# Is RAM Disk worth it?



## Flash (Feb 11, 2014)

I am referring to this:

http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

Since I have 16GB, I'm wondering if I should set aside 4GB just for page file, and all the temporary folders for both windows and firefox. The 4GB is also free.

Are there any downsides for this? Like slower bootup times? And I'm assuming the partition will just appear under explorer as a local disk?


----------



## Vario (Feb 11, 2014)

Not really worth it in my opinion, just extra hassle.  I thought about it but got an SSD instead.  The page file should not be located on ram at all ideally.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 11, 2014)

Flash said:


> I am referring to this:
> 
> http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk
> 
> ...



Like Vario says, page file = no  (besides, the whole idea is a catch-22)
Temporary folders = maybe, though that may depend on the browser
Large files and work heavy applications = maybe, depending on the application and how much you leave your PC on.  Don't even thin of trying it unless you have a UPS 

Booting to create the RAMDrive may add a second or two more, and yes, it'll just show up as another fixed disc (AFAIK).


----------



## jcgeny (Feb 11, 2014)

this one has no limit , is free and is very good : http://www.softperfect.com/products/ramdisk/


----------



## Super XP (Feb 17, 2014)

I used to have one of these. Never really felt a difference in PC performance. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try it out.


----------



## natr0n (Feb 17, 2014)

I was using ramdisk for my pagefile for the longest time. It never really gave a noticeable benefit. Somethings were faster slightly.

Since you have more ram it cant really hurt. Most I ever used was 2gb for pagefile.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 17, 2014)

I use some old software from a company called qsoft for a big ol' cheap and affordable ramdisk solution.  I put Oblivion (elder scrolls) in it to help with loading times.  Yes, it does add time to your bootup though...


----------



## rhino (Feb 28, 2014)

I used RAMDisk when I was rockin an E8400, DDR2 and HDD.
I found it made a huge difference.
If you're on Quads, DDR3 and SSD there's no point.


----------



## Papahyooie (Feb 28, 2014)

Why in the world are you people putting pagefiles onto a ram disk anyway? Your page file swaps ram to the hard drive to conserve ram in exchange for a bit slower load time. Basically, a file on the hard drive acting as ram. So if you put your pagefile on a ramdisk, you're basically ram-ception-ing. The swap file would swap data from the ram to the ... ram (pagefile on ram) so at that point, why have a pagefile at all? Just disable it and leave the data in memory...


----------



## Flash (Mar 3, 2014)

Papahyooie said:


> Why in the world are you people putting pagefiles onto a ram disk anyway? Your page file swaps ram to the hard drive to conserve ram in exchange for a bit slower load time. Basically, a file on the hard drive acting as ram. So if you put your pagefile on a ramdisk, you're basically ram-ception-ing. The swap file would swap data from the ram to the ... ram (pagefile on ram) so at that point, why have a pagefile at all? Just disable it and leave the data in memory...



Apparently windows and programs does not work well without pagefile. It also risks of crashing if you use a program that has a memory leak. Wish I didn't needed page file, since my 16GB of ram almost never go above 25%, but it seems pagefile is mandatory


----------



## Scheich (Mar 3, 2014)

SoftPerfect RAM Disk, free, set any size, works like a charm. Great if u want to play poe without loading lag.


----------



## rhino (Mar 3, 2014)

Yo!
I've just been reading my own advice list (which I only do when setting up a new PC) and it appears that a RAMdisc will also blow the socks off an SSD rig.
Here is the article about it followed by a set-up instruction with a link to software that I have used and can vouch for. 
This instruction uses "Fancycache". There are two options to download, I can't find which one you want and it is only for 180 days.
The next post from me is the free one.
*Speed Up SSD by Using RAM Cache*
What it does is that, the temporary read / write operations on your system would be done in the ram which is many times faster than a SSD.


Begin the process by downloading Fancy Cache (~2MB) software.
After installation and starting up the program, the software interface would list out the storage mediums connected to your pc.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Select your SSD from the list and configure a cache size for it (Refer the image). The cache size may be set to suit your needs. We’ve allocated currently 3192 MB of RAM as the cache and the _defer caching _has been also set to enabled.
After setting the cache size for your SSD and related options on fancy cache, click *Start Caching *and you’re ready with the caching setup for your SSD.
_Fancy Cache _is a trial software and it gives you a 180 days trial period which is plenty, to test it out comprehensively.This software really does give a significant performance boost to speed up ssd and would make the file operations agile. The result is an experience of a much responsive and snappier system.

_Fancy Cache _can also speed up your hard drives, but things might get worse once you try copying files which are larger than the cache size, set for your traditional hard drive in fancy cache. This happens because, once the allocated cache memory in the ram has been filled up, the stored data needs to be transferred to the hard drive. So, you may notice a lag in performance when you copy a file which is larger than the cache size. It may seem like the hard drive is carrying out the file operations at its normal speed without any speed boost via the cache, where as small file operations would be carried out much faster.

We’ve used _CrystalDiskMark _to benchmark ssd performance before and after enabling fancy cache and the results are as below.





SSD Performance without FancyCache

Now here are the results after we’ve configured and setup FancyCache for the ssd.





SSD Performance with FancyCache

The software actually gives you an impression that the data operation has been completed on the drive, but it actually works in the background even after that to offload the data to the drive from the memory. So, this is why we recommend you to have an uninterrupted power supply because in case of a sudden power loss, the contents of the ram gets erased and the final result would be a data loss!

