# Dimmdrive gaming ramdrive 10.000MB/s



## P4-630 (Jan 5, 2015)

Guys what do you think about this: http://store.steampowered.com/app/337070/
I also read negative comments about it.

It's probably something like what Samsung Magician does with your memory.


----------



## RCoon (Jan 5, 2015)

It's just RAMDisk software. I tried some once with a 4GB partition. I installed some random game onto it, and it did not improve load times by much more than 2 or 3 seconds. People don't realise game loading times are also limited to other pieces of hardware, not just storage.

There is _free_ RAMDisk software out there. This is not worth any money at all.


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 5, 2015)

RCoon said:


> It's just RAMDisk software. I tried some once with a 4GB partition. I installed some random game onto it, and it did not improve load times by much more than 2 or 3 seconds. People don't realise game loading times are also limited to other pieces of hardware, not just storage.
> 
> There is _free_ RAMDisk software out there. This is not worth any money at all.



Thanks, so it would just not be worth the money then.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 5, 2015)

P4-630 said:


> Thanks, so it would just not be worth the money then.


indeed. (i don't use ramdisk tho...)


----------



## RCoon (Jan 5, 2015)

P4-630 said:


> Thanks, so it would just not be worth the money then.



Here's a free 4GB limited version, try it out yourself and see if it's worth your moneny.
http://memory.dataram.com/__downloads/memory/ramdisk/Dataram_RAMDisk_4_4_0_RC32.msi

AMD also do a 4GB limited free version:
http://www.radeonramdisk.com/software_downloads.php


----------



## AsRock (Jan 5, 2015)

Well with SSD's being around they are pretty pointless now.  I used to use DataRam and used to symbolic-links with it for my Arma2\3 server which helped a lot in making the heavy respawns better for everyone connected. Ovverall just save up and go SSD and there should not be any need what so ever.


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 5, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Well with SSD's being around they are pretty pointless now.  I used to use DataRam and used to symbolic-links with it for my Arma2\3 server which helped a lot in making the heavy respawns better for everyone connected. Ovverall just save up and go SSD and there should not be any need what so ever.



I already have 2 SSD's in my laptop, I'm happy with it, but I was just wondering what you guys thought about this software, since I saw this on Steam.
Now I know it's really pointless to buy this since Rcoon showed some links for such software which is free.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 5, 2015)

Ive tried a few of these things over the years.  Seem to remember some advantage back in the days of xp. 

i dont think many people bother nowadays especially with W7 and ssds


----------



## AsRock (Jan 5, 2015)

P4-630 said:


> I already have 2 SSD's in my laptop, I'm happy with it, but I was just wondering what you guys thought about this software, since I saw this on Steam.
> Now I know it's really pointless to buy this since Rcoon showed some links for such software which is free.



Yeah, I payed some thing like $10 for Dataram some years ago as i wanted to use much more than 4GB.  Just checked Steam and WTF $30 sheesh.

And just checked DataRams pricing and that's gone crazy too, i guess they changed the app with improvements but it's not worth their asking price.


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 5, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Yeah, I payed some thing like $10 for Dataram some years ago as i wanted to use much more than 4GB.  Just checked Steam and WTF $30 sheesh.
> 
> And just checked DataRams pricing and that's gone crazy too, i guess they changed the app with improvements but it's not worth their asking price.


 So as CAPSLOCKSTUCK said , nowadays it might only be useful for people who still use Win XP.
That people buy this software on Steam, I guess it's the "10.000MB/s" attracting buyers.


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 5, 2015)

Now this is something else, but I remember the days of "ram booster" software to free-up memory on Win 98, at that time I used Macromedia software and it was a problem to run Fireworks with Dreamweaver at the same time and I used "ram booster" software to free up ram all the time , hahaha


----------



## mcloughj (Jan 5, 2015)

I still have my gigabyte Ramdisk (i-ram) that used 4gb of DDR and a sata 1 interface in a box somewhere. 

great idea in theory. less so in reality.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 5, 2015)

People generally  didnt have a lot of RAM in the days of  98.


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 5, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> People generally  didnt have a lot of RAM in the days of  98.


 
So true, I don't remember how much was installed but probably 256MB or 512MB max.
Everything was sooo slooow back then, we had Norton Internet security on it and when we did a scan, it was almost impossible to do something else at the same time hahaha


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 5, 2015)

A massive upgrade would be to double your RAM to 512 mb.

