Intel Mentions 900P 960GB and 1.5TB

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Dec 15, 2017.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    40,635
    Likes Received:
    9,001
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    Bigger sized Intel optane units are mentioned in a PCN list (product notification) the 900P from Intel would see a model with a 960GB and massive 1.5TB capacity....

    Intel Mentions 900P 960GB and 1.5TB
     
  2. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    949
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Capacity isn't really the massive thing here. The price is.
     
  3. nizzen

    nizzen Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    382
    GPU:
    3x2080ti/5700x/1060
    Prize is low, compare to it's performance @ 4k qd=1.


    Capacity IS the problem. I have 3x 900p 480GB now ;)
     
  4. rl66

    rl66 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,828
    Likes Received:
    341
    GPU:
    Sapphire RX 580X SE
    price is not too expensive for pro (think that my pro GPU cost more than 6000 Euro, ECC mem cost more than x3 normal mem etc...)
     

  5. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    949
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Compared to you guys, I'm a far more miserly PC builder. For me personally the price looks too high. I'd be quite interested in Optane if the price wasn't that much higher than the regular NAND drives boast, that is, if it was ready for the massmarket. Perhaps it never will be.
     
    rl66 likes this.
  6. rl66

    rl66 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,828
    Likes Received:
    341
    GPU:
    Sapphire RX 580X SE
    you are not... at home i still have my G3258 under the TV, and very happy of it despite i think that a Ryzen APU might replace it in future :)

    Optane full pack is intended for pro and so the high price (like the quadro or firepro gpu).

    Optane for main consumer (the big cache lol) bring almost nothing despite bringing lot on the paper over regular.

    btw there is other solution than optane that are on dev that are aimed mainstream and work with both Intel and AMD.
     
  7. Biffo

    Biffo Active Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    ati
    I've been happy running a HDD and small cheap SSD using Intel Caching, startup is is 2.6 secs faster then with a M2 960 Pro. Every day stuff is just way faster then with the mightiest SSD. Of course large file copying is not comparable but who cares....I'll take the shear speed over that any day.
     
  8. nizzen

    nizzen Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    382
    GPU:
    3x2080ti/5700x/1060
    Do you have 960 pro, or did you compare startup with another system?
     
  9. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    949
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    If you don't care, then it's obviously all good for you. I keep all my installed games on an SSD as well because the speed does matter to me. There's no going back once you have got used to an SSD. In any case the original consumer lolptane was meant for cases like yours: to give spinning HDD owners something. Basic SSDs aren't so expensive these days, though, that I fail to see the meaningfulness in spending an M.2 socket for some 16/32 GB toy. But then again, the cache thing doesn't work with my Skylake system anyway, so it's purely academic for me. I'd only be interested in devices that work like regular SSDs and don't require me to sell a kidney to afford.
     
  10. claydough

    claydough Active Member

    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    EVGA gtx 1080fe
    Don't really get the price issue...
    It's new tech that stands alone currently performance wise?
    The more things progress I do not see the price divide as being anymore outrageous ( compared to say nearly 8 years ago )

    For instance with the introduction and substantial speed benefit of the first round of 6GBs sata 3 SSDs?
    Raid storage using those 256 gb Crucial c300s cost me about $600 each back then.
    And although obviously expensive...
    It was not so exotic or extravagant of a price that I felt entitled to have as much cost the same or even close to the last gen ignoring millions in research dollars... new fabrication pipelines and production costs for what advanced effort offered/delivered?
    Considering I was washing dishes and cleaning toilets at the time I certainly would have loved cheaper prices on gulftown, fermi ( still wish gtx x80 pricing would return to the sanity of the fermi and kepler $499 era earmark )
    and sata 3 back then to build my hedt box. But as an artist with a hardware enthusiast interest I also assumed that to afford as much I would have to prioritize for what will always be a high entry price?
    Not sure when...
    if I can do as much...
    Then who is it actually?
    that can't afford the same? ( if their priority is the same )?

    Crack whore's on strike without union benifits? ( next time I see my girlfriend I'll ask her )

    ( ignoring economic localization craziness some countries must suffer which can apparently be insufferable?
    Also as I had at a time...
    Basically Lived 2 years in the woods like an animal while homeless...
    so yeah...
    I would have considered such hardware concerns beyond my scope.
    Otoh I still would study dietel and dietel on bus stop benches and lived in the library during the day to advance my standing leveraging upublic computers )
    Considering this storage advancement go around is cheaper than sata 3 was 8 years ago...
    ( $600 for 256 gb back then compared to $400 for 280gb Optane 900p! Today )
    Then comparatively for this CONSUMER...
    thus advancement cycle is actually mo' affordable?

    Perspective.
     

Share This Page