That is kickass if I do say so myself, I want one. But, why doesn't gigabyte make these in a DDR2 flavor?

i'm still looking forward to the one that goes into a pci-e x1 slot...

Quite nice, sata interface is great as I have 5 doing nothing xD Now sticking all "useless" DDR there might be fun, but don't have 4GB laying around, some 256MB ones don't help that much :) If it's supercheap might buy one just for fun, but doubt it is.

Random Murdereri'm still looking forward to the one that goes into a pci-e x1 slot...

pci-e x1 isn't fast enough.....SATA is much better suited. now pci-e x16 on the other hand.....(maybe even pci-e x8 would be better)

kwchang007pci-e x1 isn't fast enough.....SATA is much better suited. now pci-e x16 on the other hand.....(maybe even pci-e x8 would be better)

Yes but wouldnt the bandwidth be limited to the speed of the RAM anyway? If so, a PCI-e 4x or 8x slot would work ok, right?

JrRacinFanYes but wouldnt the bandwidth be limited to the speed of the RAM anyway? If so, a PCI-e 4x or 8x slot would work ok, right?

ummm i think ram is way faster than pci-e x16. ram is measured in operations per sec Mt/sec which is one million transfers per sec. now lets take ddr 400mhz. it can transfer 64 bit/clock. that is 8 bytes/clock. multiple that by 400 (frequency of memory) and it is 3200 bytes/clock. multiple that by 2 (double data rate, or double pumped, whatever you wish to call it) and you get a final total of 6400 bytes/sec. divide that by 1024/sec (one gb/sec) and you get 6.25 gb/sec. sata can only support 3gb/sec so it's not fast enough. pci-e x16 can support 2.5 gb/sec, while pci-3 v2 can support 5 gb/sec. none of those are fast enough to match the bandwidth that ddr ram at 400mhz (dual channel) would need if you wanted your interface to match the ram. granted, there is probably overhead because of the transition from a parallel interface into the serial interface that sata uses, but i don't believe it would be enough to bring down the memory's bandwidth to 3gb/sec (woops it's SATA I 1.5 gb/sec)

sorry for the long post guys.

DDR 400MHz bandwidth is capped at 3.2Gbit single channel and 6.4Gbit dual channel so its definitely faster than the 1.5Gbit SATA port that its running on...

Unless the adapter is SATAII based, which is 3.0Gbps ( I think), need your confirm again kwchang =P.

JrRacinFanUnless the adapter is SATAII based, which is 3.0Gbps ( I think), need your confirm again kwchang =P.

in the picture it says its SATA 1.5GBit so im assuming thats SATA and not SATAII :slap:

AHHH, See what happens when you don't read and just assume. DOH!!!:nutkick:

JrRacinFanUnless the adapter is SATAII based, which is 3.0Gbps ( I think), need your confirm again kwchang =P.

ehhh i was wrong SATA I....1.5 gb/sec yuck, why would they put it on SATA I, why not II, doesn't make much sense (are they afraid of saturating the SATA interface?)

Dear god I just had a idea a creamed in my pants.



JBOD a few of these, 12Gb on three, enough for windows and swap space. :D




BTW, you also need to subtract out of that equation for RAM the latency, so theoretical bandwidth is great but actual is likely close to SATA 3.0

SteevoDear god I just had a idea a creamed in my pants.



JBOD a few of these, 12Gb on three, enough for windows and swap space. :D




BTW, you also need to subtract out of that equation for RAM the latency, so theoretical bandwidth is great but actual is likely close to SATA 3.0

ehh let's not worry about latency ;) different types of ram has different latencies, so it's hard to say how you are going to factor it in. oh and steevo, 12 gb on 3? you going to try and raid those to :D. umm i can't find a mobo flowchart right now, but let's go under the assumption that you have 3 of these running at 1.5 gb/sec each (maximum of SATA I). that would mean 4.5 gb/sec of stuff moving through the sb (generally where mobos have SATA ports). that means the interface from the sb to nb would have to be 4.5 gb/sec...i don't remember if i've seen a mobo with that. besides that....SATA is on it's on interface i believe (so max is x gb/sec to sb) so.....3 is probably overkill, and you're not going to be able to get maximum performance out of it.