 I can remember when i did that i was absolutely staggered by the difference it made.

i asked my 15 year old boy what his earliest computing memory was........


quick as a flash he replied.....................




" fucking dialup"


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jan 5, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Here's a free 4GB limited version, try it out yourself and see if it's worth your moneny.
> http://memory.dataram.com/__downloads/memory/ramdisk/Dataram_RAMDisk_4_4_0_RC32.msi
> 
> AMD also do a 4GB limited free version:
> http://www.radeonramdisk.com/software_downloads.php


I believe that the AMD version is a rebranding of the dataram version. Same cake just different sprinkles.

They do work well if you still use the slower platter drives. Difference is very negligible if you use SSD's. Ramdisk was "required hardware" if you played Vanguard:SOH, LOL


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 6, 2015)

RAM drives are pointless because they are volatile. If you want speed and usual disk capacity, use HDD+SSD hybrid combo with caching. This for a change actually works for whatever you're using. First level load might be at HDD speeds but all the next will be drastically faster.

I have 18GB of RAM and I couldn't find any good use for the RAM drives. And those massive speeds displayed, they are pointless. You can get 20GB/s if you set the test file to 200MB and have a 10GB RAMdisk. Because the app will simply copy the entire thing into RAM. For half realistic testing, test file has to be larger than the cache. Then you'll see actual throughput...


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 6, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> RAM drives are pointless because they are volatile. If you want speed and usual disk capacity, use HDD+SSD hybrid combo with caching. This for a change actually works for whatever you're using. First level load might be at HDD speeds but all the next will be drastically faster.
> 
> I have 18GB of RAM and I couldn't find any good use for the RAM drives. And those massive speeds displayed, they are pointless. You can get 20GB/s if you set the test file to 200MB and have a 10GB RAMdisk. Because the app will simply copy the entire thing into RAM. For half realistic testing, test file has to be larger than the cache. Then you'll see actual throughput...



I use Samsung Magician for my 500GB evo, that should work similar then, that uses some ram as well.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 6, 2015)

That's not exactly the same, SSD's use cache to better cope with write/read, particularly write which is a lot slower due to NAND nature. Baically it just writes to RAM super fast and then slowly flushes the cache to SSD a bit later. So, to end user, it seem slike it's doing the job ultra fast, but in reality, that data isn't even on SSD when your app says it has completed something. It's fast but may suck if power goes out when you're doing this...


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 6, 2015)

RCoon said:


> People don't realise game loading times are also limited to other pieces of hardware, not just storage.


It depends on game. Some games may not only load data but also perform heavy processing on them (decryption, decompression, etc). Especially triple A games which have many things to hide and GBs of data to load and process.

Those extra things can take much more time than to load the data from the disk.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 6, 2015)

if u put aside the user interface, is it not the same as all the free ramdisk programs out there? for instance, if You dont want the 4Gb limit that amd's offers, try asrocks if You own one of theyre boards, its free to You, no cache limit, but then there is the whole "will you see a benefit"? question.and in my experience, NO is the answer. arma loaded mods better with ramdisk, but you'll see no FPS jumps from faster memory reads and writes....so....$30? nah I'm good. plus it's more dependant on Your RAM what Mb's/second you get, 7-8000 was My tops.10,000Mb/s is a BOLD claim


----------



## PerpetualVoid (Feb 18, 2015)

8000 is still 16 times faster than the best SSD.  Even in RAID 0 RAMdrives are still 11 times faster.

DimmDrive is not worth it.  RAMdisk drives are however very worth it.  If you can dump the cash to get 128GB of ram it's very worth it.  SATA can't even come close to the speeds that RAM can.  If you can wait the 20 seconds it takes to upload your IMG of the game you want to play it will be infinitely faster to load everything.

Think about it.  When a game requests a texture it goes CPU>GPUVRAM>RAM>HDD/SSD>RAM>VRAM.  Not only are you cutting out the SSD load times which are 16 Times slower Unless you are running a PCIe8x RAID 0 Setup(Which is 2000$ by itself) then it's only 4 times slower...You are cutting out the slow as hell SATA connection.  Less bus = less electron travel time.  While you may not see an abundance of gameplay differentiation, I would bet the game plays a hell of a lot smoother.  No waiting on the SSD you see.  The most noticeable difference would be in games like Skyrim when you have a lot of fancy textures to load.  Cutting a 30 second SSD load time to 2 Seconds is amazing.