_*Note*_ : _You may turn off Write caching in windows 7 if you are using fancy cache to speed up ssd performance._


----------



## rhino (Mar 3, 2014)

I hope you can see the images.

Whether you have a hard drive or an SSD, your computer’s RAM is its fastest storage medium by a wide margin. If you have more than 4GB of memory, you can turn this speed to your advantage, turning some of it into a small RAM Disk. This disk will appear to Windows as a fully-functional storage drive that’s ready to hold your most frequently-used applications and launch them as much as twice as fast. 

*What You Need*

1.  *6 or More GB of RAM:*While you can use a RAM disk with any amount of memory in your system, we don’t recommend that you create one if you have 4GB or less. Whatever amount of memory you assign to the disk will be unavailable to the OS and, since 4GB is the minimum standard these days, you really need 6GB or more to have both a RAM disk and a reasonable amount of system memory available.

Fortunately, if your computer takes DDR3 RAM — the standard type for more then 4 years — upgrading will be very inexpensive. An 8GB DDR3 kit (2 x 4GB) for notebooks costs less than $40 these days, but RAM that follows the older DDR2 standard is more expensive. If you don’t know which kind of RAM your computer needs,  use an online memory finder tool to find out. 

2.  *64-bit Windows:* To support more than 4GB of RAM in any PC, you need to be running a 64-bit version of Windows. Fortunately, most mid-range and higher Windows 7 computers sold in the past few years come with Windows 7 64-bit, even if they have only 3 or 4GB of memory preinstalled. If you don’t know whether your Windows is 64-bit, simply right click on the Computer icon and select properties.



3.  *RAM Disk Software:* In addition to having enough RAM ,you need a piece of software that will create your RAM disk. There are a number of applications to choose from, but we’ll use the free version of DataRAM’s RAMDisk, because it’s easy to set up and supports up t0 4GB of storage space. A $18.99 paid version lets you create RAM disks larger than 4GB.

*Setting Up Your RAM Disk*

1.  *Install **DataRAM RAMDisk**. *Just click next and “I agree” at the various prompts. There are no settings to configure during the install.



2.  *Launch RamDisk Configuration Utility *from the Start Menu



3.  *Set the RAMDisk Size and Type *under the settings tab. Since the size is set in megabyte, you’ll need to set it to 4092MB if you want a 4GB RAM Disk or 2046MB for a 2GB RAM Disk. Set the type to “unformatted.” 



4.  *Enable Load Disk Image at Startup *under the Load and Save tab. This will store the contents of your RAM disk on your hard or solid state drive so that they can reappear every time you power on your machine.



5.  *Configure the Save Image Settings.* Enable Save Disk Image on Shutdown if you want the system to automatically save changes to your RAM Disk’s image file when you shut your computer down . You can also enable AutoSave, which will automatically write any changes to your image file on a regular basis (default is every 300 seconds).





Though both of these settings make it easy to keep the image file in sync with the content, they can also slow your computer down. When we tried creating a 4GB RAM Disk on a notebook with a 7,200-rpm hard drive, the computer took several minutes to shut down, because it was saving the 4GB file.  However, when we switched the hard drive for an SSD, the same notebook took a more reasonable 54 seconds to shut down. So experiment on your system before deciding.

Fortunately, if you use your RAM disk to hold applications, you don’t need to resave the image file on a regular basis. When you install or update an application, you can manually save the image file by hitting the Save Image Now button under the Load and Save tab in the RamDisk configuration utility.



6.  *Click Start RAMDisk.**

*

7.  *Click Install* if you get a dialog box asking you whether you want to add a driver.*

*

8.  *Click Format  *if asked to format the new disk. If the program doesn’t prompt you, locate the new drive letter in explorer and right click to Format.



9.  *Select NTFS as the file system , give your drive a label and click Format disk.**

*

Your RAM disk will now be ready for you to install software on it. Make sure that, when installing programs you want to live on the disk, you select its drive letter rather than C:. You may also want to create a Program Files directory on the RAM disk to keep things organized.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 3, 2014)

#1-As said already, No Pagefile on ramdisk.
#2-Best use would be your web browser's cache, or the like
#3-Asrock has one for Free, that has NO limit. located on their Support download page,dunno if it's open to all.
#4-You have 16Gb of RAM, the benefit of the Ramdisk is Really a moot prospect, seeing as how Your PC has more than enough extra memory on hand.
#5-to ME , this sounds like a case of "I think I'll do it, JUST to do it" either out of boredom, or just to do it. If thats so, then tinker away, but You'll see NO huge gains, NOT on a new PC, which is already running PLENTY of RAM.
#6-If you dont have a particular reason in mind for the Ramdisk, why install it? And if you did have a use for it , i.e. video editing, or the like, You'd be better served by an ssd anyway.
#7-Yes Ramdisk has read/writes of 4000Mbs/s  but it is a pain in the ass to back up on EVERY shut down, the tiny size is a pain, the loss of ram is a pain. It may be quicker, but in the end it is NOT a viable solution. It's like saying "I'll take a stock car to get groceries", Yes it's faster, and Yes it CAN technically function in that capacity, but it is NOT cost effective, and is a TOTAL overkill. I'm sure You see MY point


----------



## RCoon (Mar 3, 2014)

rhino said:


> WALL OF TEXT


 
Your posts are remarkably detailed. Pretty awesome.
On topic, I set up a 4GB RAMDisk and it was for faster loading times in a single game. Problem with RAMDisk is the size. You need at least 16GB of RAMDisk (AKA 24GB RAM or more) in order for it to benefit a decent game. Even then it's only 1 game. For OS functions it's entirely worthless and you won't notice anything at all.

