It appears Optane is a type of memory that is faster than Flash and cheaper than DRAM. So the only real use for it is as a cache between the CPU bus and mass storage. Because the hard drive interfaces are not designed for l ow latency devices, it has to be more tightly coupled to the CPU. Seems the y (Intel) didn't do a good job of designing chips and boards to take full a dvantage of this.
So is Optane another bubble memory when all is said and done?
-- Rick C. - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
er than DRAM. So the only real use for it is as a cache between the CPU bu s and mass storage. Because the hard drive interfaces are not designed for low latency devices, it has to be more tightly coupled to the CPU. Seems t hey (Intel) didn't do a good job of designing chips and boards to take full advantage of this.
It's fast flash that's used as a hard drive cache. How well it works, how much it improves performance, IDK and that will also be application specific. I don't see the comparison to bubble memory, which was solid state storage instead of a mechanical drive, for certain applications where that made sense.
aper than DRAM. So the only real use for it is as a cache between the CPU bus and mass storage. Because the hard drive interfaces are not designed f or low latency devices, it has to be more tightly coupled to the CPU. Seems they (Intel) didn't do a good job of designing chips and boards to take fu ll advantage of this.
re
The comparison to bubble memory is in regard to the way bubble memory was t outed as being the best thing that ever happened to computers and peaked wi thin a year of introduction. In essence, it never made a ripple in the pon d of computing.
I read a few articles on it since it is still being offered in various low end laptops, but while before it was sold as a way to speed up the hard dri ve and at the *same time* allowing the computer to work with less RAM, it n ow seems only to be the hard drive cache. It seems to speed up SSD as well .
Other than the potential role in speeding up SSDs, I can't see it ever havi ng much utility. Spinning drives are literally on the way out. Even in ap ps that require massive storage spinning drives will become uneconomical as the laptop/desktop market switches to SSD and volumes become too low to ma intain price points and R&D for newer, denser drives.
So the only thing left will be speeding up SSDs. Is it really worth $40 fo r that? To even use it requires an Intel chip set from what I've read. Is anyone else adopting it at all?
-- Rick C. + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
heaper than DRAM. So the only real use for it is as a cache between the CP U bus and mass storage. Because the hard drive interfaces are not designed for low latency devices, it has to be more tightly coupled to the CPU. See ms they (Intel) didn't do a good job of designing chips and boards to take full advantage of this.
id
here
touted as being the best thing that ever happened to computers and peaked within a year of introduction. In essence, it never made a ripple in the p ond of computing.
w end laptops,
I'd love to see the reference for that, bubble memory still being offered in low end laptops? Bubble memory was never targeted at desktops, laptops, or any general purpose computers. It was targeted at systems that needed to be rugged, typically embedded, where a rotating, mechanical disk drive was not desirable. AFAIK, it was never offered in laptops, except for maybe some battlefield or similar special purpose PC, big reason being that it wasn't cheap.
but while before it was sold as a way to speed up the hard drive and at th e *same time* allowing the computer to work with less RAM, it now seems onl y to be the hard drive cache. It seems to speed up SSD as well.
ving much utility. Spinning drives are literally on the way out.
Some people have been saying that for twenty years, but hard drive technology keeps advancing too and there is still a cost advantage with larger drive sizes today.
:
cheaper than DRAM. So the only real use for it is as a cache between the CPU bus and mass storage. Because the hard drive interfaces are not design ed for low latency devices, it has to be more tightly coupled to the CPU. S eems they (Intel) didn't do a good job of designing chips and boards to tak e full advantage of this.
,on
olid
where
as touted as being the best thing that ever happened to computers and peake d within a year of introduction. In essence, it never made a ripple in the pond of computing.
low end laptops,
I shifted gears, talking about Optane.
,Bubble memory was talked about as if it would take over the world. It bare ly made an impact. Wikipedia, "Bubble memory started out as a promising tec hnology in the 1980s, offering memory density of an order similar to hard d rives but performance more comparable to core memory while lacking any movi ng parts. This led many to consider it a contender for a "universal memory" that could be used for all storage needs." Dvorak.org, "It was the rage: bubble memory?an invention that promised to replace the hard disk."
