Gigabyte IRAM - when and where

[russell2002]

Anyone know,

I cant wait but cant find one anywhere,

 

[imported_Tick]

IRAM sucks, and your not going to find it retail for a while yet.

 

[russell2002]

Why does it suck, its faster than any hard disk. What better device for opening large photos in corel.

 

[imported_Tick]

Because: it relies on a silly battery, because it uses volatile ram; it's not all that fast; it only allows 4 GB; because it doesn't allow ECC or Bufferd RAM; because it uses up a PCI slot; and because it requires 1 gb dimms to be of use.

 

[russell2002]

All of which is based on your intended use.

For me the 4gb limit is fine. Whats wrong with a battery, and dont all comps have pci slots making it suitable for any comp.

 

[acemcmac]

I want this too

INQ ran an article on it this morning and included this link http://www.hkepc.com/ for more pics

 

[biostud]

If they used SATA-II instead of SATA and supported up to 8Gb, it would be far more interesting.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: biostud
If they used SATA-II instead of SATA and supported up to 8Gb, it would be far more interesting.

What would be left for rev 2 then?

 

[aug1516]

Originally posted by: biostud
If they used SATA-II instead of SATA and supported up to 8Gb, it would be far more interesting.

Actually I had heard it will support 8gb using 2gb modules (expensive!) and I really can't see how the SATA-II interface will provide any major performance increases over the existing SATA-I connection. Technically SATA-II is capable of more speed but SATA-I did not seem to be holding the existing solution back from the benchmarks I have seen.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: aug1516

Originally posted by: biostud
If they used SATA-II instead of SATA and supported up to 8Gb, it would be far more interesting.

Actually I had heard it will support 8gb using 2gb modules (expensive!) and I really can't see how the SATA-II interface will provide any major performance increases over the existing SATA-I connection. Technically SATA-II is capable of more speed but SATA-I did not seem to be holding the existing solution back from the benchmarks I have seen.

I never saw any peak bandwith close to 300Mb/s. The memory should be able to deliver far more bandwith, so I can only guess it's the SATA interface holding it back.

 

[Thug Esquire]

Any news on the release of this piece?

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: Tick
Because: it relies on a silly battery, because it uses volatile ram; it's not all that fast; it only allows 4 GB; because it doesn't allow ECC or Bufferd RAM; because it uses up a PCI slot; and because it requires 1 gb dimms to be of use.

The battery only kicks in if your computer is unplugged from the wall, or the PSU is manually switched off. When your computer is turned off but still plugged in, the iRAM draws power from the PCI slot to keep the volatile memory powered up.

 

[Hacp]

Still waiting for the SATA 300 ones so they can be used for Pagefiling.

 

[bwnv]

Actually, THG has a review up for this today. It seems that the bog is due to not having the SATA chips. And yes, it can support 8 GB of ram.

 

[MrDudeMan]

PSA: sata-II is NOT a technology. it was the name of a group that was working on sata technology, which is now called SATA-IO. sata-II does not mean a drive is capable of 3.0gB/s xfer rate.

 

[Unkno]

cost=$250 CAD

 

[Buck Naked]

Has anyone seen a release date on this yet?

 

[russell2002]

Me too, still cant find one...

 

[imported_Nacelle]

This would be great for a media machine where you would want silence.

 

[Jiggz]

I cannot even find it on Gigabyte's homepage. I just want to see how it works if I make it as a pagefile. I know AT says there is not perceived performance but THG says otherwise. So I'll try it myself to make my own call.

 

[MobiusPizza]

Originally posted by: aug1516

Originally posted by: biostud
If they used SATA-II instead of SATA and supported up to 8Gb, it would be far more interesting.

Actually I had heard it will support 8gb using 2gb modules (expensive!) and I really can't see how the SATA-II interface will provide any major performance increases over the existing SATA-I connection. Technically SATA-II is capable of more speed but SATA-I did not seem to be holding the existing solution back from the benchmarks I have seen.

From benchmark I read the sustained transfer rate came close to 150MB/s mark at 138 something iirc.
I am sure SATA-II would allow more breathingroom

 

[MobiusPizza]

Originally posted by: Tick
Because: it relies on a silly battery, because it uses volatile ram; it's not all that fast; it only allows 4 GB; because it doesn't allow ECC or Bufferd RAM; because it uses up a PCI slot; and because it requires 1 gb dimms to be of use.

The battery point is not entirely true
As long as your desktop computer is plugged into wall, where there's no power outage; No matter if your computer is shut down, hibenated, styand by' The data in iRAM would be safe.

The battery is only a backup for providing 16 hours of juice when there's a power outage / The computer need to be transported.

 

[russell2002]

I want one.... I have money... Gigabyte listen to me !!!