Setup and save on shutdown never bothered me, but I uninstalled it after 4 weeks as I found no useful function for a RAMDisk besides benchmarking.


----------



## rhino (Mar 3, 2014)

Usability

Yes that's true, now I remember.
I used it for Photoshop and other basic regular use progs.
As RCoon says: It tends to more of a nik-nak than a game changer due to the massive amounts of RAM needed.


----------



## UGL (Mar 7, 2014)

Using RAID0 SSD or even a RAID 5 HDD can speed things up a bit during boot.  I wouldn't mess with it without 48 or 64 gig.  You can disable the write (commit) on shutdown which makes things nice.  Its worth it, but its definitely not for everyone.


----------



## Papahyooie (Mar 11, 2014)

Flash said:


> Apparently windows and programs does not work well without pagefile. It also risks of crashing if you use a program that has a memory leak. Wish I didn't needed page file, since my 16GB of ram almost never go above 25%, but it seems pagefile is mandatory


True, but if you have enough RAM that you're never running into hard faults then the pagefile will never be an issue anyway. The difference is milliseconds.


So... what if I built a ramdisk... loaded my operating system onto it (would take forever to boot up but be wicked fast) ... then used software RAID0 to make it stripe with *another* ramdisk... all cached on a SSD for nonvolitile storage... would I have the fastest computer in the world?


----------



## de.das.dude (Mar 11, 2014)

ram disks are completely redundant for normal people. however... if you are an engineer and are working on huge 3d CAD files that have really complex geometry you will see some improvement. similar workloads which are hindered by ssd or hdd speeds will also benefit.

as for boot up time. after windows 8.1.. my pc will restart in under 30seconds. and hybrid boot time is <=5seconds.


----------



## RagingHobo (Mar 13, 2014)

Lots of misconceptions in this thread.  Ram disks are awesome, but with the hard drive bandwidth issue largely eliminated (compare the old slow ATA-33 and ATA-66 connection types), you can be sure or at least reasonably very confident that your pc is already using its various memory types in the most task efficient way - as de.das.dude said there's very limited room for improvement.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 13, 2014)

It's worth noting that if you're using disk caching for writes, you better have a UPS handy and your machine better be rock solid because a crash while writing or a power outage can cause data corruption when you use write-back caching. So even if it seems to perform faster, writes aren't guaranteed if something happens to the system in the interim.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 22, 2014)

so i've got 24GB of ram now (dont ask, i dont really know why either).


anyone found some nice caching software or whatnot to make it worthwhile?


----------



## n0tiert (Jun 22, 2014)

Mussels said:


> so i've got 24GB of ram now (dont ask, i dont really know why either).
> 
> 
> anyone found some nice caching software or whatnot to make it worthwhile?



try AMD RAMDISK

http://www.radeonmemory.com/software_downloads.php


----------



## Mussels (Jun 22, 2014)

n0tiert said:


> try AMD RAMDISK
> 
> http://www.radeonmemory.com/software_downloads.php




yeah theres a lot of options like that for the ramdrive, but i need something to use on it.

using asrocks XfastRAM that came with my mobo looks great, because it has options for moving IE/chrome/Firefox cache and windows temp files across, but the damn thing is outdated and doesnt seem to make anything but empty folders.


----------



## natr0n (Jun 22, 2014)

Mussels said:


> yeah theres a lot of options like that for the ramdrive, but i need something to use on it.
> 
> using asrocks XfastRAM that came with my mobo looks great, because it has options for moving IE/chrome/Firefox cache and windows temp files across, but the damn thing is outdated and doesnt seem to make anything but empty folders.




You're using it(xfast) wrong. Make the ramdisk   with nothing checked  then manually set locations to use the ramdisk. dont use the built in options.

Thats how i did it when i was using it.


----------



## LightningJR (Jun 22, 2014)

I have 32GB of ram. (Boxing day sale $109.99) I have 8GB set aside for any Minecraft servers I wish to run when playing with friends. Some of the mod packs have over 200 mods and are intensive, having this on a mechanical HDD isn't feasible after the world gets large and people have lots of machines going. I could use my SSD but I like to keep reads/writes on it to a minimum so the ramdrive is a perfect alternative. Plus removing any possible lag on the server side is imperative when I have only 2Mbps upload. The drop in load time of the server startup is also a plus, sometimes it's literally 75% quicker.

Some software allows for incremental backups, I have mine set to backup every 30min.

Idk how much benefit the average user/gamer/geek can get from a ramdrive.


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 22, 2014)

Well, the only use for one that I found was for content caching on firewalls.
As for the pagefile, again, it is useless. If you have use win7 or newer, pagefile management is done right, so if you have more than 4GB of RAM, windows will rarely resort to the pagefile.
If you aren't finding anything to do with your RAM, start virtualizing.


Papahyooie said:


> So... what if I built a ramdisk... loaded my operating system onto it (would take forever to boot up but be wicked fast) ... then used software RAID0 to make it stripe with *another* ramdisk... all cached on a SSD for nonvolitile storage... would I have the fastest computer in the world?


You do realize that a win8 64b install needs (at least) 20GB of storage. That much spent on RAM (because it would have to be buffered ECC modules) would be better sent to a PCI-e SSD...which is already mind-blowing fast.
Still, I think that it is feasible with a beowulf config.

EDIT: You could also move some steam games to it and have neat loading times. Or steam itself...which sometimes takes forever to load.


