<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>paulmd</author><text>Normal consumer workloads are heavily biased towards 4K random performance (especially read).  Sequential performance is largely inconsequential, both because it&amp;#x27;s rare (how often do you really suck in a full 20+ GB file at a single go?) and because consumer SSDs are fast &lt;i&gt;enough&lt;/i&gt; at sequential performance that it&amp;#x27;s not really a bottleneck.  500 MB&amp;#x2F;s sustained is really fast enough for most users.&lt;p&gt;Streaming video from the internet does not use the SSD at all, and a high-quality 1080p video file is maybe 5-10 MB&amp;#x2F;s of bitrate, you can easily pull that off a spinning HDD that was manufactured 20 years ago.&lt;p&gt;Video editing at 4K or 8K is one of the few use-cases where NVMe&amp;#x27;s sequential performance does provide a big benefit... assuming you are not editing using proxies.&lt;p&gt;Optane&amp;#x27;s QD=1 random-4K performance does present an opportunity for big speedups on consumer use-cases.  But Intel really has to get the prices down if they want to see consumer adoption, right now there is an obvious benefit to cheaper SATA SSDs that allow you to get more data off spinning-rust drives vs a smaller, massively expensive Optane drive (even if it is incredibly fast).</text><parent_chain><item><author>chacham15</author><text>Im not sure this is true. Looking at the graph, the 970 outperforms the optane for sequential reads whereas the optane outperforms in the 4k random read&amp;#x2F;write range. So, it would seem that cases which are more sequential than random which include watching&amp;#x2F;streaming video&amp;#x2F;assets would run faster on the 970. So video game enthusiasts would still prefer the 970. If you&amp;#x27;re running a database, that 4k random read rate would seem to boost performance by quite a margin. Or am I missing something?</text></item><item><author>vbezhenar</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m surprised that many people don&amp;#x27;t realize that Optane to SSD for consumer computers is similar to SSD to HDD. Consumer computers don&amp;#x27;t run workloads with QD 32. Their workloads are overwhelmingly low-threaded, so random performance for low queue depths is what matters. And Optane beats even best SSDs by a large margin.&lt;p&gt;I guess that modern SSD are just so fast, that going faster is not that big deal. But if you want the best SSD for non-server workloads, Optane is a way to go.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Intel&apos;s New Optane 905P Is the Fastest SSD</title><url>https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-announces-optane-ssd-905p,36990.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>edgineer</author><text>Video game loading is not improved past SATA SSD speeds, so there would be no difference between a 970 and Optane there. See &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=ecCA0gx_eZk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=ecCA0gx_eZk&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>chacham15</author><text>Im not sure this is true. Looking at the graph, the 970 outperforms the optane for sequential reads whereas the optane outperforms in the 4k random read&amp;#x2F;write range. So, it would seem that cases which are more sequential than random which include watching&amp;#x2F;streaming video&amp;#x2F;assets would run faster on the 970. So video game enthusiasts would still prefer the 970. If you&amp;#x27;re running a database, that 4k random read rate would seem to boost performance by quite a margin. Or am I missing something?</text></item><item><author>vbezhenar</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m surprised that many people don&amp;#x27;t realize that Optane to SSD for consumer computers is similar to SSD to HDD. Consumer computers don&amp;#x27;t run workloads with QD 32. Their workloads are overwhelmingly low-threaded, so random performance for low queue depths is what matters. And Optane beats even best SSDs by a large margin.&lt;p&gt;I guess that modern SSD are just so fast, that going faster is not that big deal. But if you want the best SSD for non-server workloads, Optane is a way to go.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Intel&apos;s New Optane 905P Is the Fastest SSD</title><url>https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-announces-optane-ssd-905p,36990.html</url></story>