EDIT: found a flow chart of the p35 chipset. notice that the sb is connected to the nb by a 2 gb/sec interface, so even a 3gb/sec SATA device couldn't use it all (if it could get up there)

This is stupid now, they released this product ages ago except it took power from teh PCI slot and interfaced through the SATA port. All this is a new enclosure... Still using DDR with a crappy SATA150 interface, move along I say!
This needs SATA300 with support for DDR/DDR2 and DDR3 (choices of which version you want)

ExceededgokuThis is stupid now, they released this product ages ago except it took power from teh PCI slot and interfaced through the SATA port. All this is a new enclosure... Still using DDR with a crappy SATA150 interface, move along I say!
This needs SATA300 with support for DDR/DDR2 and DDR3 (choices of which version you want)

i can agree with SATA II, but idk about ddr/ddr2/ddr3....ddr at 400mhz is faster than 3gb/sec even after you take latency into account (usually).

I want at least 10 gigs so I can run the O/s and a game at the sametime on ram.

kwchang007pci-e x1 isn't fast enough.....SATA is much better suited. now pci-e x16 on the other hand.....(maybe even pci-e x8 would be better)

sata 1 and 2 are slower than 1x i believe besides in the last one it was pci but that was just for power it still used a sata plug for connectivity

ddr2 there is no point to make it ddr2 ddr1 is cheap and there is going to be allot of it laying around soon even if there was ddr 2 on it it wouldnt make it faster cause its on sata which ddr easily keeps up with


i hope this one is sata 2 not sata 1 like the old one

It is SATA 1.5 Gbps.
DDR2 would be nice, not for speed, but because DDR2 is so damn cheap.

Fun, as usual people mix up GB and Gb. DDR400 can transfer 3.2GB (GigaByte) per second. SATA 2 does 3Gb (Gigabit) per second, ie 3Gb/8 = 375MB/s. DDR2 would indeed be the way to go due to pricing. With current DDR2 prices it could be quite attractive to have 8GB of DDR2 running in RAID0. Could in theory do 375MB/s*2=750MB/s, I'd say 8GB is enough for an OS and performance will be godly while remaining affordable. Unless of course those RAMdrives still cost a lot.

I was just hoping prices would have come down. No doubt they wont if they stick to DDR ram which is more expensive now than ddr2 :(

Sooner or later we will kiss HDs Goodbye and all PCs will have RAM drives....

DanTheBanjomanFun, as usual people mix up GB and Gb. DDR400 can transfer 3.2GB (GigaByte) per second. SATA 2 does 3Gb (Gigabit) per second, ie 3Gb/8 = 375MB/s. DDR2 would indeed be the way to go due to pricing. With current DDR2 prices it could be quite attractive to have 8GB of DDR2 running in RAID0. Could in theory do 375MB/s*2=750MB/s, I'd say 8GB is enough for an OS and performance will be godly while remaining affordable. Unless of course those RAMdrives still cost a lot.

SATA is measured in gigabits per sec? huh...you learn something new everyday. i thought everything was measured in bytes? (as far as bandwidth is concerned)

kwchang007i thought everything was measured in bytes? (as far as bandwidth is concerned)

Internet speeds!? 8Mb broadband for example = a theoretical 1MB per second transfer.

Check carefully whether products/companies state Xkbps or XkBps.

theonetruewillInternet speeds!? 8Mb broadband for example = a theoretical 1MB per second transfer.

Check carefully whether products/companies state Xkbps or XkBps.

ahhh yuck...thanks for telling me now though....and now you guys make me want to check my internet speed....

And get prepared for more blue screens of death. Dumping memory.