----------



## LightningJR (Jun 23, 2014)

The only games I wanted faster loading times on were large ones, like LOTRO and BF3. These games are 25-35GB so not really an option for a ramdrive. Other than that my SSD and mechanical HDD loaded games quick enough for me anyway. So I don't see any reason to want games on RAM.

As for virtualization, I only did it once and only partially successful then so I know very little about it. I don't really know why I would want to.


Having lost of ram is good, it allows you to have a bunch of things running without issue, I have had 3 games running at the same time and lots of chrome tabs and other programs, while it doesn't happen often it's still nice to have the ability when the situation arises.

With the consoles having 8GB of shared memory how difficult would it be to use system ram in tandem with VRAM? I noticed with Watch Dogs that I couldn't play on Ultra because I only have 2GB of VRAM, does it already buffer into the system ram? if not is it possible and would it be too slow maybe?


----------



## Arjai (Jun 23, 2014)

I used this during the CEP2 Challenge, in order to slow down the read writes to disk. It works dynamically, as in acting like a hard drive and writing into files, as opposed to just stacking writes, like DataRam did.

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

My trials of it during the challenge: Want to run 100% CEP2 WUs? Here's how...


----------



## AsRock (Jun 23, 2014)

Now being all SSD these days i don't use one any more,  when i did i used Dataram RAMDisk with symboliclinks which helped with games like Arma 2 and very high spawning rates.


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 24, 2014)

for 99.9% of users see the following


----------



## dr0thegreatest (Jul 2, 2014)

like everyone suggested, Ram DIsk really didnt make a difference on my personal rig. There was a tutorial while back t hat said firefox/ browsing could be sped up putting temp files on ram disk but loading new pages was slower, restart comp was a little slower, oveall not really worth it. For now


----------



## fusionblu (Jul 6, 2014)

Flash said:


> I am referring to this:
> 
> http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk
> 
> ...



Simple answer for the question is no.

Clear downsides is that using RAM for storage isn't reliable and if it fails any data which was on the RAMdisk would be lost entirely.
Also the ideal of this setup is for performance and not storing stuff for "fast" storage and the use of RAMdisk is not particularly more useful for storing temporary files than the default method given you will still be slowed down by the main system disk (which is almost certainly not installed on the RAMdisk).

Affect on performance can vary when using RAMdisk, but it would probably not be significant overall and it is possible that change in performance wouldn't be noticeable.

The general purpose of making a RAMdisk is for benchmarks, fast performance on OS installed on RAM disk along with fast loading times from games installed on the RAM disk with the OS.

Of course to make use of RAMdisk more effectively you would at least want more than 16GB of RAM in total and would almost certainly need to go higher end Sandybridge-E or above chipsets to have more than 32GB of total to have a larger storage capacity for the RAMdisk. Normal chipsets such as Z97 only allows a maximum of 32GB with most (if not all) motherboards.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 6, 2014)

fusionblu said:


> Simple answer for the question is no.
> 
> Clear downsides is that using RAM for storage isn't reliable and if it fails any data which was on the RAMdisk would be lost entirely.
> Also the ideal of this setup is for performance and not storing stuff for "fast" storage and the use of RAMdisk is not particularly more useful for storing temporary files than the default method given you will still be slowed down by the main system disk (which is almost certainly not installed on the RAMdisk).
> ...



Dataram has a option you can save on shutdown or after so many minutes.


----------



## fusionblu (Jul 6, 2014)

AsRock said:


> Dataram has a option you can save on shutdown or after so many minutes.


I still have to insist using RAM as storage isn't reliable and most people aren't going to turn RAM into storage or data storage purposes or rather the space on the RAM would be used for something either benchmark or performance related.
Of course there are many methods of having a copy of the data on other storage sources should the data on the RAM (turned into storage) have significant importance.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 6, 2014)

If you mean storage for important data then you should have a backup of a backup which is were cool apps like Synctoys ( should of come with win7\8 as default ) comes in handy..  I been using ramdisk for a long time for dedi servers and it can help with some when access demand gets high.

Then i use Simbolic links\Hardlinks as well.  And as i said in my last post it's all backed up on shutdown or when you like it to be just depends on what data.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jul 7, 2014)

dont really see the point in a ram disk. alot of people here seem to say put the page file on it.. But thats kind of a pointless exercise in a way. all you really do then is make less space in ram for apps so they have to use the page file which you have put in ram.. 
seems pretty futile. 

the only ram drives that ever interested me were those old pci cards you could plug ram in to and had a battery on them so you could use them as a hard disk (batterie died = lost ya data though) which wouldnt be so bad apart from the fact you have a stupid 133mb/s bandwidth limit on pci.. which is the same as Pata so pointless. (they also did pata versions too) 
using a ram drive as data cache is probably the best option. but windows generally does a good job of that any way..

honestly the only reason id go for a drive based on ram is if it was a physicall plug in adapter with a batterie (like the old ones before ssd's) and it ran on pci-e x16. one of those combined with SSD's and your systems memory would be a benifit. although you would probably end up spending a fortune on the most and fastest ram you could get your hands on simply to get the most out of it. 

and if you didnt have the best cpu and gpu(s) on the best board. over clocked as far as they could possibly go. with the fastest ssd's then you would probably be better off spending the money els where. 
and even then it probably only holds true whilst scaling of gpu performance as you go to 3-4 gpus is less than adequate. 

any way thats my thoughts on it personally. its a bit pointless especially if your just using it for page file.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jul 7, 2014)

_JP_ said:


> You do realize that a win8 64b install needs (at least) 20GB of storage. That much spent on RAM (because it would have to be buffered ECC modules) would be better sent to a PCI-e SSD...which is already mind-blowing fast.
> .


