Electronics

[sipp]

So what's with OPTANE in the computers now? Yea or Nay?

[January121]

---

@sipp wrote:

So what's with OPTANE in the computers now? Yea or Nay?

---

@sipp ..... what is OPTANE??????

[gardenman]

Optane is a new memory enhancing technology based on a solid state drive that uses all kinds of tech stuff to figure out what you'll need from a slower hard drive and grab it before you need it. In theory it should give you a performance edge. In the real world for most users, it's something you'd only notice in a benchmark test. If you absolutely have to have a computer that tests faster than everyone else's then go for it, just don't expect it to have any impact on real world stuff.

[software]

Optane is more expensive than non-optane is probably the answer

[gardenman]

As a general rule, I prefer to avoid the cutting edge with computer components. The brand new, latest and greatest features tend not to have been tested in the real world. It's often six months to a year before the bugs all get worked out. Programmers tend to ignore features until there are a lot of computers on the market with that feature, so very often you're just wasting your money. 

For the vast majority of computer users, tech that's two to three years old is ideal. It's been around long enough to get the bugs out. It's still typically way more powerful than what most users have. Software developers have had a chance to take advantage of it. You'll still have seven or more years of solid use from it. And the price will be a half to a quarter of what it was when it was cutting edge a couple of years ago.

If you're a stat obsessed gamer who absolutely has to have a system that does amazing benchmark tests, then go for the cutting edge, but for the rest of us, older tech (at least when it comes to computer components) is better. Intel has a 24 core CPU out there now that retails for over $5,000, but my older AMD FX 6300 (with just six cores) does all that I need and only cost $75 when I bought it in April 2017. By 2024 when my current desktop is an old geezer, a 24 core processor will likely cost $75 and still be good for another seven to ten years and the cutting edge CPU will have several hundred cores and still cost $5,000.

[gabstoomuch]

It is built into the TSV computer already. I think it is just a sales tactic that makes people think they are getting something awesome.

It didn't change the price any. This computer (which I assume is the "Christmas deal") is the same specs as last years Christmas computer, same guts, same price.

They put the OPTANE in there because it sounds like you are getting a speed car, but essentially it just runs and gets a file it thinks you are going to use, then it just sits there waiting so when you go for the file...BAM..it is right there. Not 3 or 4 seconds to go get it.

All sales and marketing in my opinion. I got two of last years deal, and it really is a good computer. Runs fast enough. I like HP, I wanted Intel, I would have preferred 12gb of ram but 8 does the job fast enough. I can have 10-13 pages open and not choke.

They will probably explain how great and wonderful OPTANE is so they can sell thousands of them. Computer is still fine without it.

[anin]

yea

[gardenman]

If you just put the stuff you want fast access to on a solid state drive (SSD) you don't really need Optane. SSD's are now in that $20-$25 range for 120 GB units. You can get a 250-ish GB one for around $35-$40 these days. Even the big one terabyte units can be found for around $100 these days. SSD prices have really fallen in the last few months. SSD's will be the norm in another year or two. The old mechanical hard drives will go the way of the floppy disks and CD-ROM drives.

[Jordan2]

---

@gardenman wrote:

As a general rule, I prefer to avoid the cutting edge with computer components. The brand new, latest and greatest features tend not to have been tested in the real world. It's often six months to a year before the bugs all get worked out. Programmers tend to ignore features until there are a lot of computers on the market with that feature, so very often you're just wasting your money. 

For the vast majority of computer users, tech that's two to three years old is ideal. It's been around long enough to get the bugs out. It's still typically way more powerful than what most users have. Software developers have had a chance to take advantage of it. You'll still have seven or more years of solid use from it. And the price will be a half to a quarter of what it was when it was cutting edge a couple of years ago.

If you're a stat obsessed gamer who absolutely has to have a system that does amazing benchmark tests, then go for the cutting edge, but for the rest of us, older tech (at least when it comes to computer components) is better. Intel has a 24 core CPU out there now that retails for over $5,000, but my older AMD FX 6300 (with just six cores) does all that I need and only cost $75 when I bought it in April 2017. By 2024 when my current desktop is an old geezer, a 24 core processor will likely cost $75 and still be good for another seven to ten years and the cutting edge CPU will have several hundred cores and still cost $5,000.

---

@gardenman, you remind me of my dad! He never would buy the first model of anything, he was waiting for them to get the bugs out. He used this excuse on my siblings and me as to why we didn't have a color tv, I really think he didn't want to spend the money for it!

[gardenman]

---

@Jordan2 wrote:

---

@gardenman wrote:

As a general rule, I prefer to avoid the cutting edge with computer components. The brand new, latest and greatest features tend not to have been tested in the real world. It's often six months to a year before the bugs all get worked out. Programmers tend to ignore features until there are a lot of computers on the market with that feature, so very often you're just wasting your money. 

For the vast majority of computer users, tech that's two to three years old is ideal. It's been around long enough to get the bugs out. It's still typically way more powerful than what most users have. Software developers have had a chance to take advantage of it. You'll still have seven or more years of solid use from it. And the price will be a half to a quarter of what it was when it was cutting edge a couple of years ago.

If you're a stat obsessed gamer who absolutely has to have a system that does amazing benchmark tests, then go for the cutting edge, but for the rest of us, older tech (at least when it comes to computer components) is better. Intel has a 24 core CPU out there now that retails for over $5,000, but my older AMD FX 6300 (with just six cores) does all that I need and only cost $75 when I bought it in April 2017. By 2024 when my current desktop is an old geezer, a 24 core processor will likely cost $75 and still be good for another seven to ten years and the cutting edge CPU will have several hundred cores and still cost $5,000.

---

@gardenman, you remind me of my dad! He never would buy the first model of anything, he was waiting for them to get the bugs out. He used this excuse on my siblings and me as to why we didn't have a color tv, I really think he didn't want to spend the money for it!

---

With computers it's really smart. The cutting edge stuff typically uses the early adopters as their beta testers. Often the early drivers don't work at all, or are buggy as heck. You spend more time trying to figure out what the problem is than computing, and the manufacturer is little to no help as they still haven't figured out how to make it work right. Wait six months to a year and the bugs will be worked out (if they can be worked out) and you'll have a much more troublefree computing experience. There's pretty close to an infinite number of combinations of hardware and software in the PC world and if your combination wasn't one of those tested, you can run into chaos.