Point is the data has a large highway to flow through and less distance to travel which in the end all adds up.

Of course you need to have spent about 2500$ - 3000$ to get to the point were this makes sense.  Even then you only have a 48GB RAM Drive to play with.  Then again if you are considering a PCIe8x SSD I would recommend RAM Drive over that since they are about the same price in the end.

If you've got the cash RAMDisks forever.  There are fully free versions that are just not as pretty as the paid ones.  Require a little more knowledge to use too, but they function the same.

As a side Plus your HDD or SSD will last longer as it isn't being used as often.  Load file structure once into ram and it's job is done.  Longer lifespan.

Rant complete.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Feb 18, 2015)

"Very Worth It"??!

800$-1000$$ and up . So Battlefield or World of Whichcraft loads in 20 seconds instead of 45 seconds??
I MUST respectfully disagree that it would be "Very Worth it". or Even slightly worth it. Hell, Keep the 10-30 seconds, it's plain NOT worth it. RAM is @ a Ridiculous high right now, NO load time is worth 128GB of RAM ..


----------



## qubit (Feb 18, 2015)

RCoon said:


> It's just RAMDisk software. I tried some once with a 4GB partition. I installed some random game onto it, and it did not improve load times by much more than 2 or 3 seconds. People don't realise game loading times are also limited to other pieces of hardware, not just storage.
> 
> There is _free_ RAMDisk software out there. This is not worth any money at all.


 I was looking at dimmdrive myself a while back and was also put off by the negative comments and the price. I've 16GB RAM in my PC, so I'll try to find a free ram drive and give that a go.


----------



## Octopuss (Feb 18, 2015)

Even if RAMdisks did anything (as in, improved loading performance over SSDs), just the simple fact I'd have to copy tens of gigabytes onto them each time I reboot the PC is a big no for me. Besides, SSD is all I need. Hell, it's not doing anything most of the time a game is loading anyway. The HDD LED hardly lights up for longer than 5 seconds, and yet it takes like 30 seconds for BF4 to load up.
In very unscientific conclusion - there's absolutely no reason to increase theoretical speeds any further when you already have a SSD. If you don't, buy one.
Price difference between buying 64GB or so DDR3 and a SSD: fucking fortune. *Real* performance gained from such RAMdisk: none.


----------



## PerpetualVoid (Feb 18, 2015)

jboydgolfer said:


> "Very Worth It"??!
> 
> 800$-1000$$ and up . So Battlefield or World of Whichcraft loads in 20 seconds instead of 45 seconds??
> I MUST respectfully disagree that it would be "Very Worth it". or Even slightly worth it. Hell, Keep the 10-30 seconds, it's plain NOT worth it. RAM is @ a Ridiculous high right now, NO load time is worth 128GB of RAM ..



You misunderstand 2k + is what I'm talking about here and it was more of a, it's a better option if you are thinking about enterprise class pcie 8x raid ssd. Which run at 2.1GB/s.  Or a Few Samsung pros in RAID 0.

And load times on WOW or BF would be reduced to less than 5 seconds probably closer to 1 second.  That's with DDR 1333.  If WOW and BF are your main games then I wouldn't bother.  Go buy an old early 2000 laptop.  That'll run wow in full shiney and cost less than what you have now.  If you are building a budget rig then SSD all the way is what I would say.  This is enthusiast level stuff, where price has about 1% to do with making a decision.

I would say in about 1 maybe 2 years everyone is going to be going RAMdrive.  Right now DDR4 is not at max capacity and it's very expensive, but the price will drop just as DDR3 did.  Once AMD makes a new chipset for DDR4 Intel will release whatever they already have waiting and DDR3 will be phased out.  By that point Single 32GB sticks will be hitting the market and 8 or 16 GB sticks will be the bottom of the barrel.  So that price boundry isn't going to be forever and we will be seeing Desktop boards begin to support 256 and 512 GB of RAM.  At that point you would be fool not to have a RAMDisk.

