    • 2 years ago

    I want this tech to kill off NAND flash of all stripes, and [i<]especially[/i<] TLC NAND, in three to five years' time. I hate NAND flash and the massive compromises made just to make it work reasonably.

      • DavidC1
      • 2 years ago

      Sigh.

      Unfortunately I don’t see this happening. NAND Flash drives will fill nicely between massively sized platter HDDs and super high performance NV memory like Optane.

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      Nothing wrong with NAND, it’s 4x lower cost/GB and it still holds up against Optane in performance/cost.

      Sure, DRAM-less TLC is one too many corners cut, but if you look at popular mainstream drives like the 850EVO and MX300 they deliver pretty solid performance for $0.27/GB and for typical consumer workloads working with compressed files (movies, music, games, internet downloads) these midrange SSDs are fast enough that storage is no longer the bottleneck.

      As much as it pains me to say it, the industry is driven by the low end, not the high end and the thing that will drive progress is eliminating mechanical drives from mainstream use. Software developers still have to code on the assumption that it [b<]*could*[/b<] be coming from a drive with only 80 IOPS. [b<]So much pain[/b<] is caused because data has to be duplicated and cached multiple times to deal with the possibility that [i<]tens of thousands[/i<] of processor cycles would be wasted on waiting for mechanical storage. At least if an SSD is the lowest common denominator - even a cheap, rubbish SSD - that 80 IOPS becomes 4000 IOPS, a staggering 50x improvement. Rather than waiting for tens of thousands of CPU cycles, developers are only waiting for a couple of hundred cycles; As bad as that still sounds, multiple cores, hyperthreading and cache mean that a couple of hundred cycles is no big deal and things can run quickly and smoothly.

        • Goty
        • 2 years ago

        This argument is very much like people complaining about Infinity Fabric in AMD’s products or whatever people are complaining about in Intel’s chips right now; I don’t really care what’s going on behind the scenes if the performance is there. If some manufacturer figured out some “massive compromise” that enabled a NAND flash SSD to have typical flash performance numbers with the benefit of low-QD numbers like an Optane drive, I’d be all over it.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 2 years ago

        [quote<]Rather than waiting for tens of thousands of CPU cycles, developers are only waiting for a couple of hundred cycles[/quote<] You're off by an order of magnitude. A 4GHz CPU has 4-billion cycles per second. 80 IOPS (Hard Drive) is 50-million times slower than the CPU. 4000 IOPS (cheap SSD) is "only" 1-million times slower than the CPU. A more expensive SSD might be 50,000 IOPS, or roughly 80,000x slower than the CPU. Intel Optane is 300,000 IOPS is 13,000x slower than CPUs still. DDR4 RAM is only 1.6 GT/s (1,600,000,000 transfers per second), which is still 2x to 3x slower than the CPU, to say nothing about latency issues (which are why L1 and L2 caches exist). In practice, a main-memory read is still going to cause the CPU to stall for hundreds of cycles (DDR4 only transfers at its peak when a lot of requests are "batched up" into a big package all at once).

      • Waco
      • 2 years ago

      Speak for yourself. I want NAND to become cheap enough to compete with HDDs. Even junky TLC is better in damn near every metric compared to spinning rust.

        • f0d
        • 2 years ago

        i think im the only person int he world that has zero issues with TLC, i have TLC drives (yes even a 840 evo that so many complained about) and they work just fine and are about as fast as my MLC drives
        in fact isnt the 850evo **STILL** on top of the loading time charts in TR’s testing even against high end NVME drives?

        edit:just checked and i was wrong about the 850 still leading the loading time charts but its still doing pretty good

          • Waco
          • 2 years ago

          I’m patiently waiting for *QLC* drives myself.

          • cmrcmk
          • 2 years ago

          I’m with you in not hating TLC. The real problem is what Chripy_ mentioned: OEMs cutting too many corners like not using DRAM or implementing wildly anemic controllers. The result is that looking for MLC drives is a pretty reliable way to ensure you’re not looking through the trash drives. It’s like requiring programming applicants to have a degree: while there are plenty of competent self-taught programmers, there are so many terrible ones that it’s often the most effective filter to apply.

      • cmrcmk
      • 2 years ago

      If it helps, an Intel rep told me at VMworld 2015 (pretty soon after 3D Xpoint was announced) that Intel had an estimate internally of when Xpoint would become cheaper to manufacture than NAND. This will certainly take several years to ramp up and refine production, but they seem confident it will happen.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    Incidentally, even though these are “consumer” drives all of the SKUs apparently include power loss protection: [url<]https://www.servethehome.com/intel-optane-900p-ssd-released-aic-u-2-form-factors/[/url<] Somebody at Intel forgot to turn on the segmentation switch!

      • AnotherReader
      • 2 years ago

      That is one reason I usually prefer Intel’s SSDs. They have power loss protection for consumer drives as well.

