Intel's Upcoming Ultra-Fast Optane SSD May Come to MacBooks

[Makosuke]

This will depend on exactly how low the power consumption of this really is, and how fast it turns out to be in the real world, but if it's true that the speed is similar to current RAM, and the prices come down to some reasonable SSD-like level, you could literally build a computer in which disk storage and RAM are the same thing.

That is, if your SSD is as fast as your DIMM (and has the write endurance, of course, which also isn't a given), why even put the DIMM in? Why have RAM and storage be a separate thing at all?

Implemented in a phone, you'd be able to save a little extra sleep power by not having to refresh the RAM, and (again) you could theoretically give your phone up to as much RAM as its total storage--A 128GB iPhone could have the OS reserve (or just use 8GB or more for active storage and 120GB for long-term storage.

Looking father down the line, this blurring (or eliminating) of the boundary between working memory and disk storage could and should result in a significant change in the way OSes and software functions. There's no reason, for example, to read the whole photo you're editing into working memory if that is the same as long-term storage. Just work directly off the disk. So while you would effectively have up to as much RAM as you had free space, you also shouldn't need anywhere near as much of it for some tasks (media editing and playback, in particular).

Interesting stuff, although I'll reserve getting excited until some real products hit the shelves.

Also: By my standards "early 2016" means "through the end of March 2016". Which would mean in the next two weeks. The Intel site itself just says "coming 2016" though.

 

[poematik13]

The point is that they should ONLY come with them. Selling a "premium" product with a 5400rpm drive in 2016 is an embarrassment.

The bottom-tier iMac is not a premium product. It is a basic, entry level machine intended for enterprise/education/government acquisition where they buy lots of them and have to keep the costs down for bulk pricing, hence they use cheaper spec internals. They are also destined for low use demand scenarios like cash registers, reception desks, library terminals, classrooms, cubicle machines, etc.

The premium products are the retina models with the nicer GPU and CPU's and 1TB flash storage.

If you think you know more than apple about what specs are an "embarrassment", maybe you should go work for them, lol

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I see such a different story here. This is Intel's bid to get into smartphones in a big way. If they can't do it with CPUs and GPUs, then why not memory and memory controllers (I don't doubt that if it's compatible with current interfaces, then a custom interface will perform even better). This is patented tech, so it's going to be more than a couple of years before every other chipmaker can jump on the bandwagon.

If this is cost-equivalent to current Flash, they have a real winner. Sure, for many functions the typical consumer won't notice the difference between this and Flash, but if benchmarks go up by even 10%, that's going to sell a lot of silicon.

 

[zorinlynx]

The point is that they should ONLY come with them. Selling a "premium" product with a 5400rpm drive in 2016 is an embarrassment.

I sort of feel the same way.

At work we have a relatively recent iMac that was ordered with only the 5400RPM hard drive (because someone with purchasing ability who didn't know what they were doing configured it and ordered it without talking to us IT folks).

It feels like such a horrendously slow machine. The fusion drive should be standard (how much can the 24GB version possibly cost?) on all iMacs. Non-SSD equipped new iMacs are an embarrassment to Apple.

 

[manu chao]

A 5400rpm HDD on a $1500 Machine in 2016 is just...there's simply no excuse.

We should disclose that the $1500 version comes with 'true' 4K display (not the standard 3840 x 2160 but 4096-by-2304) and a 3.1 GHz quad-core processor.
[doublepost=1457738968][/doublepost]

The point is that they should ONLY come with them. Selling a "premium" product with a 5400rpm drive in 2016 is an embarrassment.

If iMacs only had SSD options, a lot of people would also cry murder. Many people would want to get 2 or 3 TB without paying for whatever that would cost in SSD form.

 

[zorinlynx]

We should disclose that the $1500 version comes with 'true' 4K display (not the standard 3840 x 2160 but 4096-by-2304) and a 3.1 GHz quad-core processor.

This is true. However, 24GB of flash memory is dirt cheap. The amount of margin Apple would have to sacrifice to add that to the $1500 machine would be ridiculously small. We're talking $30 at retail, so Apple's price for the part is probably $15-$20 at most.

It makes such a MASSIVE difference; having the OS on an SSD is the biggest performance per dollar jump you can make. Apple was a bit foolish to not have at least that 24GB SSD fusion drive in every iMac they sell.

EDIT: I think the best value right now for an iMac is to buy the 256GB SSD version, and add on an external Thunderbolt or USB 3.0 hard drive for mass storage.