My point was to let you all know that it is a massive performance increase.  No you won't see much of a FPS increase maybe 1 FPS every once in a while.  What you will not see so much anymore would be tearing and lag spikes as the GPU queries ram for textures that are there that normally aren't and it has to wait for the bus and HDD/SSD to catch up.  Smoother more fluid gameplay   Which is what we all really want.  Preferably at 144hz +

SATA 6G has a theoretical limit of 750MB/s transfer rate.  Probably more like 700MB/s including overhead.  Next iteration will be a whopping 250MB/s more for a grand total of 1000MB/s theoretical max.  RAM on an x99 based system has  a theoretical limit of 5000MB/s so still 5 times that of SATA 10g which hasn't even really come out yet.  Random read is what we gamers want and we can get 1000 - 1300 MB/s random read from a RAMDisk.  With the right software.  By comparison high end SSDs run at about 30MB/s maybe 50MB/s tops.

And while it may seem irrelevant to the desktop crowd, and it is, the largest and most obvious showcase would be in 3DSmax or AutoCAD.  Devs have been using RAMdisks for years.  It cuts hours off of rendering times, and since they are using server Motherboards with 128GB+ of ram already anyway it makes sense.

We can argue back and forth all you want, but in the end RAMdisk is faster.  That's my point.  I'm just trying to educate so people can make a decision.  The vast majority of people out there right now are perfectly content with their SSD.  And that's fine.  But what isn't fine is when people downplay the massive performance increase that RAMdisks give.

On a side note, here is the fastest random read free disk software out there.
https://www.softperfect.com/products/ramdisk/


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Im content with My 840 Pro and Raptor.


----------



## PerpetualVoid (Feb 18, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> Even if RAMdisks did anything (as in, improved loading performance over SSDs), just the simple fact I'd have to copy tens of gigabytes onto them each time I reboot the PC is a big no for me. Besides, SSD is all I need. Hell, it's not doing anything most of the time a game is loading anyway. The HDD LED hardly lights up for longer than 5 seconds, and yet it takes like 30 seconds for BF4 to load up.
> In very unscientific conclusion - there's absolutely no reason to increase theoretical speeds any further when you already have a SSD. If you don't, buy one.
> Price difference between buying 64GB or so DDR3 and a SSD: fucking fortune. *Real* performance gained from such RAMdisk: none.



If we want to argue scientific my point is very scientific.  Your point is scientific as well, based on price.  Mine on performance.  SSD loses in horrible in performance,  RAMDisk loses in price.  Real performance gained is always a relative view anyway.  You don't see it as a performance gain. I do however see it as one.  Are you really going to tell me if you had millions of dollars to spend that you wouldn't get a RAMDisk setup over a SSD?

Point is where money isn't a concern RAMDisk IS faster and it IS a real performance gain.  Wait 30 seconds once and then wait 1 second to get into game thereafter makes sense to me.  I'll sit and play that game for a couple of hours before I pull it out of that ramdisk for another.  30 seconds may not seem like much, but add it up.  Figure you load once every 20 minutes and you have say 300hrs of BF on file that adds up to, 7.5 hrs you have sat in loading screens.  By contrast it's only roughly 2 hours with a ramdisk.  That's including a rough estimate of 30 seconds every 2 hours for a reload into ram.  Pretty conservative estimate.  So 5.5 hours of life back I get to spend elsewhere ( but I'll probably just spend it playing games ).  Worth it to me.  I keep hardware for at least 7 years.  My current hardware is pushing 10 years ( I need new stuff  ).  Time is money and well, 5.5 x 7 is a little under a weeks pay, which makes up for the initial cost over a ten year period.  Assuming you only play 300 hours of games a year.  That just isn't true though.  Most of us, me included, play way more than 300 hrs.

How much is your time worth to you?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 18, 2015)

The only one arguing here is you bub.  You need to go outside and get a woman.


----------



## Octopuss (Feb 18, 2015)

eidairaman1 said:


> The only one arguing here is you bub.  You need to go outside and get a woman.


Right. My dick is big enough with just a SSD.