      • ptsant
      • 2 years ago

      Well, they are not sold at a “consumer” price, so it is a pretty good idea to leave this feature.

      • DavidC1
      • 2 years ago

      You don’t need special Power Loss Protection on these drives.

      NAND SSDs need them because they have larger buffers, or even DRAM to carry out wear levelling and for performance reasons. So you need dedicated capacitors to hold data until data flush happens.

      Optane devices on the other hand, do not need DRAM buffers. It’s possible that the controller has small KB-sized buffers, but it’d be simple enough to keep power loss protection all in the controller chip itself.

    • UberGerbil
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]Optane SSD 900P is clearly a product for the crazy ones, the misfits, [/quote<]Wow, the 90s-kids nostalgia really is in full swing when we start quoting Apple commercials for Intel products.

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    Aaargh.

    I’d want Optane as a system drive; The 16GB and 32GB sticks are too small and the 480GB card is overkill at very high cost/GB

    I’d buy an 80GB or 120GB model right now, but I don’t need to drop $600 on a relatively minor QoL improvement.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      There’s a 280GB model too.

        • DavidC1
        • 2 years ago

        At $389, I think it would make sense for a new enthusiast build. If you are going to get dual drive setups might as well setup a 280GB Optane SSD 900P for the primary one.

      • Mr Bill
      • 2 years ago

      The 480GB and 280GB do seem to run neck and neck on nearly every test because its not NAND. But I still wonder if a 120GB could pull off the same performance for ~$200.

        • DavidC1
        • 2 years ago

        “The 480GB and 280GB do seem to run neck and neck on nearly every test because its not NAND.”

        They are identical.

        If they use the same controller that uses 7-channels, with similar overhead as the 280 and 480 models,

        1 chip per channel: 112GB total, 90GB rated
        2 chips per channel: 224GB total, 180GB rated

        They’d have to change the controller to offer 120GB capacities. But 90/180GB versions are possible with identical performance.

          • Chrispy_
          • 2 years ago

          I’d take 90 or 180GB if it wasn’t almost $400. The problem is that although Optane is fast, so is a 1TB 960 Evo at 3.2GiB/s and 320K IOPS.

          The real-world differences for most people between a good NVMe NAND drive and an Optane drive are pretty minimal, with the exception being that you pay 3x more for the Optane.

          “Would you like 280GB of super-fast storage, or 1TB of super-fast storage for your $400, sir?”

            • ptsant
            • 2 years ago

            Even between the budget SATA SSDs and the top NVMe models, the differences in actual real-world tasks can be imperceptible. You need a specific use case to justify an Optane. But still, as you suggest, I think many people would pay $200 for an impulse “halo” purchase. For my wallet, a $400 purchase is no longer impulse buy…

            • DavidC1
            • 2 years ago

            ptsant:

            Modern day computing seems to be about getting the last fruit on the tree, because most of the low hanging ones have been already picked.

            I couldn’t care less about VRR methods, or Anti-Aliasing for that matter. I also don’t think 1600P or heck 4K resolutions are a “must”.

            Optane SSD is what I think SSDs should have been(but couldn’t because the underlying media, NAND, sucks). No need to worry about TRIM, dirty drive, full drive. With SSDs there are some rare times where the system comes to a grinding halt, as in almost freezes, but it won’t happen with Optane SSD. TRUE consistency, if you are willing to afford it. Also the latency gap between it and the best NVMe SSD is quite a bit larger than the best NVMe SSD vs older SATA SSDs.

            • Mr Bill
            • 2 years ago

            (+3) I’d give more if it were possible.
            [quote<]But still, as you suggest, I think many people would pay $200 for an impulse "halo" purchase. For my wallet, a $400 purchase is no longer impulse buy...[/quote<]

    • Delta9
    • 2 years ago

    I would be all over Optane, if it increased the performance of the RGB lights festooning every inch of every surface and component in my PC.

      • UberGerbil
      • 2 years ago

      The RGB control software will load faster. Isn’t that enough?

    • Fonbu
    • 2 years ago

    Its known that the Optane Cache drives only work with 7th gen and higher Intel Systems. Do these 900P work with AMD systems?

      • DavidC1
      • 2 years ago

      Yes.

      The Optane Memory(caching) can be used as a standalone NVMe drive on any system, including AMD ones.

      It’s the caching software that doesn’t work on AMD systems and need Kabylake and later systems to do so.

      Optane SSD 900P, is just a really fast NVMe SSD that uses 3D XPoint as the media instead of NAND. It’ll have no issue running on an AMD system. Or ARM, or Power, or whatever computer can support NVMe drives.

        • freebird
        • 2 years ago

        I wonder if this could be used to make the AMD FirePRO SSG even faster…
        [url<]https://www.pcworld.com/article/3099964/hardware/amds-new-ssg-technology-adds-an-ssd-to-its-gpu.html[/url<]

    • DavidC1
    • 2 years ago

    The pricing is very decent. I never expected them to have $/GB lower than the more value-oriented Optane Memory version.