 
The sarcasm is not strong with this one...

Read the rest of the post, and my previous post.


----------



## TheHunter (Jul 7, 2014)

I used it only for Firefox temp. folder, it started a lot faster then from hdd. 

Now on ssd it doesnt matter anymore.


----------



## KiwiSteve (Jul 18, 2014)

I'm using XFASTRAM on my ASROCK 990FX to hold a 24Gb RAM disk for Steam and my modded Skyrim. My PC sleeps, when I want it to, has a UPS and boots off a Samsung 840 Pro SSD. I'm doing this because I don't have a lot of time to wait for startup and game loads. My observation is that Skyrim does everything faster and smoother than when running off SSD. I take a backup of the RAMDisk everytime I change/add a mod or Steam does an update. It takes less than 2 minutes to backup. If I have to do a Shutdown, then copying the backup to the RAMDISK also takes  less than 2 minutes.


----------



## Pehla (Jul 24, 2014)

i gues we all had some expirience with ramdisk!!i also tried it recently..,and i saw big improvments in aplications startup.
when you first start aplication it takes normal (long) time,but when you close it and open any time again it blasing fast(regular hdd here)
my advice is try it your self...,its not something that can hurt..,experiment with it see how it goes and work for you then decide...,use it or delete it!


----------



## Barney (Jun 18, 2015)

I have a intel i3 NUC with only a msata SSD (the non "H" model with no sata facility). And it is attached to my 60" TV as a HTPC and web browser use mainly.
So I use Primo Ramdisk just for all sorts of temp files as I have 16GB ram. It automatically adjusts its size within a set amount of GB.
It is only to save the SSD, not for speed increases.
So even today, it can have it's uses. 
I used it years ago before we had SSD's and the PC ran so fast in comparison to a HDD.
And yes, I do have a big UPS attached for both my TV and PC 
Being at the terminal  end of a long  streets power supply, I had both taken out during a big thunder storm (along with a other household electrical products), so I got a good UPS for the entertainment system. Spent a bit protecting  the rest of the wiring as well.


----------



## Freezer (Sep 16, 2015)

Sure, digging up an old thread, but it's current technology and geared more for today and the future.

I'm looking at what experience others experience between XFAST, Dataram RAMDisk, and Primo Ramdisk FancyCache. I see that ASUS ROG series motherboards had RAMDisk and they've included Junctions in the application.

Anyone know where I can obtain the ROG RAMDisk software?


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 16, 2015)

I've tried RAMDisk on my system with 32GB of RAM and couldn't really find any real use of it.

Personally, i'd prefer if I could make Windows cache data more agressively. Currently it's caching stuff in memory really slowly. I guess I'll have to upgrade my eBoostr license to support RAM caching as well and do it more aggressively.


----------



## Barney (Sep 16, 2015)

Freezer said:


> Sure, digging up an old thread, but it's current technology and geared more for today and the future.
> 
> I'm looking at what experience others experience between XFAST, Dataram RAMDisk, and Primo Ramdisk FancyCache. I see that ASUS ROG series motherboards had RAMDisk and they've included Junctions in the application.
> 
> Anyone know where I can obtain the ROG RAMDisk software?



It can be downloaded straight from their ROG product range website - just look for a ROG motherboard (MB) - Maximus VIII Gene. I found it easily via "support", then it was listed under "Drivers and Tools" for global download.
Do you have a Asus ROG motherboard?
I ask because as far as I have heard, it will only work if it recognizes a ROG motherboard.
Dimmdrive may be a easier low cost alternative, but there are free ramdisk programs out there (check out sites like - https://www.raymond.cc/blog/12-ram-disk-software-benchmarked-for-fastest-read-and-write-speed/ ). It is a relatively up-to-date version of a ramdisk program specifically for gaming. Primo Ramdisk is a good alternative, as it is fast and is dynamic (basically meaning that it's size will change, up to the maximum preset, depending on how much is free and how much is needed).
Remember, if you have it start when your PC starts, due to loading the ramdisk profile, it can slow down the start-up time (eg - a 16GB ramdisk load will extend start-up by approx 2 minutes). Similarly, when turning off the PC, any ramdisk info to be saved for next time will make shutting down longer.
On my NUC, it only loads a small amount (mainly used for temporary files and folders, et cetera) so it still has a fast boot and shut down time, and when necessary after starting, I load bigger items into it for work or play.
You would need to read up on their particular advantages and disadvantages to understand how to get the most out of them. Example - Dimmdrive has the ability to only load the necessary games files, which speeds up reloads and new levels (not sure how it works for all games and it has been designed with Steam in mind, as I normally prefer FPS and only recently obtained a copy and I am rebuilding my gaming PC at the moment, so no extensive testing done yet).
Just remember that it is using volatile memory, so shut down and power outages will cause a total loss of data. Some can be set to automatically save all information to a non-volatile memory (HDD or SSD) for recall later. Best to have a USB smart UPS attached to prevent any critical info loss.
Hope this helps.


----------



## Freezer (Sep 17, 2015)

Thanks for the DL link to ROG. I'm currently using Xfast and 4-6GB used with this system as cache, scratch disk; though, previously used AMDs version of Dataram Ramdisk on my older Q6600/8GB system. The only reason I stopped using it as a cache, scratch, temp drive is basically memory limitation, and just needing to update the system. Otherwise, I liked the increased performance.