----------



## PerpetualVoid (Feb 18, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> Even if RAMdisks did anything (as in, improved loading performance over SSDs), just the simple fact I'd have to copy tens of gigabytes onto them each time I reboot the PC is a big no for me. Besides, SSD is all I need. Hell, it's not doing anything most of the time a game is loading anyway. The HDD LED hardly lights up for longer than 5 seconds, and yet it takes like 30 seconds for BF4 to load up.
> In very unscientific conclusion - there's absolutely no reason to increase theoretical speeds any further when you already have a SSD. If you don't, buy one.
> Price difference between buying 64GB or so DDR3 and a SSD: fucking fortune. *Real* performance gained from such RAMdisk: none.



Are you seriously basing your load time on your HDD light.......

I'm not trying to convince you to go out and spend thousands.  In fact more than once I've said that you are right the price/performance value is entirely up to each individual.  You are happy with your SSD.  If you can't see the bottleneck of SATA that's on you.  Fact of the matter is, *REAL performance *is there whether you like it or not.

Beyond that have fun in your corner troll. K BAI


----------



## Octopuss (Feb 18, 2015)

PerpetualVoid said:


> K BAI


Right. Registered today, using 1337speek, posting breakthrough findings about something noone is using for 10 or more years for a good reason. Whoever doesn't agree is a troll. Makes sense.


----------



## PerpetualVoid (Feb 18, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> Right. Registered today, using 1337speek, posting breakthrough findings about something noone is using for 10 or more years for a good reason. Whoever doesn't agree is a troll. Makes sense.



I'm sorry Maths are leet speek to you.  Registration date, really?  Doesn't make what I've said any less true.


----------



## xfia (Feb 18, 2015)

arguing aside.. I read ages ago you can set windows to stay in ram.. seems like it could be good but there is always argument of the worth. 

I did try radeon ramdisk before but I only had 8gb of ram at the time so I put my browser cache on it.. wasn't really anything special to me. 

maybe the way microsoft manages resources these days there is just not much of a benefit. I don't use linux but maybe it is more useful there.


----------



## PerpetualVoid (Feb 18, 2015)

xfia said:


> arguing aside.. I read ages ago you can set windows to stay in ram.. seems like it could be good but there is always argument of the worth.
> 
> I did try radeon ramdisk before but I only had 8gb of ram at the time so I put my browser cache on it.. wasn't really anything special to me.
> 
> maybe the way microsoft manages resources these days there is just not much of a benefit. I don't use linux but maybe it is more useful there.



Alot depends on the software you are using to make the ramdisk as well. dataram/radeon is mid range.  Make a server and put that on a ramdisk and watch most of the lag disappear.


----------



## xfia (Feb 18, 2015)

that's interesting..  so servers can benefit witch makes since. 

before I had a ssd I had thought about getting more ram for the page file but I realized that is probably a dumb idea lol 

in my experience with windows anyway is there is no need to turn off core parking when you have it on a ssd but with a hdd..  core parking is damn aggressive by default it can make you think a hdd is useless.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Go read the Fair Use Policy on double posting.
Also arrogance such as yours leads to folly.


----------



## RCoon (Feb 18, 2015)

PerpetualVoid said:


> Wait 30 seconds once and then wait 1 second to get into game thereafter makes sense to me.



That's not how a RAMDisk works. At all in fact. You're horribly overestimating the performance gains from a RAMDisk drive, and I don't think you understand the concept of bottlenecks. You can dump as many games on a 20000 terabyte RAMDisk for all I care, those games still aren't going to load in 2 seconds flat no matter what you do. Storage is only a bottleneck because it's the slowest. Once you remove the slowest bottleneck, the second slowest hardware becomes the new bottleneck. Because of this, a game will never load in 1 second, instead, your CPU or your GPU will become a bottleneck, because unsurprisingly, loading assets requires processor usage. It doesn't matter if your RAM can load data in 1 second, if your processor can only load it as fast as 10 seconds.

EDIT: If you're playing multiplayer games it makes even less sense. Why? Because it doesn't matter how fast you load, you _still have to wait for everybody else to._

You can find this out in real world performance. I'm assuming you've used a RAMDisk before, although judging by your overestimations I don't think you have. I've loaded several games onto a RAMDisk, most of which had their load times cut by a small amount. For a brief example, I would load a mere 2 seconds faster than everyone else in my League of Legends match, but it still took 5 or 6 seconds to get to that 100%. Taking away 2 seconds from 8 is not worth $8000 dollars or whatever your currency is. The key is a well balanced system, so that there is no one slowest point in a PC. Until then, the RAMDisk idea is fun in essence for gamers, but relatively useless.

