# Gigabyte shows off i-RAM successor



## Darksaber (Jun 7, 2006)

The new version of the i-RAM has moved from a PCI slot to a 5.25 inch drive bay. The DDR of the previous i-RAM has been replaced with DDR2 and a maximum of 8GB is now supported. The new i-RAM gets its power from the PSU directly.


 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## wickerman (Jun 7, 2006)

I also heard reports that the new Iram successor will use the SATAII connections instead of the standard SATA, any confirmation?


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 7, 2006)

DailyTech said:
			
		

> The Serial ATA interface remains with added compatibility for 300MB/s transfer rates, though it is unknown if the GC-RAMDISK will support SATA 3.0Gbps features such as native command queuing



Sounds like it will be as fast as SATA II but may not have all of the features. These things are still too small unfortunately, 8GB just isn't enough for your average user, but in a few years they could be awsome.

Edit: I would have thought Sata is slower than PCI isn't it? Especially PCI-E.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 7, 2006)

wickerman said:
			
		

> I also heard reports that the new Iram successor will use the SATAII connections instead of the standard SATA, any confirmation?



It says it right in the article SATA 300MB/s...that is SATA II.

I just wish it wasn't in a 5.25" bay and used a PCI-e x1 slot instead so it was still powered when you turned the machine off since the molex connectors are not hot when the machine is off like PCI and PCI-e slots.


----------



## zekrahminator (Jun 7, 2006)

Guys, I don't think you understand the purpose of RAMdisks...you use them for your pagefile. That eliminates your hard drive from having to do anything memory related except for storage. That, in turn, speeds up your system by a lot.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 7, 2006)

zekrahminator said:
			
		

> Guys, I don't think you understand the purpose of RAMdisks...you use them for your pagefile. That eliminates your hard drive from having to do anything memory related except for storage. That, in turn, speeds up your system by a lot.



Ok... it would be me that didn't understand, I was thinking from the description that they were also used for general storage,


----------



## overcast (Jun 7, 2006)

zekrahminator said:
			
		

> Guys, I don't think you understand the purpose of RAMdisks...you use them for your pagefile. That eliminates your hard drive from having to do anything memory related except for storage. That, in turn, speeds up your system by a lot.



Why not just buy more RAM, turn off the paging and properly write software to not require a shitty pagefile?


----------



## phoenix56 (Jun 7, 2006)

my raid goes pretty fast   :

http://web.t-online.hu/foenix/Raid_Boot/raid_test_2.png


----------



## Darksaber (Jun 7, 2006)

phoenix56 said:
			
		

> my raid goes pretty fast   :
> 
> http://web.t-online.hu/foenix/Raid_Boot/raid_test_2.png



what kind of setup (drives and such) do you use?

cheers
DS


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 7, 2006)

zekrahminator said:
			
		

> Guys, I don't think you understand the purpose of RAMdisks...you use them for your pagefile. That eliminates your hard drive from having to do anything memory related except for storage. That, in turn, speeds up your system by a lot.



That was pretty much all the last RAM drive was good for.  However, this one you can put both the OS and the Pagefile on there and get even better results.



			
				overcast said:
			
		

> Why not just buy more RAM, turn off the paging and properly write software to not require a shitty pagefile?



Because even when you completely turn off your page file Windows still finds a way to make one and use it, even with 4GB+ of RAM.  You can't just right software to not use the page file, it isn't that easy, there are a lot more machines out there that don't have enough RAM to not have a page file then there are that do.


----------



## zekrahminator (Jun 7, 2006)

overcast said:
			
		

> Why not just buy more RAM, turn off the paging and properly write software to not require a shitty pagefile?


Because motherboards get buggy after say, 2GB RAM . You can turn off the paging file right now, just right click "my computer", click properties, click advanced, under the performance tab, click settings, under advanced, click virtual memory, and then go nuts. And I don't know why people don't write software so it doesn't require a pagefile...in all reality it doesn't, but games seem to like having backup RAM in case the system runs out. So yeah, unless you have 1.5GB+ RAM, you should just leave the page file on.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 7, 2006)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-51784544344753709&q=gigabyte

There is a video of the last version of the i-RAM in action...it is crappy quality, but good enough to get the point across.


----------



## zekrahminator (Jun 7, 2006)

That guy has the OS loaded on his RAMdisk, right?


----------



## phoenix56 (Jun 7, 2006)

Darksaber said:
			
		

> what kind of setup (drives and such) do you use?




I'm using 3 80 GB Seagate 7200.7 NCQ SATA drives with my NF4U board set up in RAID0 mode. It's a very fast and cheap solution.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 7, 2006)

DOUBLEPOST, sorry, see below...

APK


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 7, 2006)

zekrahminator said:
			
		

> That guy has the OS loaded on his RAMdisk, right?



Yes, I believe the OS is on the ram disk.

Also even when you completely turn off the page file using that method Windows still makes and uses one.  If you don't believe me then try it, turn off the page file then reboot and go into task manager.  Under Performance it will still say Windows is using a Page File.  Windows really does not like not having a page file, you can force it to completely not use a page file using tweaks, but then it gets really upset about it.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 7, 2006)

newtekie1 said:
			
		

> That was pretty much all the last RAM drive was good for.



I do that here, via a CENATEK RocketDrive (1st partition = pagefile.sys placement, 1gb) & also more things like:

1.) Moving my %TEMP%/%TMP% system environment variables to it, so temp ops take place faster for the OS

2.) Placing my webpages caching for IE &/or Opera onto it

3.) Placing all logging for apps onto it (and OS logging like the System, Application, Security logs from eventviewer)

4.) Placing application's temp variables (progs like WinZip/WinRar allow this as well as others) 

5.) Putting the PRINT SPOOLER's temp location onto it

6.) Making it the %COMSPEC% cmd.exe location as well, permanently in RAM.

ALL onto its 2nd 1gb partition, where the pagefile.sys sits on the FIRST one.



			
				newtekie1 said:
			
		

> However, this one you can put both the OS and the Pagefile on there and get even better results.



Yes, the GIGABYTE IRAM's are bootable - this they have over the one I use (CENATEK RocketDrive) & also others like the HyperOS III, as well as using DDR in their init offering & the SATA interface, whereas mine & the HyperOS III use PATA + PC-3200 SDRAM, & now they are onto even FASTER RAM in DDR2!

Still, imo, the spreading that other stuff (pagefile.sys, logging, temp ops, etc.) around to other drives can help though, keeps concurrent I/O on ANY SINGLE DRIVE overall lower imo, by moving it around to diff. disks...



* Interesting stuff, & the equipment for this has gotten better & better as time passes - maybe they're the diskdrives of the future, but for now? That's how I use mine...

APK


----------



## overcast (Jun 7, 2006)

zekrahminator said:
			
		

> Because motherboards get buggy after say, 2GB RAM . You can turn off the paging file right now, just right click "my computer", click properties, click advanced, under the performance tab, click settings, under advanced, click virtual memory, and then go nuts. And I don't know why people don't write software so it doesn't require a pagefile...in all reality it doesn't, but games seem to like having backup RAM in case the system runs out. So yeah, unless you have 1.5GB+ RAM, you should just leave the page file on.



I wouldn't make a generalization that motherboards become buggy with more RAM. Crappy boards and memory controllers are the problem. There are obviously server boards that run tens of gigs of ram. I just bought an AM2 board that supports 8gb, so I'm sure more than 2 isn't a problem.

I'm aware of the paging settings, that is why I said it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 7, 2006)

overcast said:
			
		

> I wouldn't make a generalization that motherboards become buggy with more RAM. Crappy boards and memory controllers are the problem. There are obviously server boards that run tens of gigs of ram. I just bought an AM2 board that supports 8gb, so I'm sure more than 2 isn't a problem.
> 
> I'm aware of the paging settings, that is why I said it.



Currently the entire A64 line becomes buggy with more then 2GB of memory, I would say that is enough to make his generalization justified.


----------



## FLY3R (Jun 7, 2006)

Theres no point in getting that now, but down the road in a few years those things are going to be awsome, maby even utalizing DDR3.


----------



## mcloughj (Jun 7, 2006)

*correct me if i'm wrong*

There's somethinig i'm not getting here, and it's the use of ddrII ram. Assuming that you upgrade from here on in there's a good chance that you'll be moving to DDRII, with alot of people moving from DDRI. that would mean that people would have lots of DDRI sticks that could be put to good use in a system like this. 

That said the use of DDRII doesn't make sense anyway because the ram used just has to create enough bandwidth to fill the 300mb/s of SATAII, something that could easily be acclomplished with pc2100 DDR.

The use of sataII is a good move, something that was so needed on the last version. I'd love to get two in a raid0 config... Kablamo!


----------



## Homeless (Jun 7, 2006)

i believe ddr 2 modules are less expensive to make and require less power to run; that's my guess on why they used them over ddr1


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 7, 2006)

Homeless said:
			
		

> i believe ddr 2 modules are less expensive to make and require less power to run; that's my guess on why they used them over ddr1



Better bandwidth also, correct, for doing things like this? Quote from a forums post here I did:

"Here is I use SSD's here myself (CENATEK "RocketDrive" user since 2003 here)...

1.) Place your pagefile.sys onto these (faster seek/access/read by far vs. HDD's)

2.) Place your system environment variables of %TMP%/%TEMP% (current user & system-wide) onto SSD's also (for the same reasons as #1)...

3.) Place your EventLogs, via registry hack to their FILE value (for the same reasons as #1)...

4.) Place your Web-Browser('s) webpage caches onto it (for the same reasons as #1)...

5.) Place your logging + temp ops (like WinRar & WinZip can do for instance from their config screens) from other apps onto it (for the same reasons as #1)...

6.) Placing your %comspec% environment var location & actual command interpreter, e.g.-> cmd.exe (for the same reasons as #1)...

7.) Lastly, putting your print spooler location onto it (for the same reasons as #1)..."



APK

P.S.=> I mentioned these here earlier, a month or so max (new here anyhow), here @ this URL which has links to reviews of them:

*GIGABYTE "IRAM": Affordable "solid-state" storage*

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=12295

apk


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 8, 2006)

Why do u guys post such Nonsense!

"Currently the entire A64 line becomes buggy with more then 2GB of memory, I would say that is enough to make his generalization justified."

I really hope your joking.

It not even about going over 2GB on a A64 rig. its about fill all 4 memory bank which forces u to use 2t instead of 1t. it just slows down the system slightly it doesn't make it buggy or any less stable. 

Where did u learn about computers on the back of a cereal box!


----------



## Mussels (Jun 8, 2006)

Makaveli: You have missed the point. that 'slow down' can be as much as 30% on memory write speeds, which is rather un-cool for gaming systems.