With my newer system 5820K, I'm looking for alternative methods and better ways to improve performance (not like it needs it, but there is certainly headroom), cache, scratch drives, etc... and perhaps I'm thinking well beyond 'outside the box' ... almost psychotic in some folks' eyes. LOL. It's ok.


----------



## Barney (Sep 17, 2015)

Freezer said:


> Thanks for the DL link to ROG. I'm currently using Xfast and 4-6GB used with this system as cache, scratch disk; though, previously used AMDs version of Dataram Ramdisk on my older Q6600/8GB system. The only reason I stopped using it as a cache, scratch, temp drive is basically memory limitation, and just needing to update the system. Otherwise, I liked the increased performance.
> 
> With my newer system 5820K, I'm looking for alternative methods and better ways to improve performance (not like it needs it, but there is certainly headroom), cache, scratch drives, etc... and perhaps I'm thinking well beyond 'outside the box' ... almost psychotic in some folks' eyes. LOL. It's ok.


Sorry, I am so used to explaining about what this type of program is.
I have been using Primo for a while now and like how it works. When I have shown friends, they are always amazed at how fast things can load, even when using just the old HDD's.
I have been using the newer PCI-E x2 or x4 M.2 SSD's, and these get very hot (thermal photos of a XP941 show it over 110° after moving some files just over - see them about a third the way down the page - https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...e-M-2-Qualification-575/#M_2DriveTemperatures). Interesting read if you are looking at getting one of the newer M.2's. On the plus side, if ever you were impressed with a 500+MB/s SSD speed, you will be blown away with these at about 4 times faster or nearing 15 times faster than a HDD (but still about quarter the speed of ramdisk - M.2  2150MB/s to 8000MB/s plus on 1600MHz DDR3).
Also talked to a fellow at Noctua and they saw exactly the same thing with the SM951. I am looking at getting a Raspberry Pi 2 copper heatsink and mini fan to replace the passive one I already have on my M.2 SSD. Fortunately my motherboard has the M.2 slot in a place where I have the room to do it.
So you aren't the only one looking for that little bit extra.
Once I get all the parts for my gaming rig, I will try to remember to post a comment about comparing Primo and Dimmdrive programs. I only have a i5 4690K and a reference 290x (may even try a crossfire set up), all watercooled with 32GB Crucial Ballistix Tactical memory on a Gigabyte Z97 gaming MB. So I am looking for a reasonable stable overclock when I set it up. I would like to compare a ramdisk program using the newer high speed (3000MHz or more) quad channel DDR4 and see how much difference the new ram makes. If that is faster, how about ramdisk with something like 128GB (or more because of it;s higher density) ram made with that new stacked HBM memory. Ah to dream, wonder how long before we see that as PC RAM. Also read a article a few months back about researching some type of HBM non-volatile RAM.
I think if ramdisk is used in the right way, it could still be a useful tool (given that the peak transfer speed of say using dual channel DDR3 1600 is 12,800MB/s, and we are now about double that and using quad channel).  Even if just to free up the information pathways to and from the SSD's of unnecessary data traffic to leave it free to do other things (examples- reloading game maps, temp files, etc) by utilising the unused ram instead.
Sorry, I have been told I can talk the bark of a tree while swimming underwater.


----------



## Ikaruga (Sep 17, 2015)

_



			"Is RAM Disk worth it?"
		
Click to expand...

*NO*, (unless you are still using HDD)._


----------



## Raybo58 (Dec 8, 2016)

Yeah, I know this thread is old, but I believe I've found a benefit to Ram Drives that will be useful to some people. Those with newer Nvida gfx cards will have access to ShadowPlay (or whatever they're calling it now) to record their game sessions. I haven't done any benchmarking, but I think it safe to assume that recording video in real-time while playing triple A titles, especially at 4k resolutions, is going to demand a lot from your HD or SDD. So I've set mine up so that the temp files, which are the real-time recordings, use a Ram Disk. When you're done recording, ShadowPlay copies the temp files to a different (permanent) location of your choosing. I use the MSI Ramdisk that was developed for my class of motherboard. I have 32gb of mem clocked at 3,000mhz, so I set the Ram Disk to use 6gb and so far it's working like a charm.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 8, 2016)

no.not really. everyone i have known who tries it out, ends up saying the same things after a week or so...."i disabled/uninstalled it, i just got tired of it after a while."especially if you have an SSD.


----------



## Ikaruga (Dec 9, 2016)

Raybo58 said:


> Yeah, I know this thread is old, but I believe I've found a benefit to Ram Drives that will be useful to some people. Those with newer Nvida gfx cards will have access to ShadowPlay (or whatever they're calling it now) to record their game sessions. I haven't done any benchmarking, but I think it safe to assume that recording video in real-time while playing triple A titles, especially at 4k resolutions, is going to demand a lot from your HD or SDD. So I've set mine up so that the temp files, which are the real-time recordings, use a Ram Disk. When you're done recording, ShadowPlay copies the temp files to a different (permanent) location of your choosing. I use the MSI Ramdisk that was developed for my class of motherboard. I have 32gb of mem clocked at 3,000mhz, so I set the Ram Disk to use 6gb and so far it's working like a charm.


I wonder how many Mbps / sec do you need, because I found SSDs to be up to the job and fine for recording with Shadowplay.


----------



## Raybo58 (Dec 9, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> no.not really. everyone i have known who tries it out, ends up saying the same things after a week or so...."i disabled/uninstalled it, i just got tired of it after a while."especially if you have an SSD.



Is it possible that "Everyone you have known" were unable to conceive of any practical applications? "Getting tired" of something doesn't really give us any useful information. I just elaborated on a situation where it works beautifully.

