Can ACard's DDR2 RAM Disk Beat an SSD?

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
From our front-page news:
Fast storage, can we ever get enough? With the introduction of the solid-state disk, it's become so clear to us all just how much of a bottleneck traditional mechanic storage has become. Our CPUs are getting faster, but with even faster storage, we could see substantial gains in certain areas that would make it feel like we doubled the speed of our machine. I for one cannot wait for SSDs to come down in price even further and increase in density. When we all have one in our own machine, it will be a good day.

But with SSD hogging the limelight lately, what about other solutions? Remember the Gigabyte i-RAM? Essentially, it was also a solid-state disk, but much larger than what we are used to today. ACard is one company that didn't want the idea to die though, as they've released a similar part that takes advantage of DDR2, up to 64GB worth (via 8GB sticks).

Our friends at Tech Report have a look at the new device, and to say the results are drool-worthy would be a slight understatement. In many tests, it actually out-performs Intel's ultra-fast X25-E, but, it does cost more, so in some regards, it scales. The other downside is the density. DDR2 might be inexpensive now, but the device can only fit 16GB worth of 2GB modules, and going higher really isn't worth it since higher-density modules escalate in price fast. Still, this is a great idea and it's cool to see another option on the market for those who are interested.

acard_ans9010_techreport_012209.jpg

Another benefit DRAM has over flash memory is that there's no limit on the number of write-erase cycles it can endure. Effective wear leveling algorithms and single-level cell memory can greatly improve the lifespan of a flash drive, but they just prolong the inevitable. DRAM's resiliency does come with a cost, though. While flash memory cells retain their data when the power is cut, DRAM is volatile, so it does not. To keep DRAM data intact, you have to keep the chips juiced.


Source: Tech Report
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
This product was just out of the blue! For the cost of 2GB DDR2 RAM modules, it just makes me salivate at the potential one of these things has if it had a few more RAM slots...

It is unfortunate their hardware controller is not as good as Intel's SSD drive controllers, otherwise this thing would mop the floor with everything out there.
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
I hear enabling RAID 0 on that thing really makes it scream.

They tested it with and without RAID 0. The issue is they don't have a powerful enough drive controller, so RAID 0 only adds a small bit of performance instead of actually doubling it. Intel's X25 drives still do a impressive job of keeping up... and considering the cost, the X25-E is still a better buy. For only $200 more you get more consistent chart-topping performance with exactly twice the storage capacity. And at much less power draw, all those RAM modules are going to be adding heat inside the case.

I don't know about the form factor, but if the single controller isn't able to keep up I would wonder about the feasibility of splitting the banks of ram between two individual controllers, and in effect RAID 0'ing those together. Even if the controller isn't that great, adding another two to double the banks of memory, double capacity, and almost quadruple the performance (4x RAID 0) would be interesting.
 

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
You point out a few major issues here Kougar. Those RAM modules would add a fair amount of heat to that general area, and the power consumption sure wouldn't help either. Add a few hundred dollars and you essentially double the space, and reclaim a lot of space in your chassis/rackmount. I can't believe I'm actually thinking that a $600 32GB drive looks attractive, but compared to this RAM drive, it sure does.

The density is the major issue. 4GB modules are too expensive, and even if they weren't, that's still only 32GB to deal with. That's far, far too little. The only place I see use for this is in a server environment, but even the, the cost-of-entry seems to negate any desire to ignore SSDs.
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
Yeah, I really do hate to sound negative about ACard's RAM Disk because I think it is a brilliant idea with plenty of potential. It just needs to come with a controller that delivers on some of the performance DDR2 memory offers, then the price (Or even a higher price) would be justified. The idea to have a CF card slot for backing up was a very smart idea... made apparent by just how fast those RAM modules drain that battery even though they & the device are fully idle.

As you say, capacity is another problem as 8GB modules are also hard to come by, let alone afford. By the time 4GB modules sink to comparable prices with 2x2GB configurations SSDs will only be more competitive. Already Kingston's rebadged Intel drives are cheaper than the X25's.