The average hard drive has about 70MB/s speed, not that hot latencies and so forth. The I-ram can do 150MB, or 300MB/s with the new one, which blows them away. No matter how you look at it, its better for speed in every way.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 8, 2006)

Show me a benchmark thats proves u get a 30% memory speed hit when going to 2t from 1t please?

And u might want to re-read my post. there is a reason I quoted what he said. I didn't make any comments about the I drive. it was strickly talking about that non stability statement.

Also the avg HD does not have a avg 70mb write speed. Maybe if your taking about WD raptors and the newer 400+ GB HD's anything smaller on 7200rpm does not push that much speed.

and stop quoting the bandwidth speeds of SATA and SATA 2 for the Idrive show me a benchmark with it pushing that speed please.


----------



## zekrahminator (Jun 8, 2006)

I find it hilarious that we can have such heated debates over computer parts  .


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 8, 2006)

This isn't a heated debated at all, I just want proof to his claims which I think are false.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 8, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> Show me a benchmark thats proves u get a 30% memory speed hit when going to 2t from 1t please?
> 
> And u might want to re-read my post. there is a reason I quoted what he said. I didn't make any comments about the I drive. it was strickly talking about that non stability statement.
> 
> ...




Lavalys everest ultimate. I cant be arsed, but if you run an AMD64 system and swap from 1T to 2T, watch the write test. The worst i got (with bad latencies too) was a 28% decrease. That was running 4x512 dimms on an Nforce 4 ultra. 4x512 didnt work at 1T, but at 2T was a ton slower than 2x512 at 1T

My claims are not false nor 'heated' its an old topic to me.


Edit: said read test, meant write test.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 8, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> This isn't a heated debated at all, I just want proof to his claims which I think are false.




i dont like being called a liar.

Edit: just so that people know, the 2T picture blatantly shows 'CR2' which means 2T timing is in effect. DDR speed as well as other timings are visible and un-changed between tests.

29% performance drop, case closed.

Edit 2: I forgot to say, these are on 2x1GB sticks, not the 4x512 i mentioned earlier.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 8, 2006)

gigabyte just told me it does not use sata-ii. the problem is that the xilinx chip can not run that fast. this is because gigabyte has to engineer a memory controller like in a chipset, without previous experience (like intel, amd or ati) this is very hard to do .. 2gb modules do not work yet either but its definitely planned


----------



## Mussels (Jun 8, 2006)

Are you sure it doesnt just use SATA 300, instead of SATA-II (aka 300MB, but without NCQ etc) ?


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 8, 2006)

U got to be kidding, Show me Real world benchmarks with real applications not syntheic junk

Like sisoft sanda and everest, i'm not some noob, that might work on some of teh newbies but not me.

case it not close, u haven't proved anything.

Show me a game taking a 30% hit running 2t?

i'm not asking for alot.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 8, 2006)

If that is all you have to say, i will not bother replying to you. You asked for proof of a performance hit, i have shown it. The difference will be less in 3D apps but we are not talking about that. This is NOT a discussion about 3D performance, simply about the fact that running 2T is slower than running 1T. THAT is fact.

 I am not discussing this further, as you seem to not give a shit and wish to live in your own little world. Let's allow this topic to get back on track.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 8, 2006)

That is the reason I called u out on it u have no proof. People actually use there computers for applications and games. 

I don't know about u but I don't play everest and Si soft sandra. I use real applications.

that fact that u can't show me a real world appication seeing a 30% hit just shows i'm correct.

Thanks for coming out. The only one living in a little world is u my friend.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 8, 2006)

If there is anyone actually interested in some real world data about the difference from 1t vs 2t on athlon64 rig. 

here is a great article showing what i'm talking about.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/print/2gb-ram.html

Just found another good link

http://techreport.com/etc/2005q4/mem-latency/index.x?pg=1

enjoy the read, maybe you will learn something.


----------



## CjStaal (Jun 9, 2006)

newtekie1 said:
			
		

> Yes, I believe the OS is on the ram disk.
> 
> Also even when you completely turn off the page file using that method Windows still makes and uses one.  If you don't believe me then try it, turn off the page file then reboot and go into task manager.  Under Performance it will still say Windows is using a Page File.  Windows really does not like not having a page file, you can force it to completely not use a page file using tweaks, but then it gets really upset about it.


That is RAM +PageFile dude... it just says pagefile even if their isn't one... why don't any noobs get this?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 9, 2006)

bikr692002 said:
			
		

> That is RAM +PageFile dude... it just says pagefile even if their isn't one... why don't any noobs get this?



No, it isn't.  My current memory usage is 571MB, my PF usage is 498.  If it was Ram+PageFile the number would be equal to or bigger then 517, not smaller.  Nice try though n00b.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 9, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> U got to be kidding, Show me Real world benchmarks with real applications not syntheic junk
> 
> Like sisoft sanda and everest, i'm not some noob, that might work on some of teh newbies but not me.
> 
> ...



First of all he never said games take a 30% performance hit, he said memory write speeds take a 30% hit which he proved.  Game do take a performance hit from this and it can be noticeable even if it isn't 30%.  Not to mention that 4 memory modules usually leads to worse overclocks and the need for RAM dividers which can again drastically affect performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2560&p=2

You can read there for more information.

The case is close, he proved that is original statement is correct, and I just proved that it then translates to a gaming performance hit.  If you are going to call someone out on something at least make sure you know what you are calling them out on.

Also, my statement about more then 2GB of RAM making A64 rigs buggy was made because there are almost no 2GB sticks that have decent latencies and that are not ECC, both of which are performance killers.  So the only real option a gamer has for more then 2GB of memory is to use 4 sticks, which is why I made my statement that over 2GB of memory and A64 rigs get buggy.  If you use 2 sticks then you have to deal with the slow-down of ECC and high latencies, if you use 4 you have to deal with the slow-down of 2T and worse overclocks.  Either way you go more then 2GB requires you to make other sacrifices.


----------



## KennyT772 (Jun 9, 2006)

ok for newtekie. open up the task manager (ctrl + alt + del incase u didnt know). on the very bottom of the box there will be three peices of info. for me this is 
Processes :30 | CPU Usage: 0% | Commit Charge: 328/1927
the last peice of info is the amount used/amount total of space for programs to use, aka ram (1024mb) + pagefile (1000mb-1500mb). when you turn the pagefile off it will show somewhere around (current ram load)/1024-1050 as windows needs some hdd space for system temp files and things that cannot be lost if power is lost before shutdown. no matter what you do there will always be a pagefile in windows. the only thing you can do is set weather windows will use it or not. 

now on the 1t - 2t question. 2t causes a hit in performance end of story. in memory only benchmarks it can be up to a 30% hit end of story. will there ever be a 30% hit in app performance or games? no end of story. you dont seem to get that when you are running a game more things impact it then just you command rate. but i garentee if u have a 2500+ running with a x1900xtx and set everything at lowest grfx settings it will make a hell of a lot more difference then if u crack the res all the way up and turn everything on max. 

now on the more then 2gb makes a a64 buggy question. in reality it doesnt matter what system u have today more then 2gb will get buggy end of story. there are not good timings yet on 2gb sticks. also if u run 4x512 its still gonna be buggy due to lots of despersed memory addresses, and maby one of the mem chips is a litter slower then the rest on the stick. 

so before you call anyone a n00b or newb or noob just shut the fuck up as u dont know what you are talking about. if u did you wouldnt bitch at those who know less then you.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 9, 2006)

wow talk about getting it twisted, I know there is a hit when going to 2t that is obvious my point was it isn't as high as he stated in real World applications. Show me w real world application taking a 30% memory write hit. And not a si soft or Everest benchmark.

Which he didn't so I still stand by my post!


And kenny please explain to me what your definition of buggy is? I do know some users with 4x1GB sticks in athlon 64 system that are as stable as my 2GB system. u care to explain why thier rigs aren't buggy.

And if you were to re read my post I never once called him a liar or a newb. 

I just wanted proof of his claims.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 9, 2006)

also smartass, if your gonna give an example alteast make it a usable one. 

You can't run a x1900xtx in a AGP motherboard first of all.

And if you happen to be lucky enough to own one these cards who the hell would be playing at the lowest possible settings anyways.

I think your the one that needs to STFU.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 10, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> wow talk about getting it twisted, I know there is a hit when going to 2t that is obvious my point was it isn't as high as he stated in real World applications. Show me w real world application taking a 30% memory write hit. And not a si soft or Everest benchmark.
> 
> Which he didn't so I still stand by my post!
> 
> ...



When exactly did he say how big of a real world hit it is?  Oh wait...thats right.  *HE NEVER DID!*  He just said it did make a difference.  Why are you arguing with this?  Again he backed his original statement up 100%.

Buggy, in my definition, is anything undesired.  It don't have to be unstable, it is unstable at 1T, and forcing me to run at 2T is something undesired.  Buggy does not always mean unstable.  Oh and besides that, why are we forced to run at 2T?  Because it is unstable at 1T, so even your "buggy has to mean unstable" argument is fulfilled.

Oh and by saying you think his statements are false, you are calling him a liar.  To bad he backed up his statement word for word.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 10, 2006)

Makaveli: You are just making an idiot of yourself. I never once stated real-world performance loss, that was you. As has been said i backed up my statement that there was a loss, without going to the extreme lengths of doing 20 odd gaming tests for you. This thread is NOT about games. Its about the advantages of the I-ram have memory in it, compared to the main system.

Do not call that guy a noob over the XP2500/1900xtx example. IT WAS AN EXAMPLE. He matched an old CPU with the fastest vide card around, for the specific purpose of making a point. He did not suggest they were compatible in the real world. He did not tell you to buy that combination, so please just shut the hell up and stop whining.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

wow you guys have selective reading, when did I call that other jackass a noob.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 10, 2006)

and you have a selective brain, to find the slightest flaw in what we say so that you can distract people from the things you're doing and saying. Noob, jackass... you're calling people names constantly.

Hmm you didnt happen to have edited your post did you?
 Last edited by Makaveli : 06-09-2006 at 11:07 PM.


"And if you were to re read my post I never once called him a liar or a newb.

I just wanted proof of his claims."

If you want us to beleive you, dont edit your damn posts.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 10, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> wow you guys have selective reading, when did I call that other jackass a noob.



Well lets see, so far you have implied that I have learned my computer knowledge from the back of a cereal box because more then 2GB of memory, according to you, doesn't make A64 systems buggy...though I already pointed out that it does in fact give undesirable results which to me equals buggy and that 4 sticks of ram, which is requires to run more then 2GB of memory and still keep dual channel and every other performance enhancing feature would always run unstable...so still even your "it isn't unstable so it isn't buggy" argument is out, because it is in fact unstable with more then 2GB if I want to keep the same performance.

