Jump to content

Rendawg87

Member
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Funny
    Rendawg87 got a reaction from 8uhbbhu8 in Show off your old and retro computer parts   
    Ru trying to say it sitting at the bottom and back of a junk drawer for 3 years is a bad place for it? 
  2. Agree
    Rendawg87 reacted to Mattias Edeslatt in Show off your old and retro computer parts   
    That card has really seen some bad storage ?
  3. Like
    Rendawg87 reacted to SpookyCitrus in Show off your old and retro computer parts   
    The good old days when GPU designs were a lot more.... frisky.

  4. Like
    Rendawg87 got a reaction from Gegger in Show off your old and retro computer parts   
    4YOUREYZONLY
     
    *J.J. Jameson Laugh*



  5. Agree
    Rendawg87 reacted to Bitter in Practical RAMDISK pc   
    Not really, you'd still be limited by the latency in the PCI-e system vs the IMC and RAM which is MUCH lower latency. Say RAM via the IMC has a 60ns round trip, well in a PCI-e slot it's not going to be 60ns round trip. From what cursory data I'm seeing on Google it's about 10x higher on the PCI-e data buss vs RAM, so 600-900ns latency. Again though, we're talking things that just are not able to be perceived to the end user. Maybe doing a data intensive task over a long period of time those little bits would add up but still the cost/GB doesn't really pan out. Using software to cache writes to RAM for later writing is a better use of your system memory or the speculatively cache data to be read even, I do that with the Samsung software for the SSD in my HTPC and it works seamlessly for small writes and reads things happen with apparent instantaneous speed, even on computers where I'm not using any RAM caching just having a SSD makes things happen pretty darn fast. Theory is great but practical application isn't so practical.
  6. Agree
    Rendawg87 reacted to Mira Yurizaki in Practical RAMDISK pc   
    PCIe 3.0 x16 tops out at ~16GB. DDR4-2166 is about 17 GB/s. So there's a bandwidth issue there.
  7. Like
    Rendawg87 reacted to Bitter in Practical RAMDISK pc   
    I seem to recall technology similar to this or exactly this from a number of years back, problem was it was eclipsed in capacity and cost by flash memory storage, the trade in speed was worth the gain in cost/gb of storage and now with NVME it's fairly moot since you're still pushing over the same PCI-e lanes so latency isn't that much better anymore. If you have a bunch of memory you can cache a ton of stuff to RAM and it does go faster but on modern systems the perceived gains are very small.
     
    My personal experiences were back when I had XP 64bit *shudder* running on a system with 4GB of RAM and using a RAID0 array of two fast 7200 RPM hard drives, latency on the array was still not great even if sustained speeds were good for the time. I cached my browser disk cache into RAM with a virtual RAM disk software, that made going forward and backward instant, I cached some Windows OS assets into RAM as well, made Windows feel really fast and slick. I cached anything I could, felt great. Then I got an SSD and I couldn't feel that speed gain anymore over the SSD. On a modern system with SSD or NVME storage the gains you can notice from caching to RAM are far smaller, certain things may see a nice bump but mostly you won't notice.
  8. Like
    Rendawg87 got a reaction from Gegger in Show off your old and retro computer parts   
    I now introduce you to the PCI SOUND BLASTER XFI EXTREME AUDIO EDITION!!!
    IF I remember correctly it boasted to have the processing power of a Pentium 4 when processing audio. I can remember running a 3.8MB MP3 into this music enhancer program. If you cranked it the whole way up it made the music file 500+MB in size. 
     
     
    If anyone likes this I'll make another post with better photos. 



×