The author of this article says that their studies showed "write speeds for a RAM drive were an average of 4.5 times faster than the built-in SSD and read speeds were 6.3 times faster."...
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/ram-drives-faster-ssds-5-things-must-know/

In an era where yearly gains in computer tech result in systems that are at most 5 to 10 percent faster that the previous year, a solution that results in gains that are 500% faster than the fastest existing tech seems worth investigating.


----------



## Raybo58 (Dec 9, 2016)

Ikaruga said:


> I wonder how many Mbps / sec do you need, because I found SSDs to be up to the job and fine for recording with Shadowplay.



It may be that your system has little trouble keeping up. My suggestion was for those whose systems may be struggling. In any event, we know that SSDs are subject to eventual failure in direct proportion to how much activity they are subjected to. So why not preserve their value by reducing the strain? Especially when the solution is extremely simple and, in most cases, free.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 10, 2016)

Is this detectable in real world or only through benchmarks?


----------



## LightningJR (Dec 10, 2016)

I tried a ram drive with Space Engine since the game has tens of thousands of files and streams in different qualities of textures the closer you get to a planet. It was pretty clear there was a possibility of a large improvement but going from an SSD to the ram drive did nothing to improve the texture streaming.

I also used it for a Minecraft server (with MANY mods) and this also was a situation where it didn't do anything, the SSD performed the same.


I assume the coding of these things comes in to account. Only when the game/app/etc is coded properly to take advantage the massive speeds of a ram drive is when it might really help but in the two cases I tried results were disappointing.



Massive image editing would benefit from a ram drive, I know situations and jobs where it would speed up productivity. The thing is the $1k+ programs will usually have the "load projects to ram" option built in anyway making a separate program to create a ram drive moot.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 10, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> I tried a ram drive with Space Engine since the game has tens of thousands of files and streams in different qualities of textures the closer you get to a planet. It was pretty clear there was a possibility of a large improvement but going from an SSD to the ram drive did nothing to improve the texture streaming.
> 
> I also used it for a Minecraft server (with MANY mods) and this also was a situation where it didn't do anything, the SSD performed the same.
> 
> ...



Youre better off running a RAID of SSDs. The performance gains in Ramdisk are miniscule, especially if you have 8GB+ ram.


----------



## notb (Dec 11, 2016)

As for the "real world" difference - that's really very dependent on what one is doing.
At this point I'm still running a PC without SSD, so the difference between RAM and HDD is tremendous.

But again: installing software (games?) on DDR is cumbersome (somehow more sensible on Linux thanks to easier scripting).
I've had mixed results with moving files - e.g. photos when editing. It's often difficult to force software to keep temporary files in the RAMdisk. Therefore it could happen that the edited file is in RAM and is read/written quickly, but all operations between are happening on a disk.
However, if you succeed in keeping the whole workflow in the RAMdisk (e.g. when you write the code yourself), you'll notice the difference - even compared to mainstream SSDs.


----------



## Ikaruga (Dec 12, 2016)

Raybo58 said:


> It may be that your system has little trouble keeping up. My suggestion was for those whose systems may be struggling. In any event, we know that SSDs are subject to eventual failure in direct proportion to how much activity they are subjected to. So why not preserve their value by reducing the strain? Especially when the solution is extremely simple and, in most cases, free.



Any SSD you buy nowadays will be utterly obsolete and small way before you would start seeing nand failures. I recommend you give that RAM to Windows instead of spending it on a ram drive (or give it to Shadowplay, and let it save more seconds into memory).

In the early days of DOS and Windows times, ram drives had a good use for many different scenarios, but nowadays, modern operating systems and applications can use and do appreciate the more ram as cache or whatever else they might need the ram for. Ram drives can also create unwanted page faults and cache misses, so they can make things even worse in some cases.
I understand that you are trying to help, but this is just a discussion and I have a different opinion


----------



## notb (Dec 15, 2016)

Ikaruga said:


> Any SSD you buy nowadays will be utterly obsolete and small way before you would start seeing nand failures. I recommend you give that RAM to Windows instead of spending it on a ram drive (or give it to Shadowplay, and let it save more seconds into memory).
> 
> In the early days of DOS and Windows times, ram drives had a good use for many different scenarios, but nowadays, modern operating systems and applications can use and do appreciate the more ram as cache or whatever else they might need the ram for. Ram drives can also create unwanted page faults and cache misses, so they can make things even worse in some cases.



For me the most important "scenario" is still simply utilizing a boost in data transfers. Even if you have a PCIe SSD with read/write speeds around 1GB/s, RAM drive will be 10x faster.

As for SSD failures:
What you said is obviously true for typical users (multimedia, games, office tasks).
This is NOT true in general.
Lets assume an average consumer SSD available today can write ~1PB and will be used for 3 years. That gives around 1TB a day.
Obviously, that is A LOT. There exist people that won't write as much data in their life (intentionally, so putting aside cache).

Some people can easily write 1TB a day because of a hobby, a home office activity etc. There is a vast number of ways you can use a PC - some stressing the hardware a lot more than gaming (even with shadowplay...).
Even in large companies, enterprise-grade SSDs (with much better lifetime) are used only in servers. You won't find them in high-end business laptops by default.


----------



## Arjai (Dec 15, 2016)

I found that while Crunching for WCG, a while ago, that a particularly hard project, hard as in using lots of resources, ran better with a dedicated Ram Disk.