The big reason it didn't go far is it was slow and semiconductor memory was not.
the *same time* allowing the computer to work with less RAM, it now seems o nly to be the hard drive cache. It seems to speed up SSD as well.
having much utility. Spinning drives are literally on the way out.
I don't think you actually read what I wrote. Try it again.
-- Rick C. -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
It's ot nearly as bad as bubble memory (which had power and bulk issues), and since Intel builds boards and writes compilers, it's likely to be (or appear in benchmarks) worthwhile in at least one or two niches. But, bloated software is a better place to hack if you need faster-and-cheaper solutions.
A memory architecture that includes registers, static RAM L1 cache, dynamic RAM cache, on-disk cache, SSD "disk" alongside spinning rust... is a ladder with enough rungs for me. Old solutions to mass-storage caching (multiport RAM) came and went, I'm guessing Optane will, too.
te:
nd cheaper than DRAM. So the only real use for it is as a cache between th e CPU bus and mass storage. Because the hard drive interfaces are not desi gned for low latency devices, it has to be more tightly coupled to the CPU. Seems they (Intel) didn't do a good job of designing chips and boards to t ake full advantage of this.
ks,
tion
solid
ns where
was touted as being the best thing that ever happened to computers and pea ked within a year of introduction. In essence, it never made a ripple in t he pond of computing.
s low end laptops,
ed
dng,
eAnd this is a surprise? There are many new technologies that come out and then never go very far, for a multitude of reasons. What would you do if you had something new? Say, well this new technology might be great, it might be crap, we don't know? Of course you're going to talk it up, take the rosiest view and try to promote it. Still I don't know that many, if any people other than those selling bubble were saying it was destined to take over the world.
mising technology in the 1980s, offering memory density of an order similar to hard drives but performance more comparable to core memory while >lacki ng any moving parts.
That timeline is off. TI introduced bubble in the 70s and what isn't mentioned in any of this is COST. Bubble was not cheap, was not on a manufacturing curve that would lead to the kind of cost reduction available with semiconductors or hard drives. Did IBM put it in their PC? Did Compaq? Did Apple? Did anyone? No. And that was late 70s into early 80s, when supposedly it was a "promising technology"....
ld be used for all storage needs." Dvorak.org, "It was the rage: bubble >m emory?an invention that promised to replace the hard disk."
Dvorak is full of baloney. TI had the first commercial bubble memory, not Intel. And Intel had it positioned just like I said, for special applications. You can't show us one design win where it was ever used for a typical desktop PC, laptop or similar. It was EXPENSIVE and only suitable for applications that really required it. Intel never pushed it, marketed it for the general computer space. There were no serious people in the 80s considering bubble memory for a universal memory replacement. That's just nuts.
And this is pure BS too:
"While the interest in bubble memory perked up during the 1987-88 DRAM shor tage"... Not one computer company considered switching to bubble memory because of a Dram shortage. That's beyond stupid. Start with the simple question, what was the worldwide capacity to make bubble memory? It's like saying because there is a shortage of crude oil, interest in switching to whale oil peaked..... In fact bubble was pretty much floundering in the late 80s and even Intel punted on it around the time Dvorak claims it was being considered as a dram replacement.
as not.
Irrelevant comparison, semiconductor memory of any significant size at the time was Dram, which was volatile, bubble was not. Bubble was good for an embedded system that needed storage beyond what you could do with EEproms but where disk was not suited, where the cost wasn't an iss ue, and that's where it went. But even then the market was not very large. No one seriously considered bubble as some kind of universal memory, that's pure BS. Maybe someone promoting bubble, at it's inception, in the late 60's or 70s suggested that might be possible, maybe some reporter speculated it would be, but there was no track record of design wins, of cost reduction, of adoption that ever suggested that.
t the *same time* allowing the computer to work with less RAM, it now seems only to be the hard drive cache. It seems to speed up SSD as well.
r having much utility. Spinning drives are literally on the way out.
Maybe you should try again, snowflake? I mean you come here asking for opinions and then you don't like the answers. Go figure.
