When was main memory only as fast as SATA 3.0?

[Hulk]

I'm trying to think back? I'm sure it was that slow at some point...

 

[Cerb]

PC66, at just over 500MB/s. So, mid 90s.

 

[reallyscrued]

 

[Smoblikat]

PC66, at just over 500MB/s. So, mid 90s.

Haha, thats SATA 6gb/s.

 

[hhhd1]

In real world, I think that software ram-disks on DDR1 might get speeds similar to sata 3.0, because they would be limited by the processor.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

In real world, I think that software ram-disks on DDR1 might get speeds similar to sata 3.0, because they would be limited by the processor.

http://www.zebpedersen.co.uk/?p=1621

Interesting read. Dunno how CPU performance limits the particular tests he did.

 

[hhhd1]

http://www.zebpedersen.co.uk/?p=1621

Interesting read. Dunno how CPU performance limits the particular tests he did.

He did mention in his article that ddr3 performed worse than ddr2, and he didn't mention the CPUs used.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

He did mention in his article that ddr3 performed worse than ddr2, and he didn't mention the CPUs used.

Oh yeah, it's not even close to a fair test.

I suppose if I really cared that much, I could throttle the heck out of my memory and run benchmarks in single and dual-channel mode at 1066, 800, 400, and 133 speeds and timings. (I wonder if my motherboard will let me set my memory clock to 66 MHz...)

 

[vss1980]

Transfer rate is one thing - latency would be quite another. Especially in terms of write speed - normal RAM doesn't have half as much complication compared to SSD garbage collection and TRIM.
I think SSDs are still a bit away from measuring latency and access times in nanoseconds - part of that is possibly down to the SATA bus and other electronics overhead involved with flash RAM.

 

[Denithor]

I wonder how that will change with SATA Express?

And how different the already existing PCIe SSDs stack up?

 

[FalseChristian]

Does serial ATA actually make hard-drives faster?

 

[Smoblikat]

Does serial ATA actually make hard-drives faster?

Are you being serious?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Are you being serious?

Before SATA-150, an IDE drive had a sustained throughput of something like 33 Mb/s. That was about the time of the memory used during early-Pentium era. I even forgot the name of the memory spec. Was it "EDO" or something?

 

[Cerb]

Before SATA-150, an IDE drive had a sustained throughput of something like 33 Mb/s.

They were well into the 70+MB/s range, by then, with an interface maximum of either 100MB/s or 133MB/s, depending on controller. ATA DMA modes were 16MB/s, 33MB/s, 66MB/s, 100MB/s, and eventually 133MB/s, before SATA came around.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

They were well into the 70+MB/s range, by then, with an interface maximum of either 100MB/s or 133MB/s, depending on controller. ATA DMA modes were 16MB/s, 33MB/s, 66MB/s, 100MB/s, and eventually 133MB/s, before SATA came around.

Not at all disagreeing with you. ONly to note there are "burst-rate" specs and "sustained" specs.

Amazing to consider that a Samsung Galaxy SIII smart-phone-tablet has more RAM and SD "disk-space" than many machines built around 1995.

And I'm having more trouble "keeping up." I don't know whether I love it, or hate it . . . .

 

[Cerb]

Not at all disagreeing with you. ONly to note there are "burst-rate" specs and "sustained" specs.

At ATA-133, the limiting factor was PCI. Intel, SiS, and NVidia chipsets could truly handle around 120MB/s, sustained, though others, like VIA and AMD, not so much; and the speed would be limited due to contention from other devices.

Amazing to consider that a Samsung Galaxy SIII smart-phone-tablet has more RAM and SD "disk-space" than many machines built around 1995.

If they used full-size SD, instead of MicroSD, they could beat them in disk performance, too.

 

[TerryMathews]

Before SATA-150, an IDE drive had a sustained throughput of something like 33 Mb/s. That was about the time of the memory used during early-Pentium era. I even forgot the name of the memory spec. Was it "EDO" or something?

Basically nothing in your post is correct. Congratulations!

 

[lamedude]

At ATA-133, the limiting factor was PCI. Intel, SiS, and NVidia chipsets could truly handle around 120MB/s, sustained, though others, like VIA and AMD, not so much; and the speed would be limited due to contention from other devices.

By the time ATA 133 was out chipset communication was no longer using the PCI bus. Intel's Accelerated Hub Architecture and Via's Vlink started at 266MB/s. Nvidia always used HyperTransport (800MB/s). Earliest info I could find on SiS's MuTIOL was 533MB/s on their P4 chipsets.

 

[Cerb]

By the time ATA 133 was out chipset communication was no longer using the PCI bus. Intel's Accelerated Hub Architecture and Via's Vlink started at 266MB/s. Nvidia always used HyperTransport (800MB/s). Earliest info I could find on SiS's MuTIOL was 533MB/s on their P4 chipsets.

Well, there goes my memory! :$