Then there is the whole smartass, and obviously the jackass remarks about the other poster, not to mention that implying that people are liars and then trying to put words in their mouth to try and make it look like you are right.  So, while not directly saying n00b, you have resourted to childish name calling because you probably realized that you know the least out of anyone in this discussion about the subjects at hand.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 10, 2006)

newtekie1 said:
			
		

> Well lets see, so far you have implied that I have learned my computer knowledge from the back of a cereal box because more then 2GB of memory, according to you, doesn't make A64 systems buggy...though I already pointed out that it does in fact give undesirable results which to me equals buggy and that 4 sticks of ram, which is requires to run more then 2GB of memory and still keep dual channel and every other performance enhancing feature would always run unstable...so still even your "it isn't unstable so it isn't buggy" argument is out, because it is in fact unstable with more then 2GB if I want to keep the same performance.
> 
> Then there is the whole smartass, and obviously the jackass remarks about the other poster, not to mention that implying that people are liars and then trying to put words in their mouth to try and make it look like you are right.  So, while not directly saying n00b, you have resourted to childish name calling because you probably realized that you know the least out of anyone in this discussion about the subjects at hand.



Especially since 1T/2T isnt even what the discussion is meant to be about, but the I-ram 2...


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 10, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> also smartass, if your gonna give an example alteast make it a usable one.
> 
> You can't run a x1900xtx in a AGP motherboard first of all.
> 
> ...



WTF? Ok smartass, when did he say it was an AGP card?


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

jimmy he said a 2500+ and a x1900XTK . Guess what there is no 2500+ a64, therefore he was implying a Athlon XP 2500+ which is socket A, there for a AGP motherboard. jesus christ are u guys all blind.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

and mussels I edit my post for spelling and grammer nothing else. so stop implying bs


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

the cereal box comment was for mussels not for u newtekie. I know the dicussion was about the I-ram I just didn't agree with the A64 buggy comment, and the huge performance hit from 2t. it wasn't to all u rest of u wankers who decided to jump into help this guy. when i'm pretty sure he can speak for himself.

And ya I know less than everyone here

i've only been doing this computer thing since I was 12. my first pc was a 80286, first pc I ever build was a 80386. and i'm 25 now.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

and please show me in my post when I specifically called someone a newb.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 10, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> jimmy he said a 2500+ and a x1900XTK . Guess what there is no 2500+ a64, therefore he was implying a Athlon XP 2500+ which is socket A, there for a AGP motherboard. jesus christ are u guys all blind.



Again, did you ever think that maybe he just made a typo?  No one is perfect, and 2 and 3 are right next to eachother on the keyboard, unlike X and K...x1900XTK?  And you are talking to him about setups that don't exists, get a damn life.

Besides all that he was making a direct comment about how 1T and 2T command rates to make a difference, and how noticeable it is depends on a lot of factors, and then gave an example of when 1T and 2T command rates would make a very noticeable difference.  No tell me do 1T and 2T command rates even exist on Athlon XP systems, since you probably don't actually know the answer I will tell you.  No they don't exist, so again, what is more likely?  He just made a mistake and typed 2500 instead of 3500, or he really meant 2500 and meant to setup an example that neither applies nor could prossibly exist.



			
				Makaveli said:
			
		

> the cereal box comment was for mussels not for u newtekie. I know the dicussion was about the I-ram I just didn't agree with the A64 buggy comment, and the huge performance hit from 2t. it wasn't to all u rest of u wankers who decided to jump into help this guy. when i'm pretty sure he can speak for himself.
> 
> And ya I know less than everyone here
> 
> i've only been doing this computer thing since I was 12. my first pc was a 80286, first pc I ever build was a 80386. and i'm 25 now.



Bull, it wasn't directed at me, but you start of by talking about people posting nonsense, then qouted me, responded to the quote and then asked if I learned my computer knowledge from a cereal box.  Right, but it wasn't directed toward me.  Nice try jackass, but I really think you should STFU because you are an idiot.

Also how does any your "My first computer was a 286 I have been at computers since I was 12" shit apply here?  I don't really care when you built your first computer or what your first PC was, none of that applies to the subjects at hand which you obviosly know nothing about.  So far you have said that mussels lyed when you said that 2T can cause a 30% Memory Write hit and that, from what I can only assume is your "experience", it isn't anywhere near 30%, which he then provided proof that it does in fact cause a 30% memory write hit.  Strike one for you.  Then you said that more then 2GB isn't buggy on A64 rigs, which I then explained that it was in fact buggy and even unstable.  Strike two for you.

You are zero for two in the knowing what you are talking about column...so maybe it is you who learned your computer knowledge from the back of a cereal box.



			
				Makaveli said:
			
		

> and mussels I edit my post for spelling and grammer nothing else. so stop implying bs



But yet you still left obvious typos and gammer mistakes in it...odd.



			
				Makaveli said:
			
		

> and please show me in my post when I specifically called someone a newb.



Well, with everyone having the ability to edit posts that is kind of hard.  I am not saying that you did in fact edit out when you called him a n00b, I didn't see it so I can't even confirm that you originally did.  Anyone can edit their posts to say something completely different then what the originally said, so asking something like that simply doesn't work on a forum like this, especially when you have actually gone back and editted your posts.

Besides, implying that the other person is a n00b by jumping all over him when it is pretty obvious to the rest of us that he made a typo and freaking out about how his setup would never even exist is close enough for me to say you were calling him a n00b.  You didn't directly come out and say it, but you sure though it otherwise you wouldn't have responded to it and bashed him.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

he said it was a 30% peformance it writing to memory. And showed me a everest benchmark. and I said show me a real world applications taking that same memory hit. and he has yet to show me that.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

and yes there were still some errors in the post, when I edited it, but I left them as is. I did most of the reply's from work, when I actually was doing something abit more important at the time. I gave the example of when I started cause one of your guys post, keeps implying I don't know what i'm talking about.  when i'm been doing this for well over 10 years


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

and if he doesn't make a  correction how am I suppose to know he is talking about a 3500+ your assuming it was typo, until he states that what he wrote stays.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

what u presume is close enough to me to me calling him a noob and me actually doing it is 2 different things. I don't give a damn how u thought I wrote. I never called him noob and my post show that. So maybe you should stop putting words in my mouth


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 10, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> he said it was a 30% peformance it writing to memory. And showed me a everest benchmark. and I said show me a real world applications taking that same memory hit. and he has yet to show me that.



Now who is the one with a selective reading problem?  He said "can be as much as 30% on memory write speeds", there is no way to translate that into real world performance, there is no way to show that 2T causes a 30% memory write speed decrease with anything other then a synthtic benchmark.  I can't think of any real world programs that let you monitor your memory write speeds...can you?  So how exactly is he supposed to show that there is a 30% memory write speed decrease with 2T without synthetic benchmarks?



			
				Makaveli said:
			
		

> and yes there were still some errors in the post, when I edited it, but I left them as is. I did most of the reply's from work, when I actually was doing something abit more important at the time. I gave the example of when I started cause one of your guys post, keeps implying I don't know what i'm talking about.  when i'm been doing this for well over 10 years



Again, how long you have been working with computers has no impact on this discussion.  You are still zero for two in the having a clue column...



			
				Makaveli said:
			
		

> and if he doesn't make a  correction how am I suppose to know he is talking about a 3500+ your assuming it was typo, until he states that what he wrote stays.



Simple, you use logic combined with a little computer knowledge, I'll assume you do have some, even if it is very limitted which I am guessing it is.

1.) He was making a direct comment about how 2T affects performance in A64s.
2.) Then he made an example with a 2500+, which if that is really what he meant would not even have a 2T command rate issue because there was no 1T and 2T with Athlon XPs.
3.) The numbers 2 and 3 are right next to eachother on the keyboard.

Hmmm....maybe it was a typo...it might be possible, I mean no one is perfect.

Edit: Oh and Makaveli, since I know you actually don't know this due to your limitted computer knowedge. It is entirely possible to run a x1900XTX with a 2500+. So you are in fact completely wrong on that issue, even if it wasn't a typo.



			
				Makaveli said:
			
		

> what u presume is close enough to me to me calling him a noob and me actually doing it is 2 different things. I don't give a damn how u thought I wrote. I never called him noob and my post show that. So maybe you should stop putting words in my mouth



Did I ever say you called him a n00b?  No, I simply said you implied it, which you did.  So maybe you are the one that should stop putting words in peoples mouths.

And for Christ's sake are you that starved for attention that you have to make a post for every sentence you write?


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 10, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> jimmy he said a 2500+ and a x1900XTK . Guess what there is no 2500+ a64, therefore he was implying a Athlon XP 2500+ which is socket A, there for a AGP motherboard. jesus christ are u guys all blind.




WRONG!!!! He said a 2500+... hold on second... I do believe that you can get a Sempron socket 754 CPU can you not? And oh! Look! PLENTY of mobos with socket 754 and PCI-E!!! Now lets put that together: Sempron 2500+ socket 754 and a PCI-E Motherboard means you CAN have an x1900XTX!! Someone is talking out his arse!!! So why don't you actually take a look at what you're saying before posting it idiot. And stop having a go at everyone on these forums.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

no i'm not starved for attention, but I am enjoying this. you guys were the ones that started the name calling. not that it matters to me what u call me. 

but I  enjoyed the feedback from mussles, just not from josie and the pussycats!


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 10, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> no i'm not starved for attention, but I am enjoying this.



Nice to see you don't mind being wrong then.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

everyone can be wrong at one point or another. more so in a forum than other ways, it just matters how u play with the words.

the hostility in these forums was the funniest part for me, not to mention the gang banging


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 10, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> everyone can be wrong at one point or another. more so in a forum than other ways, it just matters how u play with the words.
> 
> the hostility in these forums was the funniest part for me, not to mention the gang banging



Sounds like you were after a different forum if you enjoyed the gang banging.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 10, 2006)

W1zzard said:
			
		

> gigabyte just told me it does not use sata-ii. the problem is that the xilinx chip can not run that fast. this is because gigabyte has to engineer a memory controller like in a chipset, without previous experience (like intel, amd or ati) this is very hard to do .. 2gb modules do not work yet either but its definitely planned



Overall, this sounds like a definite improvement over the unit I use (CENATEK RocketDrive) in that it can bootup an OS from itself, that it uses a faster memory type (DDR in init. version & DDR2 in this newer one), & also a faster bus type (SATA vs. PCI 2.2).

The ONLY QUESTION I have about it, is does it maintain state between reboots? I would guess YES, via somekind of CMOS battery, etc. (where the unit I use has an independent powersupply, external hookup).

Anyhow - It's making me want to put the rocketdrive back into my first rig (which is relegated to pure server work here, running IIS 6.x & SQLServer 2005, for work & lab purposes @ home), & replace it in my latest rig (see signature).



