Worlds Fastest RamDrive!

[MrMightyOtter]

LOL my SSD is faster..

[TheNewbpowner123]

338.3 isnt that fast...

Imagine the new 16gb ripjaw z kits which run at 2400mhz stock 0_o

[aussiedave24nsw]

i cant fap to this

[APhamx7]

Now we have ssd's :D

[Rudde47]

@dxproductions100 No the max speed of usb 2.0 is 480 Mb/s not MB/s, 480 Mb/s = 60 MB/s

[imickey503]

Forget boot up times. This thing pushing out the companys emails is the ticket or any database app IMO

[Rudde47]

The sad thing is tha 400 MB/sec isn't that impressive.

[andrewesquivel]

ok, since this vid is from 2008, i can understand the 400MB/s. But mine does it at over 5000MB/s

[GruntyStudios]

@andrewesquivel haha, oh wow. That throughput isn't even possible. The fastest storage disk configuration out there is the Revodrive X2, which is rated at about 900mb/s

[rfvtgbzhn]

@andrewesquivel In 2008 you could also already have datarates far over 5000 MB/s for RAM.

The bottleneck of this system is the SATA 3 Gbps bus, which actually is only 300 MB/s, because it uses 8b10b encoding. I don't understand why none of these RAM drives uses PCIe x16. Many motherboards have 2-4 PCIe x16 slots and most useres use only obne, because they don't use SLI/Cossfire and PCIe 3.0 x16 is 128 Gbps or about 16 GB/s, which is still slower then the max. burst rate, that RAM can archive.

[jimmybrite]

@rfvtgbzhn Most pc's don't run multiple PCIe slots @ 16x, If you're already using 1 PCIe slot for a video card, chances are the other slots will only run @ x8 or x4

[rfvtgbzhn]

@jimmybrite I know, but these RAM-drives are expensive, so most people who have the money to buy these probably also can run 2 or 3 PCe-slots at 16x and even if it's only at 4x or 8x, it's still much faster then any SATA variation (PCIe 4x = max. 4GB/s, SATA = max. 600 MB/s).

[hlrsenet]

@rfvtgbzhn Hmm, these have batteries to keep their data intact I assume. DDR2 should be able to top up to 8 GB/s and DDR3 to about 13 GB/s.

[rfvtgbzhn]

@hlrsenet Yes, they have batteries, but I think only for somethng like 24 hours.

And 13 GB/s is about the maximum, you can have with DDR3-1600/PC3-12800 single channel, but the fastest DDR3-speed is DDR-2133/PC3-17000 and some chipsets support up to three channels, so the maximum at triple channel is 38,4 GB/s at DDR3-1600 and 51 GB/s at DDR3-2133.

[hlrsenet]

@rfvtgbzhn Ahh, didn't know that. Hah, assembling a 28GB triple channeled RAMDisk would be wicked. :]

[mymichellegunsnroses]

i got a feeling of saw..

[jothugs]

or get a fusion io

[DocUnsane]

nineeee thousandddd?????????? no WAYYYY~!

[Netzblockierer]

were to buy in germany?

[iCYKoW]

it's name is OVER 9000!!!

[OghamTheBold]

RamDrive? Maybe - BackingStoreRamDrive

I like it - but like the guy said - it has to be rammed through SATA - besides I'm trying to remember why I used to like RamDrives 20 years ago

[skydark]

The music is killing me, what's the movie with this song in it? One of the Bourne movies, maybe?

[skydark]

I remembered...SAW!

[AIexGoneCrazy]

@skydark

Saw

[shniku]

3GB/s = 3000MB/s

[pcfxer]

No, 3072MB/s = 3GB/s. Even still you fail.

3Gb/s != 3GB/s

3Gb/s = 3072Mb/s = 384MB/s

[shniku]

Usually the factors of ten are used instead of the factors of two to make the memory terminology easier to understand.

Example:

Dude, I just got 4GB of ram in my system !!

Actually he got 4.096GB, but since .096GB is usually an insignificant amount, and hard for most people to memorize, they just round.

However, it's good to know that you got a calculator handy and can figure out the exact factors of two.

[pcfxer]

The standard is GiB = 1000 MiB, GB = 1000GB.

You're still wrong. 4.0GB = 4096MB.

4.096GB =~ 4194MB.

I also don't "got" a calculator handy, I HAVE a calculator handy. It is disturbing to know that you still don't understand the concept.

The factor is 1024 NOT 1000. 4096 -> 4.096 is a factor of 1000 and of course not 1024. PS, it is a big deal otherwise Western Digital and others wouldn't have been taken to court.

[NPSF3000]

@pcfxer

Sorry to say this but your wrong, technically these days GB refers to 1000MB (though it still is used to refer to 1024MB in things such as RAM) and GiB refers to 1024 MiB.

Not that its important enough to argue about.

[rfvtgbzhn]

@NPSF3000 This is just a standard from the IEC, but these standards are just recommendations, no one has to use them and 1GB = 1024MB is much more common outside the storage industry. Every major operating system uses 1GB = 1024MB as default, including Windows 7. And if you buy RAM, you also have 1GB = 1024MB. But you are right about the fact that in the SATA standard 1GB = 1000MB.

[NPSF3000]

@rfvtgbzhn

The whole MiB vs MB debate is pointless to me. Though I'll say that I first I thought MiB was childish, but I do like the clarity it brings. Use what ya like, I'll understand it.

However that comment was in correcting this statement:

"GiB = 1000 MiB"

Which isn't easily apparent from the 'top comments' section.

[h4ck573r]

@NPSF3000

I miss old days, now everything is made easy :(, so that lazy newbies wouldn't have to learn.

One click install, UEFI, Install win7 with a click of a button... ffs why did I spent 20 years learning :(.

[NPSF3000]

@h4ck573r I'm lucky enough to have spent my high school days studying cisco - so I know a fair bit about the raw data stuff (albeit mainly from a networking focus). Progress is good - but simplicity produces consumers not creators :(

[h4ck573r]

@NPSF3000 yeah :D, I agree.

All this reminds me of a movie called idiocracy where everything is simplified that much so that everyone in feature is stupid.

[Holoquist]

@NPSF3000 1GB only refers to 1024mb. It is however simplified in same cases to mean 1000 to the profit of many companies.

[NPSF3000]

@Holoquist

Read back because the discussion was more in depth than the 'Top Comments' would suggest. And it's really got nothing to do with profits - no matter how they advertise it they still sell the same amount of data.

[shniku]

Dude enough already. We get that you're a nerd. These guys lie. They don't have the fastest RamDrive, I do. It's read/write speeds are over 30GB/s.

[Netzblockierer]

@pcfxer independent from that, it really uses the full bandwith.... hope tere is an SATA6Gbit-Version coming soon.....

[yur0k]

Why wouldn't combine this with PCI Express x8? SATA-II has a 3Gbps limitation (which is about 300MBps). RAM can do much more (Core i7 is about 18000MBps, older is about 5000..9000MBps). So, SATA-II interface is a bottleneck.

[sexyenrique]

I want I want, thanks for the video.