 

[Aston441]

This is how the old school magnetic core memory used to work. Just a dozen or so order of magnitude less in size and power. Run Linux on this a "core dump" now is back to where it came from originally.

It's fascinating how little the basic model of computing has changed since the 1950s. I was thumbing through a textbook written in 1962 about computer construction and programming, and almost all of the concepts used in computing then, and all of the parts needed to make a computer then, have changed hardly at all to this day.

The only real major difference is that everything is super small right now, so manufacturers can pack a lot more stuff into a smaller space - with the side benefit being that the electrons don't have to travel so far, so everything happens faster. Oh, and cheaper. A lot cheaper.

 

[BeamWalker]

The bottom-tier iMac is not a premium product. It is a basic, entry level machine intended for enterprise/education/government acquisition where they buy lots of them and have to keep the costs down for bulk pricing, hence they use cheaper spec internals. They are also destined for low use demand scenarios like cash registers, reception desks, library terminals, classrooms, cubicle machines, etc.

The premium products are the retina models with the nicer GPU and CPU's and 1TB flash storage.

If you think you know more than apple about what specs are an "embarrassment", maybe you should go work for them, lol

Must be a nice world you live in.

You could argue that the Universities that can afford Apple Computers are themselves considered to be premium.

If you ask the IT Guy at a normal university where the Macs are, chances are you get charged with murder cause the guy would literally die laughing.

 

[ebatalha]

I don't see the 21" iMac a premium Apple product. For more 100$ you get the Fusion Drive (I don't know if it is 5400 or 7200RPM). Com'on, you guys are blaming for a product that costs 1500$ and has a 5400RPM HDD??!! Really??!! And the GPU??!! Apple never gave us a product in this price range with every "top" components…
Yes, I know we are in 2016 but if there are 5400RPM HDDs it's because someone is making them in 2016…

 

[KPandian1]

These days a 5400 rpm HDD must be hard to come by, it is ancient. To provide this drive as standard must cost Apple a lot more than the upgrade options, as it will be ordering them in mega bulk, even more than a floppy disk option.

I thought the 5400 HDDs went into the Indian Ocean with the Thailand floods, the last time HDD prices spiked, and SSDs were still not cheap enough!

 

[kwikdeth]

If you think you know more than apple about what specs are an "embarrassment", maybe you should go work for them, lol

wow. anything with you people to justify getting ripped off.

 

[Larry-K]

If you think you know more than apple about what specs are an "embarrassment", maybe you should go work for them, lol

Pretty much everybody knows more about that than Apple does.

The proof is the prevalence of the 5400RPM drives, in the low-end models, which is nothing more than a come-on, for the critically uninformed.

 

[ebatalha]

…
If you ask the IT Guy at a normal university where the Macs are, chances are you get charged with murder cause the guy would literally die laughing.

That's funny! I don't know where at a normal university the Macs are but I know where they are in the rest of the world!
Those IT guys are designed to open, close, configure, and so on, the machines somebody uses. A Mac user, normally, just want to run the apps to work, basically.

 

[kwikdeth]

It makes such a MASSIVE difference; having the OS on an SSD is the biggest performance per dollar jump you can make. Apple was a bit foolish to not have at least that 24GB SSD fusion drive in every iMac they sell.

exactly. the cost of low capacities of flash memory is so cheap now there's really no excuse. I can get a 32GB SSD off plenty of websites in the area of $30. is that really gonna put the hurt on apple? on a $1500 machine? that they're already making several hundred dollars of profit off of anyway?

much like a 16GB iphone, there's no excuse.

 

[Larry-K]

These days a 5400 rpm HDD must be hard to come by, it is ancient. To provide this drive as standard must cost Apple a lot more than the upgrade options, as it will be ordering them in mega bulk, even more than a floppy disk option.

I thought the 5400 HDDs went into the Indian Ocean with the Thailand floods, the last time HDD prices spiked, and SSDs were still not cheap enough!

No, they found a huge batch in a recently discovered Ancient Egyptian Tomb.

Grave Robbers took everything else, but left those.

 

[ebatalha]

For the 5400 debate…
http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/Lapto...--17-g140nr-(touch)-(energy-star)-n5p44ua-aba

 

[CFreymarc]

It's fascinating how little the basic model of computing has changed since the 1950s. I was thumbing through a textbook written in 1962 about computer construction and programming, and almost all of the concepts used in computing then, and all of the parts needed to make a computer then, have changed hardly at all to this day.