Funny you should bring up servers though. Corporations and businesses do use RAMDisks (I know, because I work for one), but only for mass databases. You'll find your ISP or telephone provider or Gas company has a multitude of servers, although most of them get their databases loaded from RAMDisks to deal with the hundreds if not thousands of data-calls they get from all the support centres and call centres. The key difference is that these companies tend to make millions, and the investment of a few tens of thousands of dollars to ensure their support can load a customer's data within 10 seconds, instead of 2 minutes, is far far more costly and important to them. It's also worth noting they use ECC RAM, or special RAM designed for that very purpose, because functionally domestic DDR3 RAM is not a sensible place to put your data.



PerpetualVoid said:


> How much is your time worth to you?



I take the short loading times as a good chance to catch up on eating/drinking, or even drawing. It's also a useful time for me to take notes if I'm reviewing, and also skip a track on my shuffled playlist.



PerpetualVoid said:


> Make a server and put that on a ramdisk and watch most of the lag disappear.



I don't know what this means. Lag = Latency. RAMDisks will not improve network latency.


----------



## xfia (Feb 18, 2015)

I just took it as he meant lag like seek time being a little frustrated..

how does ram disk compare to like a pci ssd for a server?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Its funny like 8-10 years ago gigabyte had a ram dimm drive with a cr 2032 back up battery. Now there are pcie ssds which are not on the slower sata port and even faster than your so called ramdisk. Windows 7 has plenty fast boot time on my 840 pro. Btw insulting any member here gets you out the door quicker than anything


----------



## RCoon (Feb 18, 2015)

xfia said:


> I just took it as he meant lag like seek time being a little frustrated..
> 
> how does ram disk compare to like a pci ssd for a server?



Ah that makes sense.

The fastest RAMDisk software can read at around 8500MB/s (On 1600mhz memory) SOURCE, the fastest PCIe x4 SSD can read around 1600MB/s on Gen 2 and 2150MB/s on Gen3. Obviously write speeds are marginally slower on both in real world performance. Read/Write speeds mean very little to me, it's all about the IOPS if you're after snappy Windows and software performance.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 18, 2015)

I can't believe anybody would actually be gullible enough to fall for this shit 
there is ZERO BENEFIT TO THIS


----------



## Heaven7 (Feb 18, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> I can't believe anybody would actually be gullible enough to fall for this shit
> there is ZERO BENEFIT TO THIS


Yeah, just look at this "advertising" blurb on their HP: "It's a Ramdisk built with steam integration in mind. It does seem to *have occasional issues*, but the developer actively fixes them. High RAM recommended"
Time to "let off some steam"!


----------



## AsRock (Feb 18, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> I can't believe anybody would actually be gullible enough to fall for this shit
> there is ZERO BENEFIT TO THIS



With a server there can be gains with a ramdisk, been there tried it and games like Arma 3 didi's and very high spawns a ramdisk can go a long way is you use hardlinks to fool the OS were the actual file is located.

How ever this can only be done with files that are not changing all the time as this would mean making a iso every time.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 18, 2015)

AsRock said:


> With a server there can be gains with a ramdisk, been there tried it and games like Arma 3 didi's and very high spawns a ramdisk can go a long way is you use hardlinks to fool the OS were the actual file is located.
> 
> How ever this can only be done with files that are not changing all the time as this would mean making a iso time time.


exactly ram-disks are usefull for large database cache ... not much else volatile storage.. is volatile


----------



## AsRock (Feb 18, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> exactly ram-disks are usefull for large database cache ... not much else volatile storage.. is volatile



For the actual gamer no point, in fact more often than not SSD's speed annoys me when game loading due to missing the hints lol.

Skyrim anyone ?.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 18, 2015)

AsRock said:


> For the actual gamer no point, in fact more often than not SSD's speed annoys me when game loading due to missing the hints lol.
> 
> Skyrim anyone ?.



I load all my games to the raptor, os on ssd lol.


----------



## AsRock (Feb 19, 2015)

eidairaman1 said:


> I load all my games to the raptor, os on ssd lol.



, OS on SSD, demanding games on SSD, apps on SSD, and other games on HDD.