I do know 1 thing, from real-world practice & experience using these things (pagefile.sys on first partition here, & webpage cache, %temp% ops location (apps & OS), logging (apps & OS), print spool location, %comspec% location, & even running SETI from it on 2nd partition) that things DO speedup... I tested this out (not benchmarks, just "feel" performance of the system w/out the solid state disk in place) here, & there was a diff.

Just not hearing my disks "grind" paging/logging/webpage caching/temp ops etc. was proof enough (as we ALL know that memory is 1000's of times faster than HDD's are, & just common-sense if applied properly), as well as just getting crisper overall response from my system using a slower model of solid-state disk here for various things!

FOR REAL WORLD TESTS THOUGH? Well, YEARS AGO (circa 2003) I DID A REVIEW FOR CENATEK, "An independent users review" on their front page of their site, & it noted many things improving (synthetic tests, to ones with WinZip etc.).

* Things in this field just get BETTER, all the time, & it makes you want to burn dollars! That's for sure... oh well, that is good too (albeit not on a personal finance level, lol), because it keeps the economy running!



			
				Makaveli said:
			
		

> the hostility in these forums was the funniest part for me, not to mention the gang banging



I don't know you @ all, & you may be a heck of a nice guy... 

HOWEVER, you DID startup with the "cereal box" thing (lol, which was funny, but it got the people you ribbed on, on your case now)... but, the point is, you DID kick up the mess iirc from my skim of this post.

Fact is? I think these forums are pretty cool, & folks are less prone to startups of fights... @ least so far, & I am new here myself.

Heh, & I may be the LAST person who should say "don't flame war" here, lol, because I have been known to be quite "notorious" for it myself!

APK

P.S.=> Guys! Enough with the debating/name tossing already... both sides have points imo.

Makavelli does in 1 regard - that nothing "real world application-wise" shows bennies from DDR2/AM2 iirc, @ least not yet (other than raw memory benchmarks tests/synthetics)... & the others did catch him on various points via exceptions. Anyhow, it dragged this way off-topic & started up a "flame war"... 

Interesting read for a flame-war though, many interesting points were made on the hardware level & enlightened me in fact on many fine points (I just skimmed, so cut me some slack if I messed up on some points I noted above), so I guess it wasn't ALL that bad then, eh?

(Compared to many of you on the hardware-side? I am a relative "noob" when it comes to current/state-of-the-art equipment, so I can gain by your discussions... even when they are name-tossing flamewar ones!) apk


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 10, 2006)

Jimmy 2004 said:
			
		

> Sounds like you were after a different forum if you enjoyed the gang banging.




lol point and case I said it was funny, not that I was looking for it


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 10, 2006)

Alec§taar said:
			
		

> Overall, this sounds like a definite improvement over the unit I use (CENATEK RocketDrive) in that it can bootup an OS from itself, that it uses a faster memory type (DDR in init. version & DDR2 in this newer one), & also a faster bus type (SATA vs. PCI 2.2).



I didn't realise Sata was faster than PCI  . But anyway, surely (like I think someone said earlier on) DDR ram is faster than SATA II anyway so DDRII won't give all of the benefit.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 10, 2006)

Jimmy 2004 said:
			
		

> I didn't realise Sata was faster than PCI  . But anyway, surely (like I think someone said earlier on) DDR ram is faster than SATA II anyway so DDRII won't give all of the benefit.



Well, I think so (on the bus speeds part & you are right-on as far as DDR/DDR2 speeds, @ least as far as AM2 chipsets by AMD have shown, thusfar @ least)!

Anyhow: on bus speeds -

PCI 2.2 (which my CENATEK rocketdrive & the HyperOS III use as slot bus insertion to mobo types) does what? 133mb/sec??

SATA does what?? 150mb/sec???

(So, iirc, & I have my "facts" straight - even SATA 1 blows it out by 17mb/sec transferral rates, albeit, those may be BURST rates).

Now, SATA II does 300mb/sec. (& according to Wiz, who spoke to them & I quoted it, SATA II's not in use by Gigabyte for this IRAM solid-state disk (yet))!

* Still, remember:  The rates we're citing? They are purely theoretical... rarely equating to that in practice.

In any event - it has my 'itching' to invest in one of these... they DO sound great! 

NOW, What I would like to see, is a PCI-e implementation of these, especially via the x1 & x4 sockets, as they have a faster transferral rate than PCI 2.2 for sure, & possibly, SATA!

I have an open PCI-Express x1 slot on my mobo now, & it would be NEAT to get a solid-state disk that took advantage of it & its transfer rates, providing they are superior to SATA 1...

APK

P.S.=> Correct me where I am "off" guys,  because I can stand to gain via correction as much as the next guy can (especially in hardware know-how etc.)... apk


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 10, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> no i'm not starved for attention, but I am enjoying this. you guys were the ones that started the name calling. not that it matters to me what u call me.
> 
> but I  enjoyed the feedback from mussles, just not from josie and the pussycats!



Nice try, but you were actually the first person to start insult others in this thread.

And you enjoy being proven wrong every step of the way?  What did you read the "Getting Started" manual that came with your Dell and now you think you are some kind of computer expert?


----------



## Mussels (Jun 11, 2006)

No makaveli, you are. He said "if you were to pair up something like" not 'if i stuck an XTX in my old AGP system'

He did NOT directly state that it was AGP. you assumed that. He did not even mention it was a remotely feasible system, it was an example of an old CPU and a high powered video card. YOU are blind, because like everything in this thread, YOU have missed the entire point.

Stop nagging over minor issues and pay attention to what people are saying, not ways you can harass them over the mose pointless things.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 11, 2006)

*Practical applications & results of Solid-State RamDisks*

See subject line, & this URL:

http://www.avatar.demon.nl/cenatek.html



* That's a review I did for CENATEK in 2002-2003 showing results & gains you get by using solid-state diskdrives, & for home-use purposes!

(Another one I did for SuperSpeed.com/EEC systems years before it, lends itself MORE to how you can use these things in industrial environs/server purposes, especially for database work - iirc, the link for that is also on that page as well)...  but, if it's outta date, moved, etc.? Here tis:

http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/faq.php

A decent read imo & possibly one that may help you decide on whether or not you could use one of these units (which have only gotten better imo, than the 1 I have here...)

APK


----------



## Mussels (Jun 12, 2006)

while dated, that info is a good indication that just speeding the page file alone is a good boost to everyday apps.

2-4GB of I-RAM pagefile goodness seems pretty appealing, as XP doesnt care if it has to re-create the page file on each boot.

Have cenatek released any products like that lately? It's not a name i've heard here in aus.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 12, 2006)

Mussels said:
			
		

> while dated, that info is a good indication that just speeding the page file alone is a good boost to everyday apps.



Dated doesn't matter - it's ALL principals, they never age... you gain no matter what really, and with any type of solid-state drive... It all really depends on how you apply them.

(However, this newer type using faster bus types than the PCI 2.2 model I have, faster RAM types, & also just all in all better/newer technologies will only do you right, even moreso, imo! Especially since you can bootup from it...)



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> 2-4GB of I-RAM pagefile goodness seems pretty appealing, as XP doesnt care if it has to re-create the page file on each boot.



True, but if you see my signature below, or my earlier posts? There is a great deal MORE you can do & move to it, to get even better performance out of your system using these units!



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> Have cenatek released any products like that lately? It's not a name i've heard here in aus.



Not that I am aware of, which is WHY I am very interested in getting one of these units, and then placing this one back into my older system.

APK


----------



## Mussels (Jun 12, 2006)

I'm not denying anything you've said, i agree with it. I just prefer a way that wont break my system should something go wrong with the drive 

 if its just a pagefile, everyone can do that and theres no  issue. Browser cache idea i like too. but windows temp i'm not so keen on, in case files went missing that were in use/needed.

 (i've emptied temp files before and broken some rather badly coded apps)

i want 10GB ramdisk drives already


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 12, 2006)

Mussels said:
			
		

> I'm not denying anything you've said, i agree with it.



Cool, because it all works (very well I have to add). There are "catches" though, like what I mention below (UPS)... IF you demand that level of "uptime" & keeping state on them, that is.

Most of what I do on mine, if you note HOW I use it? Doesn't demand that...

Only in DB work would I start to worry... but, that's where DB backup/mirror is something most DBA's practice.



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> I just prefer a way that wont break my system should something go wrong with the drive



Nothing really ever does here @ least... there's no moving parts & they tend to last (e.g.-> Mine's been going strong for 4 years now).

Having a working, reliable, backup UPS helps a LOT though, if you are doing work on them that demands keeping state.



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> if its just a pagefile, everyone can do that and theres no  issue. Browser cache idea i like too. but windows temp i'm not so keen on, in case files went missing that were in use/needed.



That's what the UPS is for, but temp ops are just that: TEMPORARY.

(You can always redo an operation if needed).



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> (i've emptied temp files before and broken some rather badly coded apps)



That'd be the app's design downfall then, imo @ least, & it seems, yours also.

Personally, I've never had a problem in that capacity here, & have been at this stuff for quite a while now, with a pretty fairly wide range of apps (relative term, this varies person-to-person in this field of course). 

Power outages CAN floor you though, but, they can do the same to an "ordinary setup" too!

However, please note, that if you do the things I do (mostly folders oriented), you create a batchfile to immediately recreate that folder structure & poof - you're "back-in-business".

That, or be sure to have a UPS!

Once you've formatted them, that is... & that? Heh, only takes SECONDS, literally.

(Try that with a std. HDD! So do defrags... unreal speed!)

ON THOSE "BADLY CODED APPS":

Can you recall what apps those were?? I'm curious on this note, because I will either avoid them, or write their author with a potential fix in his/her design.



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> i want 10GB ramdisk drives already



This one's close, iirc, the IRAM current model can do like 8gb, iirc, from the reads on it (possibly more if "spanned or striped").

The CENATEK unit I have, if striped for example, can go up to 16gb, but the cost of this is prohibitive (needs 4 of these boards & the RAM too - NOT CHEAP!).

APK


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 12, 2006)

Heh, on my wondering if there is going to be a PCI-Express implementation of these types of cards (solid-state ramdisk drives) here earlier? 

Well, I got a "PM" in my UserCP inbox some of you may wish to be made aware of!

Very cool, check it (along with my reply to him):



			
				DDRdrive said:
			
		

> Alec§taar,
> 
> I read your post concerning the Gigabyte i-RAM, and wanted to make you aware of a PCI Express based solution that will be released later this year.
> 
> ...



WoW... NIFTY! Thanks for that info... bigtime!



			
				DDRdrive said:
			
		

> *** I remember your review of the RocketDrive!





Ha, thanks for that!

APK

P.S.=> Is that "smokin" or what? Folks into this arena are on it as far as PCI-e usage, already, & watching user concerns on forums like these, which is cool imo!