The only real major difference is that everything is super small right now, so manufacturers can pack a lot more stuff into a smaller space - with the side benefit being that the electrons don't have to travel so far, so everything happens faster. Oh, and cheaper. A lot cheaper.

When any technology is developed, it is first created with a small set of rules where everyone else expands upon and makes complex to look sophisticated. Hear it best this way ...

* The incompetent just looks at all the words and symbols and doesn't know
* The competent knows most of the words and symbols to get by
* The expert knows all the word and symbols to do things desired
* The master knows most worlds and symbols are not needed
* The grand master sees beyond the minimal words and symbols to real meaning

 

[melendezest]

I just want:

a. More storage size. We were on an upward capacity trend, then SSDs showed up and knocked capacity back down to 8 years ago. People still buy their products with tiny capacities, so Apple is keen on making the buck at their expense.

b. Less proprietary hardware. Replacing a drive is still necessary for many with families sharing a computer. I HATE having to give my machine to Apple for upgrade when I run out of space, except for, you guessed it, that isn't even an option. I want someone to make a replacement drive for current Macs, dammit.

Until then, this is irrelevant to me buying an Apple machine. The above simply will. Not. Happen. At least not any time soon.

So I'm stuck in 2011, until either intel or a third-party company makes a drive that'll fit in my 17, 15, and iMac with the capacity I need, for something less than the typical Apple usury.

Now that would be awesome.

 

[Tech198]

Speed...... I'm not about to upgrade to 12' Mac just to support NV though....... SSD's are fast anyway... That's all i care about,, if u wanna be picky, ... or have reasons to , then ya ok... There's always gonna be a weak point.

 

[Cheffy Dave]

Wow, just wild speculation or do you have a source? If true, that would be awesome, but likely add $799 to the config. Don't ask how I came to that number, it's not important.

At 68, I'd pay that to make a rMB fly, The more I try it at the Apple Store, the more smitten I am, anywho, what ever the next gen is I am in. What a beautiful piece of Kit, Jony's BEST WORK YET!
[doublepost=1457744017][/doublepost]

I'm hoping these all get announced on the 21st. I am in the market for a new MacBook Pro. My trusty 17" is still working well enough. However, battery is not holding that charge like it used too, and I don't want this thing to start breaking down on me. Had it for 5 years, and if it wasn't for the screen size (love the 17"), I would have upgraded already this month. But, too much good news on new stuff that could be in the next Mac. Hate having to wait!!

I'm using my Daughters 15" MBP, which was acting crazy with input Via the Track Pad. She's rocking with a new Air, I replaced the battery due to a swollen middle, it's still faST As hell with a new 512 SSD, it's a 2008, but performs amazing, for about $125, put in a new OWC Battery, and VIOLA! NEW MACHINE!

 

[codeItOn]

Let's just hope the ports & connectors like USB and Lightning keep up with this.

 

[Kar98]

Except for iMacs, which will continue to use 5400rpm HDDs.

What, they're not using 4,200's anymore?

 

[X38]

What happened to the 3D Flash technology that Micron & Intel also announced last year? I thought products were supposed to be on the market by now.
[doublepost=1457747732][/doublepost]

Let's just hope the ports & connectors like USB and Lightning keep up with this.

That's why Apple needs to be more aggressive with Thunderbolt.

 

[MrNomNoms]

I find the storage in my 2015 15in MBP (1Tb) already very fast.
I'd rather see 32Gb RAM and 2TB of storage than going for faster storage.
I travel a lot and take lots and lots of photos. Cloud is not an option. Not when every time I press the shutter I use 60+MB of disk.
Just my use case really.

Here is this thing; it'll allow both - the speed is a byproduct of changing the technology meaning you get a tonne of storage at a lower cost and higher performance. Everyone wins out and even if Intel charged the going rate of flash for their new storage technology they would still come out ahead because of the lower manufacturing costs.

Wouldn't blurring the two cause problems for people who use more storage than those who don't? An app that uses 5 gigs of ram won't run on a device that has only 3 gigs open. Performance would continue to degrade over time, would it not?

You wouldn't need memory at all - all RAM does is act as a cache between slow storage and CPU as to ensure that the CPU is always fed with data but if you have an incredibly fast storage then why would you require caching in the form of main memory when you feed everything to the CPU straight from the ultra-fast storage that is available?

 

[revenantananias]

it sounds a little bit like the thing ibm was doing. either way- we have come a long, long way.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/04/ibm-wants-to-kill-the-hard-drive/