----------



## qubit (Feb 19, 2015)

I remember running a ramdisc on my Acorn Archimedes back in the 80s. This feature was supported natively by RISC OS and was epically fast, especially compared to the really slow HDDs of the day. Incredibly, the IDE interface on that computer was even _slower_, so that ramdisc really made a difference, lol.

Ah, just showing my age. 

Recognize the CPU in it? Yes, it all started here.


----------



## xfia (Feb 19, 2015)

qubit said:


> I remember running a ramdisc on my Acorn Archimedes back in the 80s. This feature was supported natively by RISC OS and was epically fast, especially compared to the really slow HDDs of the day. Incredibly, the IDE interface on that computer was even _slower_, so that ramdisc really made a difference, lol.
> 
> Ah, just showing my age.
> 
> Recognize the CPU in it? Yes, it all started here.


I want one to play tetris and pong on! plus it would be nice to boast about epic ramdisk performance haha


----------



## Octopuss (Feb 19, 2015)

The mouse. The mouse!!!


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 19, 2015)

Now that 16-32 gig ram is much more common on desktop mem (64/128 not far away?), I think that Ramdisk UI's need to change to make it easier to understand how to use the program, and write it so we will be able load entire game and folders off the hard drives into the RDrive. Then, after we play the game, the RD program saves any changes back to the hard drive afterward without creating separate images for each game.  

IMHO, games/appz that need Ramdisk to run faster needs to be redesigned so that they use more memory, some MMO's I play barely use any physical memory and the rest is going to waste. Vid card memory is another subject.


----------



## Frick (Feb 19, 2015)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Now that 16-32 gig ram is much more common on desktop mem (64/128 not far away?),



Honestly it hasn't increased much in recent years. A couple of years back 8GB became more common, in the Sandy Bridge era, but then the prices went up and things have been the same since then (prices are lower though). Anything above 8GB sits firmly in the workstation/enthusiast market and that isn't very big. 4 x 8 GB RAM will cost the same as a high end CPU or a GTX 970 and in the case of gaming the two latter is massively more interesting. The only 16GB modules are ECC/reg, and 8 x 8 GB requires Sandy/Haswell-E so the entire platform gets very expensive to begin with. Prices will have to drop A LOT if anything above 16GB is to make sense to gamers and non-professional users.


----------



## Octopuss (Feb 19, 2015)

Just wait for the first games that will *require* 8GB RAM  I think it won't take long.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 19, 2015)

Frick said:


> Honestly it hasn't increased much in recent years. A couple of years back 8GB became more common, in the Sandy Bridge era, but then the prices went up and things have been the same since then (prices are lower though). Anything above 8GB sits firmly in the workstation/enthusiast market and that isn't very big. 4 x 8 GB RAM will cost the same as a high end CPU or a GTX 970 and in the case of gaming the two latter is massively more interesting. The only 16GB modules are ECC/reg, and 8 x 8 GB requires Sandy/Haswell-E so the entire platform gets very expensive to begin with. Prices will have to drop A LOT if anything above 16GB is to make sense to gamers and non-professional users.



Taking part of my reply out of context and ranting on about the price of memory and other crap that I really dont care about. Right on! Just Push me over a cliff. A common size for memory a couple YEARS ago was 4-8 gb, game installation sizes  were still larger than total phys. memory sizes and seemed to never have enough, BACK THEN.  Now that little trend is changing so that we can fit entire game <folders> in memory and we need a better tool than Ramdisk, and not talk about effin memory prices for the poverty strick private sector that can afford a xbox or PS4 and games but not 16 GB of memory at half that price of my last pile of crap Wii.

@Octopuss I play Landmark.
Landmark Requirements :



> *Minimum & Recommended System Requirements *
> 
> *Minimum System Requirements:*
> OS – Windows 7 64 bit*
> ...


----------



## Frick (Feb 19, 2015)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> snip



k


----------



## xfia (Feb 19, 2015)

I would say we have already moved into the realm of 16gb being useful for a lot of gamers..  I always tell gamers 8gb is a budget option for casual gaming without a lot extras, modding, streaming, editing, one monitor.. and not being concerned about the future or that current demanding games push most people over 7gb. 
of course easy to upgrade with a decent motherboard but there is always concern even the exact same kit can be different over time.


----------

