3 ms·
> Compare that to Intel's Optane, the elusive PCM memory technology which finally arrived to take out NAND Flash. Sure, it was faster than Flash, but it was als
by runeks 3y ago
> Compare that to Intel's Optane, the elusive PCM memory technology which finally arrived to take out NAND Flash. Sure, it was faster than Flash, but it was also massively more expensive. It wasn't worth it for most people. So Intel recently discontinued it.
Intel Optane is barely faster than flash — roughly 3x (for 4k random read) compared to the fastest Samsung SSD [1].
Optane was a failure because it failed to deliver the promised result. Intel would have never poured money into a new technology only three times faster than an existing technology. I recall initial promises were RAM-like speeds.
If Apple is able to spit out 200 million of these screens in a year, I have a very hard time imagining what ingredient could go into the production causing a greater per unit price than a Samsung display.
[1] https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/ https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/
- cubefox 3y ago> Intel Optane is barely faster than flash — roughly 3x (for 4k random read) compared to the fastest Samsung SSD [1]. ... and the maximum brightness advantage of micro LEDs may be similarly (un)impressive. > Optane was a failure because it failed to deliver the promised result. No, it only failed because the performance/price ratio wasn't good enough compared to NAND flash. That's exactly what I was saying: Both performance and price have to be considered. > If Apple is able to spit out 200 million of these screens in a year, I have a very hard time imagining what ingredient could go into the production causing a greater per unit price than a Samsung display. Replace "Apple" with "Intel", "screens" with "Optane disks" and "Samsung Display" with "Samsung Semiconductor", and you see that this argument doesn't work.