Plus, they are also working on JUST what I need too!

That is because I have an open PCI-e 1x slot left on this mobo (& iirc, PCI-e 1x is FAR better "bandwidth" than PCI 2.2 is, & possibly more than this latest SATA one from Gigabyte in their IRAM GC-Ramdisk as well, but not sure on THAT latter account here though - I'd have to double-check!): 

I did just check, & oddly, from my other post about Gigabyte's products, here are the bandwidth specs of each current bus type (NOTE THE BOLDED ONES - for comparison's sake (SATA/SATA II vs. PCI-e 1x slot mounted type noted by the person who wrote me in PM)):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Common Buses and their Max Bandwidth*

PCI 132 MB/s 
AGP 8X 2,100 MB/s 
*PCI Express 1x 250 [500]* MB/s* 
PCI Express 2x 500 [1000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 4x 1000 [2000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 8x 2000 [4000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 16x 4000 [8000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 32x 8000 [16000]* MB/s 
IDE (ATA100) 100 MB/s 
IDE (ATA133) 133 MB/s 
*SATA 1 150 MB/s 
SATA 2 300 MB/s* 
Gigabit Ethernet 125 MB/s 
IEEE1394B [firewire] 100 MB/s

PCI Express is a serial based technology (transmitting data in packets over the first four layers of the OSI model in fact afaik & even does packet retranmission retries if any are dropped - couple that with SATA 1/2 crc32 checks (iirc, it does that) & you get better reliability as well & even packet reprioritization (QoS) so that streaming media like video get priority over other data types for smoother/faster processing).

Thus, data can be sent over the bus in two directions at once.

Normal PCI is Parallel, and as such all data goes in one direction around the loop. 

A 1x lane in PCI Express transmits in both directions at once serially, simultaneously. 

In the table above, the first number is the bandwidth in one direction and the second number is the combined bandwidth in both directions. 

Note that in PCI Express bandwidth is not shared the same way as in PCI, so there is less congestion on the bus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Convenient & cool for me @ least, possibly for you others as well w/ PCI-e capable mobos... because this SMOKES the SATA/SATA II bandwidth possibilities even!* apk


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 12, 2006)

Ha, check it out... the prototype photo above, of this unit Chris (DDdrive) wrote me about above!



* PCI-e 1x slot & all!

APK

P.S.=> WELL, nice as the newest offering from Gigabyte with their DDR2/SATA 1 offering is, this looks like THE one to go for imo @ least!

(I have an open PCI-e 1x slot here is why)

Best performance, especially regarding the bus-transfer ceilings table I noted in my last post!

I think it'd make one heck of an addition to my system in my specs below, completing it as far as I am concerned & allowing me to reinsert the CENATEK "rocketdrive" solid-state PCI 2.2 bustype unit back into my server rig (SQLServer 2005 + IIS6.x)... so it is as fast as it ever was & gets the best I can out of it too, by using these units! apk


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 12, 2006)

mussels my point was its obvious he is try trying to pair up a Highend videocard with a low end system. to show a videocard bottleneck. but doesn't mean it still not a stupid example and not feasible. Who in there right might would buy a x1900 series videocard and pair it up with a sempron or a celeron for that matter. 


And as for newtekie look at my system specs and tell me again I have a dell.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 12, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> mussels my point was its obvious he is try trying to pair up a Highend videocard with a low end system. to show a videocard bottleneck. but doesn't mean it still not a stupid example and not feasible. Who in there right might would buy a x1900 series videocard and pair it up with a sempron or a celeron for that matter.
> 
> 
> And as for newtekie look at my system specs and tell me again I have a dell.



No, he did it to remove the video card from being the bottleneck of the system, so that the slowdown of the memory bandwidth limitation would be noticeable.  Obviously it isn't a very smart to put an x1900XTX with a Sempron or Celeron, though it doesn't change the fact that you were completely wrong in assuming that the only way to get a 2500+ is to have an AGP board.  It is completely feasible and possible, just not the best thing to do.

I could really care less about what system specs you list, what prevents you from lieing about them?  Oh wait I know, it is how much of a stand up guy you are...oh wait you have done nothing to even hint that you are worth the space you take up in this world.  So far you have been wrong about pretty much everything you have said, and when people correct you all you do is insult them...so to assume you would lie about your system specs is not really that far fetched.

So now that I have looked at you system specs, even though I did already look at them before making my comment originally, I still stand by what I said, and still think you got the bulk of your computer knowledge from the "Getting Started" manual of a Dell.  No wait, I am going to downgrade that, you got your computer knowledge from the back of a cereal box.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 12, 2006)

OK, enough with the arguing now guys. It will all end in bans!  

I'll say I'm sorry for any offence I've caused if you guys stop now.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 13, 2006)

Lmao, I like how u recycled my joke u lil bitch. And yes I insulted u since the others have stopped and your lil kid ass seems to continue.

O and yes I made up all those specs cause I like lying on forums to cover up the fact that this is my first rig ever, and i'm a complete noob. 

Seriously I have a life.

Just don't tell that to my former Boss at hewlett packard, its not good to lie on your resume.

Anyways, I can post pictures of my rig if any of u doubt me. And what prevents u from lying about your rig eh son?

Do I care to ask u for proof no, I will give u the benefit of the doubt that its the truth. Do I care if your lying not really. do I seriously give a fuck if u keep insulting me not really. Who are u again?


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 13, 2006)

*What do you people think? Photo & new tech in this area??*

DDRdrive X1 PCI-Express slot solid-state ramdisk:






Got a GREAT tip on it here in PM, & looks like one I'd want!

PCI-Express capable  via x1 slot (faster than SATA 1) & DDR Ram is why!

My current mobo has 1  Pci-e slot left open, & of x1 type!!!

THAT exact type as far as bus slot types available here (others w/ newer mobos w/ PCI-e will want to @ least take note of this imo)!

IMO? Yes, it most likely would SMOKE my current SSD, mainly due to bus type & RAM used (pci 2.2 vs. pci-e x1, & PC-3200 SDRAM vs. DDR 1) & though I hate to almost say it?? I'd wager the Gigabyte GC-Ramdisk too... due to bustype used mainly imo!

ANYHOW -  DO check it out, the soon to be released prototype photo above, of this unit Chris (DDdrive) wrote me about above (see last page) im PM!



* PCI-e 1x slot & all, here is a bus speeds reference table for your comparisons for bus speeds compares, & later another with RAM speed compares, bandwidth ceilings-wise:

PCI Express is a serial based technology (transmitting data in packets over the first four layers of the OSI model in fact afaik & even does packet retranmission retries if any are dropped - couple that with SATA 1/2 crc32 checks (iirc, it does that) & you get better reliability as well & even packet reprioritization (QoS) so that streaming media like video get priority over other data types for smoother/faster processing).

Thus, data can be sent over the bus in two directions at once.

Normal PCI is Parallel, and as such all data goes in one direction around the loop. 

A 1x lane in PCI Express transmits in both directions at once serially, simultaneously. 

In the table above, the first number is the bandwidth in one direction and the second number is the combined bandwidth in both directions. 

Note that in PCI Express bandwidth is not shared the same way as in PCI, so there is less congestion on the bus.

===============================================================

*Common Buses & their Max Bandwidth*

*PCI 132 MB/s * (type current CENATEK SSD I have uses)
AGP 8X 2,100 MB/s 
*PCI Express 1x 250 [500]* MB/s* (type this DDRdrive will use)
PCI Express 2x 500 [1000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 4x 1000 [2000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 8x 2000 [4000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 16x 4000 [8000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 32x 8000 [16000]* MB/s 
IDE (ATA100) 100 MB/s 
IDE (ATA133) 133 MB/s 
*SATA 1 150 MB/s* (type the GC-Ramdisk by Gigabyte uses)
SATA 2 300 MB/s 
Gigabit Ethernet 125 MB/s 
IEEE1394B [firewire] 100 MB/s

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Ram types involved bandwidth comparison table:*

*PC-133 SDRAM Ram bandwidth (cenatek rocketdrive uses this)* = 133 MHz x 8 Bytes = *1.064 GB/s*  & matches bustype used in PCI 2.2 for it.

*DDR 1 Ram bandwidth (DDRdrive uses this iirc)* = DDR-400: 200 MHz max type + *2.1 GB/s* (here I think that this one could be faster if it used it to "max-it-out")...

*DDR 2 Ram bandwidth (new Gigabyte uses this)* = PC2-6400: 400 MHz using DDR2-800 chips, *6.400 GB/s* bandwidth max type

===============================================================

* You guys tell me where you'd go if you have PCI-Express x1 slots? 

NOW, imo, it'd be nice to see it use DDR2 on this new one, but speeds match the bus type used... imo, & maybe others can correct me here is, that the Gigabyte unit using SATA 1 & DDR2 won't fully tap the DDR2 potential... 

So, this DDRdrive may be faster due to faster busses used for BURST read/writes &/or ALSO a better match RAM to bustype used as well!

APK

P.S.=> Opinions wanted & screenshot posted for your sakes & to blow by the flamewar that got started here is all... enjoy & thoughts?

I think it'd pair up well w/ my current rig & allow me to place my current SSD back into the system it originally was in, my DB & WebServer rig! apk


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 13, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> Lmao, I like how u recycled my joke u lil bitch. And yes I insulted u since the others have stopped and your lil kid ass seems to continue.
> 
> O and yes I made up all those specs cause I like lying on forums to cover up the fact that this is my first rig ever, and i'm a complete noob.
> 
> ...



That recycling your joke was kind of the point of the joke.  Again, you are the one that started insulting people, you were the first one to insult anyone in this topic, and by far have thrown the most insults out of anyone, while any time you actually tried to make a point you were proven wrong.  You can try and make it seem like you are the big man on the internet all you want.  The fact is that I have proven you wrong more then once in this topic, and I still think you are just a kid that still lives with your parents.

You are the one that keeps going, I let this go a long time ago, the argument was dead and the topic moved on, you are the one that started it back up you child.

If you did work at HP you most likely was the stock boy...since you are way to childish to maintain any position higher then that.

I never asked you for proof of anything, I just suggested where you got your computer knowledge from, and I never even suggested that you still owned the dell that came with the "Getting Started" manual that you learned all your knowledge from.

I know it is going to be hard for you to let this go, but I am not responding to any more of your colmpletely backwards arguments/posts.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 13, 2006)

about damn time I was waiting for u to STFU.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 13, 2006)

now back to the topic at hand, anyone know when the release date is for this product, I might be able to use something like this in a rig i'm building for someone.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 13, 2006)

Makaveli said:
			
		

> now back to the topic at hand, anyone know when the release date is for this product, I might be able to use something like this in a rig i'm building for someone.



