Hi, folks --
A lot of PC source-based audiophiles swear by Intel's Optane M.2 NVMe low capacity SSD's (typically 32-58GB) as their boot memory (instead SATA SSD's). These reportedly sport excellent (low) latency and power consumption numbers, which would seem to be vital aspects in attaining the best possible sound quality.
But what about using other, less expensive (per GB) M.2 NVMe SSD devices from the likes of ADATA, Kingston, Samsung etc. with no lower than 250GB storage capacity? Newer items show very good latency and power consumption specs getting actually quite close to the Optane's. With these less expensive options they're still avoiding the motherboard chipset being coupled directly to the CPU, and they're also fast as hell with read and write speeds - even exceeding the Optane's here.
Has any real effort been made into testing said, less expensive M.2 brands as boot memory compared to the Optane? It seems to me the Optane has reached default mode as the go-to boot device without true "evidence" compared to named alternatives. If low latency and power consumption are primary factors, then why aren't cheaper alternatives of newer development considered as well?
A lot of PC source-based audiophiles swear by Intel's Optane M.2 NVMe low capacity SSD's (typically 32-58GB) as their boot memory (instead SATA SSD's). These reportedly sport excellent (low) latency and power consumption numbers, which would seem to be vital aspects in attaining the best possible sound quality.
But what about using other, less expensive (per GB) M.2 NVMe SSD devices from the likes of ADATA, Kingston, Samsung etc. with no lower than 250GB storage capacity? Newer items show very good latency and power consumption specs getting actually quite close to the Optane's. With these less expensive options they're still avoiding the motherboard chipset being coupled directly to the CPU, and they're also fast as hell with read and write speeds - even exceeding the Optane's here.
Has any real effort been made into testing said, less expensive M.2 brands as boot memory compared to the Optane? It seems to me the Optane has reached default mode as the go-to boot device without true "evidence" compared to named alternatives. If low latency and power consumption are primary factors, then why aren't cheaper alternatives of newer development considered as well?