Gilbo

New SSD disk from Gigabyte

Recommended Posts

It's being unveiled at Computex. Anandtech has some info.

They don't say whether it is SATA 1 or SATA 2, which is unfortunate. I'm going to assume its SATA 1, which is rather dissappointing. It is powered by the PCI slot, and plugs, as an SATA disk into an available SATA connector. It has space for four DIMMs.

The cost us ~US$50. I have no doubt that many of you are now going to go crazy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Master of Understatement at Anand:

Given that the card offers no real backup other than the {16 hour} battery it’s not really suitable for extremely sensitive data, but it works well if your system is on all the time.

Extremely sensitive data? How about any data more important than cache data? I am just not sure how useful this is...maybe as a drive for Oracle logs and pending transactions? Maybe as web content drives...OK, the more I think about it...there are a few uses. I'm curious to see who can think of more...

Gigabyte or SR should run a contest to give one away for the most creative use...

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. I agree Future Shock. The writing at Anandtech is just absolutely terrible. They scatter plain-dumb comments liberally over the majority of their work.

(Johan de Gelas is entirely excepted from that generalization. He's got a solid head on his shoulders.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The battery doesn't look to difficult to swap out for a longer lasting unit. If one of you geniuses can figure out how to hotwire the battery into say something like an external UPS (for possible days of backup?), I'd consider buying one :P

Edited by Ron_Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 x 1GB sticks of DDR still cost a bit o' money, at least here they do. 2GB sticks would be out of the question for me, leaving 512MB sticks for a not too useful total of 2GB. Hmmm.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Johan de Gelas is entirely excepted from that generalization. He's got a solid head on his shoulders.)

He's Belgian of course ;)

I wonder how much power the DIMMs need to remain charged. IIRC ATX mainboard are powered all the time (unless not plugged in of course). Can't a PCI slot provide enough power to keep all the stuff charged?

I wonder when the "how-fast-will-these-be-in-RAID0?"-threads start.

I definitely wonder whether StorageReview can get it's hands on one of these to play with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how much power the DIMMs need to remain charged.  IIRC ATX mainboard are powered all the time (unless not plugged in of course).  Can't a PCI slot provide enough power to keep all the stuff charged?

206460[/snapback]

Not the entire board is fully powered, only the standby lines are powered. But I think that's enough to keep the DIMMs powered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 x 1GB sticks of DDR still cost a bit o' money, at least here they do. 2GB sticks would be out of the question for me, leaving 512MB sticks for a not too useful total of 2GB. Hmmm.....

206450[/snapback]

In the Netherlands 512 mb is available for 46 euro and 1 gb is available for 98 euro, so the relative difference isn't that big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder when the "how-fast-will-these-be-in-RAID0?"-threads start.

206460[/snapback]

HMTK-

I DAMNED NEAR WET MY PANTS!! TOO FUNNY...and yet all too accurate...

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks pretty interesting actually. It could be used for a number of things. Plus, if losing it was a big pain, you could easily create an image of it on a real HD. Backup or restore would only take a couple minutes max. At 4Gb (4x1Gb) it could easily contain Windows XP with a number of normal apps, making boot of the OS and launching of Apps much faster. Or, you could install your favourite game to it for nearly instant loading.

Will be intersting to see some real specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

256MB €15

512MB €30

1024 MB €74

2048 MB €- no place I know of sells it.

Anyways, I'ld love to have a 4GB drive with Windows and some programs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may laugh at RAID 0 - but for this, it could make sense. At $50 each, it's cheaper to buy two (or three or four, depending how many spare PCI slots you have) and populate them with smaller, lower cost per GB DIMMs.

Think - (8x46)+(2x50)=468. (4x98)+50=442. Okay, so it doesn't quite make sense for 512 MB vs. 1 GB DIMMs, but it surely does for 1 GB vs. 2 GB.

And you could easily back it up to a hard drive on shutdown... use a UPS with automatic shutdown if you're still nervous.

This still isn't cheap, because DIMMs aren't cheap, but it's better than $400 odd (+ RAM) for a Hyperdrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good use of this drive is for all Temp files (Windows, Adobe, Internet). This way you'll speed up your system for little money (you may have 512MB or 1GB of spare RAM), and you don't care about losing data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may laugh at RAID 0 - but for this, it could make sense.

206475[/snapback]

Spod,

Have you thought about how the latency and streaming speeds of DDR memory compares to PCI bus bandwidth? A single one of these ALREADY has more throughput than a PCI bus can handle - putting two of them on that same bus does what? Overloads the bus, causes collision - and if anything would probably reduce performance...

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am just not sure how useful this is...maybe as a drive for Oracle logs and pending transactions? Maybe as web content drives...OK, the more I think about it...there are a few uses. I'm curious to see who can think of more..."

Photoshop Scratch disk!!! (once all the dimms of the motherboard are populated, of course...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may laugh at RAID 0 - but for this, it could make sense.

206475[/snapback]

Spod,

Have you thought about how the latency and streaming speeds of DDR memory compares to PCI bus bandwidth? A single one of these ALREADY has more throughput than a PCI bus can handle - putting two of them on that same bus does what? Overloads the bus, causes collision - and if anything would probably reduce performance...

