Gigabyte's i-RAM: Affordable Solid State Storage
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 25, 2005 3:50 PM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Overall Performance
How does the i-RAM impact overall system performance? In order to find out, we installed Winstone on the drive and compared its benchmark results to the Raptor:| Overall Performance Comparison (Higher is Better) | |||||
Business Winstone 2004 |
Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 |
||||
| Gigabyte i-RAM (4GB) | 24.5 |
36.3 |
|||
| Western Digital Raptor (74GB) | 23.9 |
35.4 |
|||
What's very interesting here is that there's very little performance gain from running Winstone on the i-RAM, which tells us that Winstone isn't nearly as disk bound as we originally thought.
We wanted to run other benchmark suites on the i-RAM; however, we ran into capacity issues once again.
One of the biggest advantages of the i-RAM is its random access performance, which comes into play particularly in multitasking scenarios where there are a lot of disk accesses. In order to see if this translates into any tangible real world performance gains, we turned to the Multitasking Business Winstone tests:
"This test uses the same applications as the Business Winstone test, but runs some of them in the background. The test has three segments: in the first, files copy in the background while the script runs Microsoft Outlook and Internet Explorer in the foreground. The script waits for both foreground and background tasks to complete before starting the second segment. In that segment, Excel and Word operations run in the foreground while WinZip archives in the background. The script waits for both foreground and background tasks to complete before starting the third segment. In that segment, Norton AntiVirus runs a virus check in the background while Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Access, Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft FrontPage, and WinZip operations run in the foreground."
| Winstone Multitasking Performance Comparison (Higher is Better) | |||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
Test 3 |
|||
| Gigabyte i-RAM (4GB) | 5.55 |
2.98 |
3.1 |
||
| Western Digital Raptor (74GB) | 2.78 |
2.93 |
3.04 |
||
The biggest performance gain is in the first multitasking test, which is the file copy test while Outlook and IE run. The performance advantage here is tremendous, with the i-RAM generating a score almost twice that of the Raptor.
The rest of the tests show very little performance improvement. We'd guess that the majority of the boost in the first test is due to the file copy that takes place during the run.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
133 Comments
View All Comments
crazySOB297 - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
I'm surprised they didn't raid a few of them... I think you could get some huge performance.Googer - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
Not to mention it is a way to also get around the 4gb siza limitation.
Hacp - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Dude the article said straight out that SATA150 was the only format supported. Read the entire article.Guspaz - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
I too am dissapointed that the article lacked any mention of SATA2, which is twice as fast as SATA (300MB/s vs 150MB/s). Considering many motherboards already on the market suport SATA2, and the 300MB/s transfer rate that goes with it, it is a bit of an oversight that the articles doesn't even MENTION if the card supports SATA2 or not. Nor do they mention what they think would happen with SATA2, or if Gigabyte is likely to produce a SATA2 version. It's a weak spot in this article, I think, considering how central the bandwidth of SATA is to the performance of the i-RAM.snorbert - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
33MHz PCI only gets you 133 MB/sec theoretical, and more like 110 MB/sec in the real world. The i-RAM with SATA 1 can completely saturate a PCI bus. SATA2 would cost more to implement, and give you no speed increase at all on a 33MHz bus. If you build the card for higher-end PCI specs (e.g. 66MHz, 64 bit, 66MHz/64bit, PCI-X) then you automatically exclude most PC enthusiasts (unless they like buying server boards for their game boxes).
If they end up doing a PCI Express version, then there would be some reason to support SATA2.
This board is not a replacement for a hard drive. It would be incredibly useful as a transaction log though. Reliable (i.e. won't get lost if the machine crashes) write-behind caching for RAID 5 drives will give you a huge boost to write speeds. And the controller cards that support battery-backed write behind caching cost a lot more money than an i-RAM.
-Jason
sprockkets - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
Also to reply hereKeep in mind that for many years the ide/sata controllers are NOT on the PCI bus of the southbridge, so PCI is not a limitation.
snorbert - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - link
Actually, scratch my comment - I had not had enough coffee when I wrote it. I forgot that the PCI connector is doing essentially squat except providing power to this device. Of course you could have a SATA2 controller on a faster bus talking to this thing. But an SATA2 version would probably cost more. (because it would need a faster FPGA, newer SATA transceivers)Sorry folks,
Jason the doofus
Anton74 - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
You did miss that reference; on page 2 it says "The i-RAM currently implements the SATA150 spec, giving it a maximum transfer rate of 150MB/s".Given the 1.6GB/s of the RAM, it seems completely silly not to provide a 300MB/s SATA interface instead, especially considering that the whole contraption including RAM will cost as much as 2 or more decent hard drives.
Anton
ryanv12 - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
The controller on the card is not SATA-II...it can do a max of 1.6GB/s...not exactly SATA-II speeds there...Anton74 - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
1.6GB/s is actually more than 5 times 300MB/s, the maximum supported by SATA-II. So 300MB/s could easily be fully utilized, and I don't understand why they didn't support that.Anton