    Of course, there’s the performance to talk about. The consumer workload gains are going to be based on corner case scenarios.

    Things that Optane SSD can do that NAND SSDs can’t:
    -No TRIM needed!
    -Performance does not depend on capacity(unless they use different controllers)
    -No degradation when drive is full
    -Performance consistency, no matter what you do. PC Perspective review shows that NAND slows down after deleting large amounts of files. Not with Optane

    But… does it justify its price point?

    No, not necessarily. It’s a luxury product. It’s a part of a computer that screams “the fastest in every way”.

    Optane technology makes the most sense in two categories: Optane Memory for caching slow HDDs + eventual Optane DIMMs, and the corresponding optimized OS/BIOS/Application to upend the basic computing architecture we’ve used since the 70’s.

    • JosiahBradley
    • 2 years ago

    This would make a lovely cache drive for S2D.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    $600 for 480GB might be dearer than NAND flash, but it doesn’t seem all that crazy depending on what you’re doing with it.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      Anand did a review of the 280GB drive: [url<]https://www.anandtech.com/show/11953/the-intel-optane-ssd-900p-review[/url<] Edit: PC Perspective reviewed both the 280 and 480GB models: [url<]https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Intel-Optane-SSD-900P-480GB-and-280GB-NVMe-HHHL-SSD-Review-Lots-3D-XPoint[/url<] It might not make your games load faster, but if I had a high-performance database application I'd be throwing money at Intel for these drives or their enterprise equivalents.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        I was just looking at that, and it’s roughly what I expected. And that’s why $600 isn’t all that nuts.

          • thecoldanddarkone
          • 2 years ago

          Considering the price of ram, it doesn’t look crazy.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            Another good point.

        • AnotherReader
        • 2 years ago

        That random read performance makes NAND look poky. However, the high power consumption means NAND has other advantages besides density.

      • davidbowser
      • 2 years ago

      The workstation-class use cases would seem to make this almost a no-brainer. I put this in the same category as $1000 GPUs: if you have the business case, they pay for themselves in a month or so.

      • UberGerbil
      • 2 years ago

      And it wasn’t all that long ago that $600 was what you spent for a 480 GB NAND SSD. Heck, since this is the first XPoint drive available in that capacity range, it might be fair to compare it to the first similarly-sized SSD less than a decade ago… which [url=https://www.networkworld.com/article/2267770/data-center/first-512gb-ssd-drive-offered-for-sale.html<]listed for $1500[/url<].

        • Waco
        • 2 years ago

        My 2009-era SSDs were around $3 per GB…for MLC. Storage, these days, is cheap. 🙂

      • Freon
      • 2 years ago

      Bleeding edge always costs, it’s at least within reach of professionals who are earning off their PC.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    Hrrmm… so the P4800X drives at 375GB launched this March for $1520.

    Now the 900P is launching today at 480GB for $599.

    There’s only one possible conclusion that any rational person could draw from this decline in prices: [b<][url=https://techreport.com/review/26936/a-quick-look-at-amd-radeon-r7-ssd<]THANK YOU AMD FOR SINGLE-HANDEDLY INVENTING SSDS AND FORCING INTEL INTO THIS PANICKED RESPONSE![/url<][/b<]

      • RAGEPRO
      • 2 years ago

      Eh, trying too hard. Should have gone with Apple.

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        But Intel stopped doing panicked responses to Apple years ago!

        It’s pretty obvious that without AMD as a source of constant panic, Intel would have been bankrupt 20 years ago.

      • tay
      • 2 years ago

      Never give up chuck. Anyway these drives are insane. Kudos to intel for what frankly looks like a speed breakthrough for solid state memory.

    • Anonymous Coward
    • 2 years ago

    LEDs? No? Then its useless.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      Well at least we have an explanation for the [b<]real[/b<] reason these drives cost more than regular SSDs.

      • SomeOtherGeek
      • 2 years ago

      But you get a starcraft!! AWESOME!

        • Redocbew
        • 2 years ago

        At least they put LEDs on that. That would have been a missed opportunity otherwise.

      • Wirko
      • 2 years ago

      LEDs are chosen and purchased separately, based on user’s requirements. Prosumers are supposed to understand that.

    • Neutronbeam
    • 2 years ago

    “The company says it’s been working with Roberts Space Industries, developer of the PURPORTED Star Citizen massively multiplayer space sim”

    FTFY; YW.

      • Bauxite
      • 2 years ago

      Star Scamizen, fleecing suckers for custom ships and the like for years

        • tay
        • 2 years ago

        Yeah well maybe intel figured that the gamers with too much money were already invested in SC so they should target them. Milking the whales it’s called in F2P games.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This