Future Shock

206481[/snapback]

The odd thing about these devices, Future Shock, since they plug into the PCI slot is that they don't actually transfer data over the bus. They just use it for power. The have SATA ports on them. It's a rather bizarre setup, but should reduce bottleneck issues.

Of course anyone who buys these at the expense of purchasing more main memory needs mental help...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder when the "how-fast-will-these-be-in-RAID0?"-threads start.

206460[/snapback]

HMTK-

I DAMNED NEAR WET MY PANTS!! TOO FUNNY...and yet all too accurate...

Future Shock

206468[/snapback]

Quoted for truth.

ROFL...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The odd thing about these devices, Future Shock, since they plug into the PCI slot is that they don't actually transfer data over the bus.  They just use it for power.  The have SATA ports on them.  It's a rather bizarre setup, but should reduce bottleneck issues.

Of course anyone who buys these at the expense of purchasing more main memory needs mental help...

206485[/snapback]

Wow - you're right, I was on crack when I wrote that. Or, really, had just come back from the gym and had no blood flow to my brain - 'cause I DID read the article, and DID read about the SATA connectors, and STILL wrote that. And my legs ARE sore...

Given that, running those in RAID0 would allow you to overcome the speed limitations of the SATA channels, until you hit the limit of the SATA <-> CPU link (varies by chipset of course). So maybe...just maybe...

Lastly, there is another part of the Gigabyte board that I didn't see them discuss - that FPGA must also contain the memory refresh and timing control. When do we start seeing the discussions on how to overclock THAT? :-)

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course anyone who buys these at the expense of purchasing more main memory needs mental help...

Why? Many programs need a temp folder no matter how many RAM you have. So using one of these will speed up in example CoolEdit. If you use it for the Windows temp folder you'll speed up most installations, because they normally decompress to the temp folder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The temp folder is buffered in the disk cache which is in main memory.

This is why, Photoshop performance improves when you have more main memory than it can use. The scratch disk is being cached by the disk cache. This works with any number of applications from databases to decompression programs.

EDIT: In fact, you will likely see a performance decrease if you were to do as you suggest.

Edited by Gilbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PCI slot only gives power to the card, the Data does not go through it. Be a little more carefull with the reading. I wouldn't mind giving this card a try, heck $50 for the device is cheap. You can use this card for simple tasks that don't take a lot of space, regular 2GB DDR sticks go for $150 so it's not THAT bad for 8GB's of total capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Johan de Gelas is entirely excepted from that generalization. He's got a solid head on his shoulders.)

He's Belgian of course ;)

I wonder how much power the DIMMs need to remain charged. IIRC ATX mainboard are powered all the time (unless not plugged in of course). Can't a PCI slot provide enough power to keep all the stuff charged?

I wonder when the "how-fast-will-these-be-in-RAID0?"-threads start.

I definitely wonder whether StorageReview can get it's hands on one of these to play with it.

206460[/snapback]

Fast enough to max out something other than the SSD. :D

You may laugh at RAID 0 - but for this, it could make sense. At $50 each, it's cheaper to buy two (or three or four, depending how many spare PCI slots you have) and populate them with smaller, lower cost per GB DIMMs.

Think - (8x46)+(2x50)=468. (4x98)+50=442. Okay, so it doesn't quite make sense for 512 MB vs. 1 GB DIMMs, but it surely does for 1 GB vs. 2 GB.

And you could easily back it up to a hard drive on shutdown... use a UPS with automatic shutdown if you're still nervous.

This still isn't cheap, because DIMMs aren't cheap, but it's better than $400 odd (+ RAM) for a Hyperdrive.

206475[/snapback]

It would be nice if the automatic backup on shutdown was as seamless as the HyperDrive III.

The odd thing about these devices, Future Shock, since they plug into the PCI slot is that they don't actually transfer data over the bus.  They just use it for power.  The have SATA ports on them.  It's a rather bizarre setup, but should reduce bottleneck issues.

Of course anyone who buys these at the expense of purchasing more main memory needs mental help...

206485[/snapback]

Wow - you're right, I was on crack when I wrote that. Or, really, had just come back from the gym and had no blood flow to my brain - 'cause I DID read the article, and DID read about the SATA connectors, and STILL wrote that. And my legs ARE sore...

Given that, running those in RAID0 would allow you to overcome the speed limitations of the SATA channels, until you hit the limit of the SATA <-> CPU link (varies by chipset of course). So maybe...just maybe...

Lastly, there is another part of the Gigabyte board that I didn't see them discuss - that FPGA must also contain the memory refresh and timing control. When do we start seeing the discussions on how to overclock THAT? :-)

Future Shock

206487[/snapback]

Why? The SSD is already going to have latencies about a million times faster than most hard drives and max out the connection in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are cool. I am gonna try my best to get one asap. As far as some of the comments in this thread, just read the article slow and 2 times. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The temp folder is buffered in the disk cache which is in main memory.

This is why, Photoshop performance improves when you have more main memory than it can use.  The scratch disk is being cached by the disk cache.  This works with any number of applications from databases to decompression programs.

EDIT:  In fact, you will likely see a performance decrease if you were to do as you suggest.

206497[/snapback]

I don't know that! Never noticed that windows cached something usefull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now