Gigabyte shows off i-RAM successor

[Alec§taar]

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):

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.

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.

More details will be released in due course.

Best regards,
Chris
www.ddrdrive.com

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

*** 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

about damn time I was waiting for u to STFU.

 

[Makaveli]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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!

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

See next post, more detail...

APK