@-artist-: How do you know he didn't ask her to stop texting? She didn't give a ride home, that's seems like a clue that he tried and ticked her off. Because, you know, she did nothing wrong... (*cough*)
@sellingthings: You hit on the point that many don't know or don't understand. No matter how fast your HD is, if the software doesn't uncompress the data fast enough the load time will still suffer.
@sellingthings: I'm running RAID 5 on my game machine with 4 512 GB SSD drives. I'm getting almost a full 3 times the single drive speed, which I feel is exceptional. Roughly about 1,300 read, and over 1,000 write. These are older SATA style SSD drives. I'm very pleased with the result, and that I have data redundancy that will save my system in case of a single drive failure.
@lostn: It all depends on your system. If your system had the latest PCI technology, you'd probably see a much bigger difference in the performance of your NVME drive. Too many mother boards are built with only 1 PCI lane for the PCI HD connector on the board. Or they may say 4 lanes, but can only use 1 in certain situations. You should have a full 4 lanes before you see a true daily driver difference. And, yes, it is VERY noticeable. This technology is young, and there's a lot of confusion and cheap board tricks from OEMs being used. Dive carefully in if you want to dare it right now.
It's nice that Intel is trying to find a jumping point for their Octane technology. But, I've never been impressed with caching hard drive technology. Plus the shorter life of old HD technology making more likely to fail. And, in my personal testing the methods doesn't provide much of a boost for daily driving. And almost no boost to raw gaming performance. Especially with some games now carrying 50+ GB of data, there is no way a 16 GB cache can make much of a difference. I'll personally wait for the price of full Octane drives to drop enough to consider purchasing.
deactivated-593edd1209510's comments