The Gigabyte GC-Ramdisk using SATA 1 150mb/sec bus type & DDR-2 6.4gb/sec bandwidth memory

OR

The DDRdrive x1 using Pci-e 1x 500mb/sec bus type & DDR-1 2.1 gb/sec bandwidth memory

?

* Good question eh? I am wondering about it myself, & leaning to the PCI-e 1x solution pictured above...

Either of those newer 2 types above are better than what I use now CENATEK (PCI 2.2 133mb/sec bus type  & 133mb/sec PC-133 SDRAM bandwidth memory)!

(I get either & I move the rocketdrive by cenatek back into my older server rig, & speed it up again + have my newer rig on an even FASTER type of these SSD's!

Either one beats what I have now technologies/hardware-wise & I'd gain imo!

However, the match up of the bus/ram types is what I wonder about - imo, the DDRdrive would be the better performer, @ least on BURSTs due to bus type used.

APK

P.S.=> Anyone who is into these ought to check that out & make comparisons, especially IF they have PCI-Express capable mobos w/ SATA1/2 capabilities! apk


----------



## KennyT772 (Jun 13, 2006)

allright while i was busy having a life you guys were still arguing on my words. i never said that there was a 2500+ on a 939 platform. what i intended was looked right past by those who were digging deeper then i meant. i simply ment a slow ass processor. if u take a slow ass cpu and put it with the fastest gpu available (aka x1900xtx) you will be cpu and hence memory bottlenecked showing a greater difference in framerates/compression times ect. i made that example to show how you really benchmark things, not the half ass "well that should work" approch. make the part in question the limiting factor and you will receive much more consistant results and most importantly reproducable results on like systems instead of "well at max settings you will get 17fps in this game". 

and to Makaveli go whine to ur boss about firing you after suckin his dick wrong. after all thats about the best u can do with ur logic...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 13, 2006)

I whish they would get the DDrive out already.  I say that exact same prototype picture several months ago and have been patiently waiting for it so I can finally have a use for my PCI-E x1 slot.  I do hope it has come a long way though, like having an onboard battery, I would also like to have RAM slots on both sides to be able to use 8 1GB stick(which would be cheaper and I have plenty of laying around) or even 8 2GB sticks, that would also be pretty nice to get 16GB on one DDrive.  Though I know that it probably won't see 8 memory slots.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 13, 2006)

newtekie1 said:
			
		

> I whish they would get the DDrive out already.  I say that exact same prototype picture several months ago and have been patiently waiting for it so I can finally have a use for my PCI-E x1 slot.



Coming soon, see pm letter excerpt I got here on these forums, way cool!

Someone named Chris wrote me  in PM, last page, & sounds like he is involved w/ this unit in fact!

See last page.

So that was the first I got wind of it, later than yourself!



			
				newtekie1 said:
			
		

> I do hope it has come a long way though, like having an onboard battery, I would also like to have RAM slots on both sides to be able to use 8 1GB stick(which would be cheaper and I have plenty of laying around) or even 8 2GB sticks, that would also be pretty nice to get 16GB on one DDrive.  Though I know that it probably won't see 8 memory slots.



Here are its specs (answers some of your questions):

==================================================

*DDRdrive X1 Pre-Release Specifications:*

* PCI Express x1 based plug-in card.
* 8GB capacity / 4 DDR 184 pin DIMMs (Bootable).
* Custom and upgradeable high performance Memory Controller.
* External power jack with an included switching AC adapter.
* Industry standard hard drive activity LED connector.

==================================================

Anyhow... sounds great, & imo, due to FASTER than SATA 1 (kind Gigabyte uses) bus type of PCI-e 1x slot?

Fastest there is pretty much that I am aware of! IMO, faster than this Gigabyte unit is or will be.

Even though the gigabyte gc-ramdisk will use DDR-2, it can't FULLY "tap" its 6.4gb/sec bandwidth memory in use & SATA 1 150mb/sec bustype!

Not even as close of a match as the DDRdrive x1 has to its DDR-1 RAM 2.1gb sec bandwidth memory in use & PCI-e 1x 500 mb/sec bustype.

(See tables above, they SHOULD be accurate as to bandwidth ceilings of bustypes involved & also the RAM memory types top-end bandwidths).

APK


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 13, 2006)

I don't know why Gigabyte switched to DDR2, SATA isn't even close to using up all the bandwidth of even PC2100 DDR, IIRC.  Though who knows what DDR/2 prices will be like in a few months.  With both major platforms(AMD and Intel) now focussing almost completely on DDR2, DDR1 might take a huge production dip which might increase prices.  Though with a lot of people switching from DDR1 to DDR2 there will be a lot of people with extra DDR1 just sitting around doing nothing or trying to sell it just to make a little money off it.

I don't know what exactly to make of it all, and I won't really know which one is the better choice until either is out and I am actually looking to buy them.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 13, 2006)

ya but is it still possible to find PC2100 chips anymore, if your someone that doesn't have them lying around from a past rig?

but yeah the extra bandwidth is not being tapped.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 13, 2006)

newtekie1 said:
			
		

> I don't know why Gigabyte switched to DDR2, SATA isn't even close to using up all the bandwidth of even PC2100 DDR, IIRC.  Though who knows what DDR/2 prices will be like in a few months.  With both major platforms(AMD and Intel) now focussing almost completely on DDR2, DDR1 might take a huge production dip which might increase prices.  Though with a lot of people switching from DDR1 to DDR2 there will be a lot of people with extra DDR1 just sitting around doing nothing or trying to sell it just to make a little money off it.



Right, good point - the "economy of scale" when considering prices per RAM chip type!

I'm NOT absolutely sure what type of DDR-1 ram speeds are capable in either (as their appears to be varying types w/ varying bandwidths possible), but I used the fastest types I could in my tables above.



			
				newtekie1 said:
			
		

> I don't know what exactly to make of it all, and I won't really know which one is the better choice until either is out and I am actually looking to buy them.



Well, the tech used is bus speed transfer bandwidth ceiling dependent, no matter WHAT kind of RAM you use... my money'd be on the DDRdrive x1 due to faster bus speeds, matches closer to RAM type used as well & its transfer rates ceilings.

APK

P.S.=> I'm sure either will outperform the one I use now though (I could keep it in this beast too, but will move it back to older 2nd rig to "beef it up" in various areas too)... either way, I win!

Still, comparing them head to head in tests are what we do need to see imo! apk


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 13, 2006)

The point is that the bandwidth from PC2100 isn't even used, so the movement to DDR2 with higher bandwidth isn't helping any.  You don't have to use PC2100 RAM in it, you can use any DDR speed you want.  Hell you can find PC2700 and PC3200 really cheap compared to DDR2...though who knows what will happen in the next few months.



			
				Alec§taar said:
			
		

> Still, comparing them head to head in tests are what we do need to see imo! apk



I would love to see some head to head test between the two, and won't make a decision until I do.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 13, 2006)

newtekie1 said:
			
		

> The point is that the bandwidth from PC2100 isn't even used, so the movement to DDR2 with higher bandwidth isn't helping any.



Right - I pretty much stated that above didn't I?

(The ONLY 1 of these that matches its Bus-to-RAM transfer ceiling bandwidth rates is the kind I use w/ both bus & RAM @ 133mb/sec rates (Pci 2.2 & PC-133 SDRAM)).

The other NEWER two however (we both agreed here imo) can't even begin to scratch their RAM bandwidths top ends... 

E.G.-> The DDRdrive x1 bus type of PCI-e 1x @ 500mb/sec?

Heck, that alone soundly beats SATA 1  150mb/sec used in Gigabyte GC-Ramdisk!

Burst speeds are going to be most likely faster (@ the very least) on the DDRdrive, faster bus is why!



			
				newtekie1 said:
			
		

> You don't have to use PC2100 RAM in it, you can use any DDR speed you want.  Hell you can find PC2700 and PC3200 really cheap compared to DDR2...though who knows what will happen in the next few months.



Right, either way? You can't fully "tap" the bandwidth of Gigabyte's DDR-2 using SATA 1 bus type unit... OR, the DDRdrive x1 DDR-1 using PCI-e bus type unit.

Thus, imo @ least again, I think the DDRdrive is going to win on bus speeds alone.



			
				newtekie1 said:
			
		

> I would love to see some head to head test between the two, and won't make a decision until I do.



Right, theory's nice & all, but nothing beats tests/evaluations!

However, even things like Driver Quality matters as well!

(Still these should both "abstract out" to the OS HAL imo, as std. RAID controllers or diskdrives most likely & tap off the DDK templates for filtering or layered drivers for either - may be a "moot" point, since quality here is already good - RAID controller abstraction is what the CENATEK I have here comes out as in Device Manager for instance, works fine as is!)

APK

P.S.=> I'd guess the Gigabyte GC-Ramdisk will abstract out as a newly added SATA 1 diskdrive, & the DDRdrive will abstract out like the CENATEK does (new Raid controller)...  on a guess! apk


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 13, 2006)

The first part of my post was not directed at you Alec§taar, I realize you already said it, but some people seem to be a little slow at picking things up.

I agree that the DDrive will probably win in the end simply because of the larger transfer bandwidth provided by PCI-E x1.

Though there is a lot that goes into it.  For all we know the DDrive could end up having a completely crap memory controller that limits performance.  That is why I am really waiting to see how each performs before investing any money in them.

Another thing to look at is easy of use.  Who knows what you are going to have to do to use the DDrive, or what drivers you are going to have to install when installing OSes if any drivers are even needed.  The Gigabyte i-Ram on the other hand won't require drivers at all on most current/newer systems since they don't require you install any drivers to use the native SATA controller.

There isn't really enough information available for either to make a decision yet, IMO, but the DDrive does look like it will be the performance winner at least, or at least it has the potential to easily perform better.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 13, 2006)

Well, you & I?

We ARE on the same page after all it seems, so that's cool, I thought you were talking to me is all (you knew that & stated it after that you are not addressing me).

Still, I now do think that Makavelli also stated @ the top of the page now that neither of the new jobbies will "fully tap" the bandwidth potential in their RAM types either!

(So, this is good -  We are all on the same page, for sure, now: I don't know what his statements earlier were, I skimmed your guys battles only briefly after some point when the name tosses started up, but no matter what he said or you guys thought he did, he too now sees the real deal/light & all that).



* Will be "hellish" stuff to add to this rig imo, & maybe I will even keep the CENATEK in here too, who knows?

(Still, I can use it on a SQLServer 2005/IIS 6.x setup too, which is what my other rig is, P4 3.2ghz cpu, GeForce 6800 GT OC, & 512mb DDR-400 RAM).

There ARE limits as to how many EIDE/IDE controllers you can add to a system & I am already @ 2 running on my rig in my sig below!