Hell, I'd suspect if they threw Intel's controller into that thing as-is it'd blow away the Intel SSD's... I'd expect one of these to easily outlast an X25-M drive, and probably the X25-E which is supposed to have a almost double the lifespan over the "M" drives.
 
Last edited:

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
The issue with me is still the size of storage we're being given. Even with 8GB modules, that would give us 64GB of space, and as I've mentioned before, I find Intel's 80GB SSD to be far too small. I'm able to install Windows, some benchmarks, two games, and before I know it, I'm out of space. Then there is the size issue... ACard's product is just too large.

I'm not against the product by any means, and I'm glad to see that ACard is producing it, but all of the things I don't like about it seem to be out of their control. If they added twice the number of DIMM slots, that would only double the size of the device in the PC. At that point, you might as well just get a 128GB performance SSD (or two and RAID them) and be happy with it.

I'm not sure I really find it that important that ACard doesn't have intel's memory controller. Even without it, it's fast, and I'm assuming that even with the Intel controller, you're unlikely to see noticable gains in a real-world scenario... only in benchmarks.

SSDs is still what I'll be waiting for. This ACard product is just too expensive, and bulky. You can get a small SSD for a fraction of the price, if you don't need insane performance, and I'm starting to believe that I don't. Even Intel's SSD offers only a write speed of 70MB/s (X25-M)... it's the Read speed that's important for most people, and anything above 120MB/s Read is going to be noticable when launching apps and the like.
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
Well, Windows 7 does have a smaller disk footprint, and is the first Windows to actively check on system type to see how much it needs to minimize its install footprint. And unlike Vista it will make efforts to actively control how large things start getting... Link. If you read the source link, apparently Vista (And subsequently W7) aren't as large as they appear to be because files in the winsxs directly are only links to the actual files, and as such get counted twice.

Right now I'd have a full 32GB drive, but I could easily manage an 80GB installation as long as I keep my data on a different drive. Thanks to the Libraries, you can map all your data/anything to any location easier than before.
 
Last edited:

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
Kougar said:
Well, Windows 7 does have a smaller disk footprint, and is the first Windows to actively check on system type to see how much it needs to minimize its install footprint.

So... we get this feature at a time when storage is ultra-cheap... nice. Seems ironic... we could have used that feature long ago!

Kougar said:
aren't as large as they appear to be because files in the winsxs directly are only links to the actual files, and as such get counted twice

Hmm... how would things "seem" larger, then? The Windows search tool shouldn't count the file twice, then, really. How Linux handles things is that links to files are counted as shortcuts only... so they are like 4KB. Windows should do something similar, to help it look more lightweight.

Kougar said:
Right now I'd have a full 32GB drive, but I could easily manage an 80GB installation as long as I keep my data on a different drive.

I'm starting to see your logic. I'd probably throw an Intel SSD in this main machine to test it out for a bit (using 66GB at the moment of my main partition)... but alas, it would likely prove a huge pain in the ass to move Gentoo over to one :-S
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
Hmm... how would things "seem" larger, then? The Windows search tool shouldn't count the file twice, then, really. How Linux handles things is that links to files are counted as shortcuts only... so they are like 4KB. Windows should do something similar, to help it look more lightweight.

The source link explains it better than I could. http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx

Also, I think I should mention Intel price cut their SSD's again today. Newegg is selling the X25-M for $399 shipped. :cool:
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
The X25-E cuts are even more dramatic, I'm seeing those for $425 with Froogle.

Keep in mind these drives hit shelves in October... that was four months ago. They have seen $100 price cuts every 2 months for the X25-M, and a bit more for the X25-E. I can't wait to see if the trend continues because by the time Windows 7 launches I could afford two! Without W7 I have no incentive to pull the trigger just yet...
 

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
Kougar said:
I can't wait to see if the trend continues because by the time Windows 7 launches I could afford two!

I agree. After seeing what kind of performance non-Intel drives can pull, like OCZ's latest Apex, I can't wait to see what the situation is like around the Window 7 launch. By then, the drives should be even more affordable, and you're going to be getting a lot more for your money, than if you buy now (although, that's always the way, regardless of the hardware).
 
Top