Took a while to toy with it so things all ran smooth, considering I am dealing with only 8Gigs. In the end, it helped run that project on my Laptop about 15% quicker, Rough, VERY rough, estimate. It also saved a bunch of writes to disc, due to checkpoints. So, it did extend my SSD's life a little. 

Just my two cents on this.


----------



## kn00tcn (Dec 16, 2016)

Raybo58 said:


> Yeah, I know this thread is old, but I believe I've found a benefit to Ram Drives that will be useful to some people. Those with newer Nvida gfx cards will have access to ShadowPlay (or whatever they're calling it now) to record their game sessions. I haven't done any benchmarking, but I think it safe to assume that recording video in real-time while playing triple A titles, especially at 4k resolutions, is going to demand a lot from your HD or SDD. So I've set mine up so that the temp files, which are the real-time recordings, use a Ram Disk. When you're done recording, ShadowPlay copies the temp files to a different (permanent) location of your choosing. I use the MSI Ramdisk that was developed for my class of motherboard. I have 32gb of mem clocked at 3,000mhz, so I set the Ram Disk to use 6gb and so far it's working like a charm.


what? shadowplay's whole point is low enough bitrates, divide the bitrate by 8 & you get the byte speed, compare that to your drive's specifications or personal benchmarks... so what is the max bitrate that you can set in shadowplay?

i run fraps on old computers, laptops, etc... even at half resolution 60fps, it's still bloated over 200mbit (25mbytes/s), yet is fine for mechanical drives, all these modern *264 type encoders can do low bitrates well below fraps peak since fraps is pseudo-lossless

during the titanfall2 free weekend, i was playing the game on the laptop AND fraps recording to the laptop drive AND (unthrottled max speed) copying other recordings from it to a usb3 drive, now that is some serious mechanical i/o load that didnt even ruin the experience

the demand for a single game with gpu accelerated recording is so low on drives, the only good reason is to not wear out SSDs


----------



## Papahyooie (Dec 16, 2016)

I still say we should try using a custom bootloader to load the OS into ram, and Raid0 that with another ramdisk. You double your ram speed that way.


----------



## notb (Dec 16, 2016)

Papahyooie said:


> I still say we should try using a custom bootloader to load the OS into ram, and Raid0 that with another ramdisk. You double your ram speed that way.



There are Linux distributions preconfigured for running in RAM - it can't be much easier than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions_that_run_from_RAM
IMO the observable (empirical) gain in smoothness is minimal even compared to modern HDDs.
There are some benefits if you frequently execute some programs - e.g. I use sed/grep a lot, but things like this can usually be boosted by better code design. In Linux many things are cached in RAM anyway.


----------



## Papahyooie (Dec 16, 2016)

notb said:


> There are Linux distributions preconfigured for running in RAM - it can't be much easier than that.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions_that_run_from_RAM
> IMO the observable (empirical) gain in smoothness is minimal even compared to modern HDDs.
> There are some benefits if you frequently execute some programs - e.g. I use sed/grep a lot, but things like this can usually be boosted by better code design. In Linux many things are cached in RAM anyway.



Yea but windows has the cool software raid0, and you have to load the OS before you can use that. So load windows into ram, boot from that, setup another ramdisk, raid0 it with the first ramdisk, and you basically have the fastest computer in the world. Probably boot up in microseconds.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Dec 16, 2016)

Papahyooie said:


> Yea but windows has the cool software raid0, and you have to load the OS before you can use that. So load windows into ram, boot from that, setup another ramdisk, raid0 it with the first ramdisk, and you basically have the fastest computer in the world. Probably boot up in microseconds.


Sounds fishy like some free electricity ads in wich one plugs a male end of a cavle into socket and the other end of the cable with (guess wich connector type), another [SOILER="male connector[/SPOILER], in another socket.


----------



## notb (Dec 16, 2016)

Papahyooie said:


> Yea but windows has the cool software raid0, and you have to load the OS before you can use that. So load windows into ram, boot from that, setup another ramdisk, raid0 it with the first ramdisk, and you basically have the fastest computer in the world. Probably boot up in microseconds.



Maybe, but what for? Booting time - seriously? 

And you'll have to move the whole Windows to RAM, which will take you a few seconds. W10 will boot up in under 10 seconds if you ask politely. 

Anyway, Windows is pretty big, so if you'd like to make it really smooth (as in: without a disk swap and with essential software in RAM as well), you'll need a lot of RAM. 

Linux works here a lot better, because you'll easily find a distribution needing less than 2 or 3 GB - even with some tools and files to work with.

I just thought about something else: running an OS in a VM in RAM. That's worth trying.


----------



## Papahyooie (Dec 16, 2016)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> Sounds fishy like some free electricity ads in wich one plugs a male end of a cavle into socket and the other end of the cable with (guess wich connector type), another [SOILER="male connector[/SPOILER], in another socket.



Ok, ok, I'll stop. My humor here is getting dangerously close to trolling...

Yes, I know it's fishy. Also impossible because you can't software raid the windows boot disk from within windows.

I originally thought of the gag when this thread was a little older (scroll back a bit, you'll see it) when people were saying to put your pagefile on a ramdisk. A silly idea, as a pagefile is designed to swap memory out of ram and onto a swap file on the hard disk. If you have enough hard faults that you need a faster page file, then you need more ram. If you have enough ram to put your pagefile on a ramdisk, then you won't need a pagefile (excepting that windows basically requires one) and you won't have enough hard faults for it to affect speed in any way.

I just decided to come up with a sillier solution...

Also, please don't plug a double male cable into two sockets. That doesn't get you free electricity... that gets you dead in a fire.


----------

