Anyone own Gigabyte i-ram?

squiffy · 2 Jun 2007 at 21:45

Anyone have one of these fitted into machines? Have you used 2GB or 4GB of RAM? I would guess a stripped down XP would just about fit onto 2GB (program files installed elsware)

Have overclockers stopped selling them? (and generally hard to find now?)

Foehammer2003 · 3 Jun 2007 at 00:28

Afaik most people avoided these badboys simply because if you should lose mains power for whatever reason you would lose your install, thats is if you have windows on it. Making them a novelty item.

Also DDR was just too expensive to make it worth while, be interesting to see if anyone has one though...

Zefan · 3 Jun 2007 at 00:29

I thought the idea was that it had a battery that kept the data on there for a while?

Might have just been a dream tbh

Foehammer2003 · 3 Jun 2007 at 00:53

No your right... it does :rolleyes:

my bad

Still it only lasts 16 Hours, rarely happens that we lose power for that long, but it does happen, oh and found this:

There are only three conditions where the i-RAM runs off of battery power:

1) When the i-RAM is unplugged from the PCI slot;
2) When the power cable is unplugged from your power supply (or the power supply is disconnected from your motherboard; and
3) When the power button on your power supply is turned off.

Think it was mainly the restriction on memory (up to four gig only) that really held it back

Psycho Sonny · 3 Jun 2007 at 01:16

you would be better off just getting some 4 * 320 GB hard drives from western digital and sticking them in raid, although it wont be as lightning fast as i-ram it should be more than enough

Cyber-Mav · 3 Jun 2007 at 02:08

stupid thing with the iram is its sata 1 interface. benchmarks show that its sustained transfer rates always at 150mb/s the limit of sata1. they would have been far smarter to have used sata2.

Psycho Sonny · 3 Jun 2007 at 02:39

Cyber-Mav said:
stupid thing with the iram is its sata 1 interface. benchmarks show that its sustained transfer rates always at 150mb/s the limit of sata1. they would have been far smarter to have used sata2.

sata 2 wasnt out when they were developing it, but its more about random access i think and the fact its 0 or near enough 0, and they wont make a second newer version because the first was a flop, if they do i will be surprised but you never know

caeteez · 3 Jun 2007 at 02:56

I think this was just done to stand as a 'look what we can do' leap in technology. I know they ended up marketing it but I'm sure they knew it would never catch on. Not yet at least.

snowdog · 3 Jun 2007 at 02:57

But sataII speeds of 300 mb/sec don't compare to true ddr400 ram speed of 6000 mb/sec with a latency of around 50 ns, imo I-ram would be better if it just used pci-e x16 (or 8x) speeds, and fake some kind of interface with such a speed...

Justintime · 3 Jun 2007 at 03:47

Well i have one with 4gb of RAM, bloody fast for windows etc.. more a novelty than anything however due to the size limitation. Battery lasts about 17 hours without power, though i tested that only when it was brand new. BTW it does not use the full DDR speed, only 33Mhz PCI so any PC1600 modules will work. Might eventually strip the 4gb of PC3200 Samsung from it and put 2Gb PC1600 if i find any about the place. RAM with heatspreaders won't fit as well.