(3 total including RAID controllers in my rig below)

1.) CENATEK abstracts to this, RAID controller

2.) SATA onboard + onboard RAID on mobo (inactive here, because I am  using 3rd party caching controller w/ IO firmware to offload CPU from disk IO duties)

3.) So the PCI-e x1 DDRdrive if I were to guess, be another RAID controller!

Perhaps this is the "exception" though, because you CAN span/stripe 4 of these SSD's which the system sees as RAID controllers (CENATEK & I would guess same on DDRdrive x1, but not the Gigabyte GC-Ramdisk on SATA 1) into a single "logical disk" units on these SSD disks... 

So, maybe, RAID controllers aren't limited to 2 max disk controllers, as I last understood was a limit of IDE/EIDE & their controllers present on a single mobo limits!

I.E. -> I may not be able to run all 3 @ once here on 1 machine! IIRC, the limit is 2...?? 

PLEASE - DO correct me if I am wrong on this account guys, on typical machine mobos, even nowadays, regarding IDE/EIDE/SATA/SATA2 controllers present on a single mobo limits, & even my point on RAID controller numbers present limits!

APK

P.S.=> I also agree 110%/wholeheartedly, that it will also be VERY interesting to see how they compare on tests to one another! 

I will be able to compare this to a CENATEK RocketDrive though, that much IS certain (and I am guessing either of these can beat it already, but agree, the DDRdrive x1 has the MOST performance potential)... apk


----------



## Mussels (Jun 13, 2006)

the reason for DDR2 was that DDR1 often costs more nowadays, DDR2 comes in larger amounts (2GB sticks, for 8GB total) and DDR2 uses less power, therefore will last longer on battery mode.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 13, 2006)

Mussels said:
			
		

> the reason for DDR2 was that DDR1 often costs more nowadays, DDR2 comes in larger amounts (2GB sticks, for 8GB total) and DDR2 uses less power, therefore will last longer on battery mode.



Excellent viewpoint, imo!



Earlier when we discussed that here as to WHY Gigabyte went w/ DDR2, I didn't think of it THAT way either... I am not familiar enough w/ the details of RAM types today, this is certain...

(Although others here were 'slanting to that direction' earlier (economics))

* BUT, the power usage issue & longevity? Makes sense... absolutely, & is a unique point you brought up!

APK


----------



## Tarry (Jun 26, 2006)

*IRAM: O.K. so let me see if I've gotten this right.*

O.K. so let me see if I've gotten this right.
You go to your local computer store and pay around about USD $1500 for 1 RAM drive and 4 RAM sticks (8GB).

When it's installed you have a drive system that’s only 2 to 3 times faster but 6 times more expensive with 8.5 times smaller capacity than a RAIDed 10kRPM 34GB (69GB) and with 100 to 1000 times greater unrecoverable bit storage data error rate plus if your PSU fails or your mainboard dies or your child switches off the power and doesn’t tell you or if you move home or hmmm.... well you get the idea.

And after all that what have you got?
RAM communicating with a RAM drive device at 3.2GB/s to 8GB/s then  passing these messages through a SATA connection at 300MB/s to system RAM at 3.2GB/s to 8GB/s or to / through the processor at a similar speed.
Now that’s 4-10% memory bandwidth utilisation.
or to put it differently, RAM drives speeds could potentially be increased 11-27 X giving an increase over current standard 7.2kRPM drives of 50-130 times.

Don't get me wrong about this, its great to see Gigabyte updating their RAM Drive offering, however whilst it will have a performance benefit at SATA 2 speed (3Mb/s  375MB/s @80% throughput => 300MB/s ) of 5 times over a standard 7200 RPM 60MB/s HDD or only X 2.5 over a RAID striped 10kRPM pair or X2 to X4 over a RAIDed pair of 15kRPM using 1 RAM drive or 2 in a RAID configuration respectively.

This is simply not a large enough multiplier to be compelling when taking into consideration reliability rates.

Now we've made use of plug in PCI HDD controller cards for years and it seems that the way to optimize a RAM drive design to make fuller use of its bandwidth would be to design a controller card that instead of being connected by cable to a HDD, used RAM sticks on its card board, in a similar form factor to the original I-RAM card (without the SATA cable). It would be bootable and visible to the mainboard BIOS at system start up and would connect to the system 'bus' via a PCI Express x16 slot which has a 3GByte/s bandwidth. This would resolve the speed issue but not RAM error rate.
Use of fully buffered RAM (FB-DIMM) would reduce unrecoverable bit storage error rates to near that of HDDs.
Long term trends in memory pricing indicate that hard drives will maintain a 150 fold cost benefit per byte over RAM; however both technologies will continue to drop in cost per byte in accord with Moore’s law.

For the average user and even most enthusiasts iram2 will be expensive and unreliable however its commendable for a mixed group of early adopters and people with performance requirements who won’t mind decreased reliability.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 26, 2006)

*Tarry, Your post is WHY I leaned more to this one (same reasoning)*

See next post, more detail...

APK


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 26, 2006)

Tarry said:
			
		

> For the average user and even most enthusiasts iram2 will be expensive and unreliable however its commendable for a mixed group of early adopters and people with performance requirements who won’t mind decreased reliability.



That's just it, they're not aiming it at average users, more people who need a fast paging file.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 26, 2006)

*Tarry, I hear you, & why I leaned to THIS particular unit rather than GC-Ramdisk*

I hear you Tarry, & why I mentioned THIS particular unit last page (got a tip from its makers here in "pm" when we were going on about this thread: Details of that are on last page):



			
				Tarry said:
			
		

> it seems that the way to optimize a RAM drive design to make fuller use of its bandwidth would be to design a controller card that instead of being connected by cable to a HDD, used RAM sticks on its card board, in a similar form factor to the original I-RAM card (without the SATA cable). It would be bootable and visible to the mainboard BIOS at system start up and would connect to the system 'bus' via a PCI Express x16 slot which has a 3GByte/s bandwidth. This would resolve the speed issue but not RAM error rate.
> Use of fully buffered RAM (FB-DIMM) would reduce unrecoverable bit storage error rates to near that of HDDs.











* That's PCI-Express x1 slot designed, higher bandwidth possible than with SATA1 or SATA 2 even, by a GOOD amount no less (iirc, I posted a "common bus types & bandwidths possible on them" chart last page)... reposting it again, for all of your references:

==================================================

*Common Buses & their Max Bandwidth*

*PCI 132 MB/s (type current CENATEK SSD I have uses)*
AGP 8X 2,100 MB/s 
*PCI Express 1x 250 [500]* MB/s (type this DDRdrive will use)*
PCI Express 2x 500 [1000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 4x 1000 [2000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 8x 2000 [4000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 16x 4000 [8000]* MB/s 
PCI Express 32x 8000 [16000]* MB/s 
IDE (ATA100) 100 MB/s 
IDE (ATA133) 133 MB/s 
*SATA 1 150 MB/s (type the GC-Ramdisk by Gigabyte uses)*
SATA 2 300 MB/s 
Gigabit Ethernet 125 MB/s 
IEEE1394B [firewire] 100 MB/s

--------------------------------------------------

*Ram types involved bandwidth comparison table:*

*PC-133 SDRAM Rambandwidth (cenatek rocketdrive uses this)*  = 133 MHz x 8 Bytes = *1.064 GB/s* & matches bustype used in PCI 2.2 for it.

*DDR 1 Ram bandwidth (DDRdrive uses this iirc)*  = DDR-400: 200 MHz max type + * 2.1 GB/s* (here I think that this one could be faster if it used it to "max-it-out")...

*DDR 2 Ram bandwidth (new Gigabyte uses this)* = PC2-6400: 400 MHz using DDR2-800 chips, *6.400 GB/s* bandwidth max type

==================================================

Tarry:

*IF YOU WANT ABSOLUTELY RELIABILITY WITH UNITS LIKE THESE? YOU HAVE TO SHELL OUT FOR A BACKUP POWERSUPPLY/UPS, absolutely.*

(Noted that years ago in an article on their website that I did for EEC Systems (now, SuperSpeed.com) that got featured in Windows NT mag (reviewed by John Enck their tech editor) & also CENATEK ("An independent users review" on their homepage http://www.cenatek.com ), in reviews of their software &/or hardware based ramdrive solutions).

I don't use UPS here anymore (costs more to replace the battery on them, than it is to buy a NEW one believe it or not), so I don't place anything "CRUCIAL" onto mine here (mostly, if you note below? Paging ops, logging, & temp ops for OS + apps, & webbrowser caches)...



			
				Jimmy 2004 said:
			
		

> That's just it, they're not aiming it at average users, more people who need a fast paging file.



There's quite a bit more you can send to them to get "more" out of your system (by unburdening hdd's, mainly your OS & programs housing one) than moving the pagefile.sys location (good move in & of itself using these)... see my signature below for some ideas!

APK

P.S.=> I use these beasts (see my signature as to HOW/WHEN/WHY in part @ least), & they make a diff., but the unit I have is older (PCI 2.2 slot & PC-133 SDRAM) & "slower", @ least in burst due to bus type used imo, but seek/access times are excellent as opposed to std. HDD's... apk


----------



## OneCool (Jun 26, 2006)

> 2.) Then he made an example with a 2500+, which if that is really what he meant would not even have a 2T command rate issue because there was no 1T and 2T with Athlon XPs.



Yes there was.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 27, 2006)

OneCool said:
			
		

> Yes there was.



There was 1T/2T on the AthlonXP generation, it was known as CPC. Read up on the Abit NF7-S, where there was BIOS mods for that specific purpose to increase overclock.

On another note, who would go into a local store to buy that much ram? ripoff prices ahoy, captain. These drives may be 2.5-5x faster in BANDWIDTH, but in LATENCY its a huge difference. Even Alecs SD-RAM based one would be in nanoseconds, not milliseconds like hard drives. See those movies? XP booted in less than half the time it normally takes.

More bandwidth, MUCH faster latencies = good.

It's not meant for gaming/storage, but for things like a page file, or if you were video editing as a drive to be working on, and copy it off when you are done.

the PCI-E one is the one i'm waiting for, i'm out of 5 1/4 bays already.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 27, 2006)

Mussels said:
			
		

> These drives may be 2.5-5x faster in BANDWIDTH, but in LATENCY its a huge difference. Even Alecs SD-RAM based one would be in nanoseconds, not milliseconds like hard drives. See those movies? XP booted in less than half the time it normally takes.



The unit I have in the CENATEK "RocketDrive" won't boot up an OS... it is much older technology (3++ years old now) & slower bus + RAM types - but it still has its merits by all means, & you hit on 1 directly - access/seek times!

Now, it would be NICE to be able to do OS booting, just for the OS speed possible, but I compensate in other ways (see signature, CENATEK section) with "safe data" (temp stuff) to put onto it only really, along with the pagefile.sys...