And a fundamental flaw in your comparison is that the Flash based memory product Intel is selling isn't itself a whole new technology, like bubble memory was. Octane is one application for Intel's newest, fastest Flash memory. Disk caching isn't anything new either.
I came here looking for an intelligent, considerate discussion... While many people also enjoy that, some things are beyond some people.
-- Rick C. -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
,
Texas Instruments sold IBM PC clones with bubble memory in the early '80 s. One was used to replace a 'Silent 700' thermal terminal with a cassette tape memory for billing information where I worked. It failed, at least onc e.
We lost that day's accounts, and it was three days before the TI computer t ech arrived to reload the OS into the bubble memory. It caused a lot of hea daches, along with constant complaints from the woman who had to learn the new system. I don't think that she ever remembered to use the page feed, so the output forms were always out of registration.
Trader4 is extraordinarily dim, even by the depressingly low standards of our resident right-wing nit-wits. His speciality is argument by repeated assertion, and I've never seen any evidence that he has paid any attention to the responses he has got.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Optane is a grade of gasoline,OPTimized for road hogs.
aper than DRAM. So the only real use for it is as a cache between the CPU bus and mass storage. Because the hard drive interfaces are not designed f or low latency devices, it has to be more tightly coupled to the CPU. Seems they (Intel) didn't do a good job of designing chips and boards to take fu ll advantage of this.
Octane number is a scheme for grading gasoline, by comparing it with
Some marketing creep may have blended the words Optimum and Octane to creat e the name Optane, but it's not a high frequency word.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Robert Baer wrote in news:XrGeF.194066$ snipped-for-privacy@fx38.iad:
No.
OPtimal ocTANE OPTANE. But that would be for the guys who own the gas as optimal octane would be high octane, and they specifically mix down in octane number because of the cost of making high octane gas.
If that was all they made, we would all be paying $5 a gallon by now for single mix gas.
Thus we see what happens when a bubble sort is done on the data. I went off on gasoline...
I like bubble mammaries. I like the firm little torpedoes too.
I thought of a new pick up line when I saw a tatt'd up ho girl entering the store yesterday while see was huffing a vape. She was spewing clouds of it.
I thought "Hey, baby... I can think of something else you would love putting in your throat..."
Naaah... That wouldn't work. Was that too Trump-like?
Figures you would show up, with another ad hominem attack, not one word about the subject, about the facts. But heh, I don't see your buddy Rick complaining about your answer.
ROFL
Trader4 thinks that pointing out his defects constitutes an attack.
It's just a public service warning. Obviously it's "ad hominem" - always assuming that Trader4 counts as human - but since I'm not bothering to address the issues which he imagines that he is supporting, there's no logical fallacy involved.
It wasn't any kind of answer, merely a comment on your style of argument.
I certainly wouldn't bother wasting facts on you - if you don't like them, you ignore them.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Exactly! ROFL You, the queen of ad hominem accuse another!!!
-- Rick C. +- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
That's a lie. Nothing in my reply to your post was ad hominem or any kind of attack. You just don't like the answer to the question you posed.
Go on, believe that big dummy Dvorak as a source. After all he has a big mouth and a degree in history. So when he says bubble memory was under consideration in 1987 to replace DRAM because DRAM was in short supply, he must know what he's talking about. That's so profoundly stupid, for obvious reasons, it's amazing anyone would believe it, let alone post it.
But heh, soldier on, snowflake.
Whoey Louie wrote in news:6920dad1-fd89-4cb5- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Bullshit. That is not what you were doing.
You "spoke" with the KRW retard (read followed one of his retarded posts)and EVER SINCE, you have been using his retarded crank name... AS A NAME with which to refer to me. Goddamn, boy, you are the stupid one, not us.
Are you going to convolute deeper into Trumpesque lying f*ck behavior? Because that is the same kind of stupid shit he pulls.
Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Sorry, punk. It was not a complaint. It was an observation of fact. Grow the f*ck up, child. This is Usenet. You declaring that I was complaining is yet another indication of your inability to read. And you wonder why I say that you and your entire bloodline should be erased from the human gene pool.
Go file your complaint lits, pussy boy. Make a video, because I want to see as the cops laugh at your pussy ass.
Bwuahahahahaha!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.