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> More bandwidth, MUCH faster latencies = good.



The DDRDrive x1 PCI-Express model above? 

It (imo) "fits" the best "mix" of RAM type used, & bus type used (closest match other than the CENATEK RocketDrive (133mb/sec memory & 133mb/sec PCI 2.2 bus), for the BEST possible bandwidth (2.1gb/sec memory & 500mb/sec bi-directional-synchronous bus speeds)

I really HAVE to lean towards it, as I have a PCI-e x1 slot here, open... it also seems to be "THE ONE" out of our 'contestants' here (GigaByte GC-Ramdisk IRAM, vs. DDRDrive x1)...



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> It's not meant for gaming/storage, but for things like a page file, or if you were video editing as a drive to be working on, and copy it off when you are done.



It can be, IF you have a "UPS" (uninterruptible power supply) - I used to have one, but to replace their battery, believe-it-or-not, costs MORE than buying a NEW ONE!

If I had a "UPS" working there, though? I'd put my database devices onto one of these - SUPERFAST! I'd probably implement mirroring or backup on it though, just in case.

(I do run apps from it too - SETI@Home was one I did for years on it, & now Folding@Home for the team here... should help SOME, whenever the program "hits disk" & seeking data from it as well).

There are also OTHER "performance enhancing tricks" you can do using these, again: See my signature, in the CENATEK section below, & see what I mean... it all works, & well!



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> the PCI-E one is the one i'm waiting for, i'm out of 5 1/4 bays already.



As am I: Looking forward to the "DDRDrive x1" by ALL means here... to put it into the "mixture" that is the system in my signature, & to place the CENATEK "rocketdrive" back into the system it came from (my SQLServer 2005/IIS6.x rig - a development server here)... so it too, can be "all it can be" & what it once was using this unit.

The DDRDrive x1? Heh, you KNOW it is a better match for the system in my signature, just based on technologies available on the mobo I use (ASUS A8N-Premium), in PCI-e x1 slot open still... better bus & memory speeds possible, than in my CENATEK unit.

It WILL be the "icing on the cake" of this system imo + a better match for it than the CENATEK is (which is a better match for my other 2nd server rig here).

Plus, if anything, this upcoming model from DDRDrive will be faster in "BURST" read/write modes, because of the higher bandwidth memory & bus type used - again, very much looking forward to its release!

APK

P.S.=> It's a somewhat 'expensive' game to buy into, but once you do? You appreciate it for what these types of units can do for overall system performance (it is noticeable) depending on HOW you apply them... apk


----------



## Mussels (Jun 28, 2006)

Huge post there alec 

Just to say, you've interpreted some of what i said a little wrong. When i said even your old cenatek had low access, i didnt mean that it was a good boot drive, just that even old SD-RAM based tech is STILL tons faster than any hard drive, if you werent held back by its connection interface.

As for the rest, you pretty much agreed  i think the PCI-E one has a better chance becase it can still get some standby current to it i think, so it wont rely on battery as much.
And yes, i run this system and my router/switch off a 1200VA UPS  nothing takes my gaming away from me.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 28, 2006)

Mussels said:
			
		

> Huge post there alec



Details, details, details - I'm "big" on that, so I don't give anybody a "bum steer" by missing steps, etc.



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> Just to say, you've interpreted some of what i said a little wrong. When i said even your old cenatek had low access, i didnt mean that it was a good boot drive,



The PCI 2.2/PC-133 SDRAM utilizing CENATEK "rocketdrive" doesn't boot up as an OS bearing disk @ all - I just wanted to make that clear.

This is 1 "disadvantage" it has vs. the newer SATA GigaByte IRAM/Gc-Ramdisk, & PCI-Express x1 DDRDrive...



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> just that even old SD-RAM based tech is STILL tons faster than any hard drive, if you werent held back by its connection interface.



For "burst" speeds? The bus/connection interface AND imo, RAM type used, matters & I think you hit that dead-on right...

Access/seek should be comparable though between ALL the RAM types used imo, but I could be wrong here... but, no questions asked - they BLOW AWAY std. mechanical HDD's for access/seek speeds.



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> As for the rest, you pretty much agreed  i think the PCI-E one has a better chance becase it can still get some standby current to it i think, so it wont rely on battery as much.



Well, the CENATEK has an "external powersupply" to it, others may use batteries & such (CMOS type, or watch batteries, just enough to "hold state" on them between reboots).



			
				Mussels said:
			
		

> And yes, i run this system and my router/switch off a 1200VA UPS  nothing takes my gaming away from me.



Aha, lol!



* Man's dedicated to his gaming!

APK


----------



## Steevo (Jun 28, 2006)

This whole thread got blown up!!!!!


I only have a few questions.

1) Why would you waste the space on a solid state drive housing a OS? Really? A RAID 5 array on a controller is almost as fast, more reliable and easier to setup.
2) Who is a real hardcore gamer-system man that DOESN'T have a true Sine Wave UPS-Battery backup for their whole system? You wanna put dirty power-square wave into your $$$$ uber system and expect it to live for very long?
3) Is the error rate on RAM so high that you need to have ECC memory? I think not.


Really these in a gaming system are for one thing. 

Nada. 

If you have enough RAM in your system nothing in a game that would have to be read off a disk, wouldn't have been in the first place. And as windows has the first in first out approach to RAM useage, and will continue to run untill the RAM is maxed out before it tries to overwrite any existing data that is no longer being called upon, again first in first out.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 28, 2006)

Steevo said:
			
		

> This whole thread got blown up!!!!!



Actually, it's been good discussion (depends on your "pov" imo)...

E.G.-> I don't use any system SOLELY for gaming (gaming is what it is, just fun I fit in when I can) though. My 'point-of-view' isn't skewed to that only with any particular machine (well, to my fastest it is - it is the one I want to play on lol).



			
				Steevo said:
			
		

> I only have a few questions.



I will try to answer!

(However, I think you answered yourself already in point #1):



			
				Steevo said:
			
		

> 1) Why would you waste the space on a solid state drive housing a OS? Really? A RAID 5 array on a controller is almost as fast



"Almost as fast"... not as fast. There is a difference, & in some cases - quite a lot!

E.G.-> INSTG8R ran some tests on his "perpendicular technology" SATA 2 drive, & I ran my RAID 0 setup (see signature below) vs. it, AND then my older tech CENATEK SSD, see here:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=13650

You'll see diff.'s on a variety of scales in that thread, for example, with 3 very diff. technologies compared.



			
				Steevo said:
			
		

> , more reliable and easier to setup.



IMO, & EXPERIENCE? Both are as simple to setup as the other... but, that's just "MY" opinion & experience, from having actually done & used both types of equipment many times since the early 1990's...



			
				Steevo said:
			
		

> 2) Who is a real hardcore gamer-system man that DOESN'T have a true Sine Wave UPS-Battery backup for their whole system? You wanna put dirty power-square wave into your $$$$ uber system and expect it to live for very long?



Well, you've just explained another one you said was a "problem" above (reliability): Put a UPS on these, they are as reliable as anything else in your rig... after all, it's ALL electric powered & subject to powerouts.



			
				Steevo said:
			
		

> 3) Is the error rate on RAM so high that you need to have ECC memory? I think not.



This I agree with, depending on how/what you intend to use these types of devices for...

For instance - I run an SSD & don't require EEC memory on it (I only store paging file & temp ops (app temp ops, OS %TEMP% environmental vars) & webpage caches, or logs on it, none of which I absolutely MUST have in pristine state))...

They access & perform I/O (if needed) faster on it, no questions asked.



			
				Steevo said:
			
		

> Really these in a gaming system are for one thing.
> 
> Nada.



Oh, I dunno about that... remember: this is a SYSTEM & subject to 'synergy' improvements or detriments during multitasking operations!

(And, it's always going @ doing something, visible to you or not - paging too, especially if given time...)

So, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A SYSTEM DEDICATED TO GAMING? 

It's still subject to things like %TEMP% (all programs are, unless you use SET statements in a batch while launching your game, & override the OS-wide & user-specific %TEMP/TMP% variables that way), & also paging on the disk when it loads (very possibly) OR when it pages data (this can occur DURING the game while in a level, OR during level switches)...

On a SSD? Those things WILL occur faster (far better seek/access times & usually less CPU use than most std. HDD disks as well).



			
				Steevo said:
			
		

> If you have enough RAM in your system nothing in a game that would have to be read off a disk, wouldn't have been in the first place.



Hmmm, in the FIRST place, it would have to come up off the disk, & then caching might help (up until it gets FIFO flushed).



			
				Steevo said:
			
		

> And as windows has the first in first out approach to RAM useage, and will continue to run untill the RAM is maxed out before it tries to overwrite any existing data that is no longer being called upon, again first in first out.



Right, but you have to page data in & out off a HDD (typically this is where it is, C:\pagefile.sys) & your games reside there as well - think those paging ops don't interfere with game loads, or game data paging in/out of RAM too (games are paged like anything else, their code AND data (often huge, forcing reloads, like in between levels & init. loadtime))?

They do - putting them on slower media than SSD's are (& HDD's are, by many orders of magnitude on many/most/more levels)? Those ops perform more slowly, since they are diskfile bound.

APK

P.S.=> Put %TEMP% & %TMP% ops & pagefile.sys off onto an SSD, even gaming (SOLELY gaming rigs) can gain, because they are just as subject to the performance detriments of keeping them on the same disk as a game as any program... you can use 2nd HDD's for this (mechanical std. types) & I did too, before I got a faster mechanism (especially for seeks/accesses, & this helps on I/O initializing (mostly imo, for webpage caching it's best))... apk


----------



## Mussels (Jun 29, 2006)

Alec says it a million times longer, but as said earlier for those who dont read his posts...


Any type of system ram is hundreds of times faster in access latency. NOT just bandwidth. latency matters far more for this kind of thing.
Comparing milliseconds to nanoseconds, there is no way a hard drive can keep up.

As alec said, Windows runs a lot of things off your drive(s) simultaneously. Page files, temp dirs, log files, and so on. None of these matter if they are lost, and putting them onto a ram-drive means that..

*your hard drive has less access, and therefore more time to spend on the OS/games
*it doesnt matter if you lose it, as its all mostly temp stuff anyway

In a gaming system these would be used for those temporary things to reduce hard drive load.
Your facts have logic in them, but you dont understand how some of it works. "I load a game and it goes into ram and never comes out" good for you. Unless its a DOS game, windows is still there in the background chugging away, using the other parts of your system. 

Nanosecond pauses as windows decides its time to erase files from the page file compared to millisecond ones coupled with a load delay from any files on that drive, mean that the ram drive is going to give you a performance boost. It may be small, but i'm pretty sure you've done 'small' things before to improve your system.


----------

