[citation][nom]KenZen2B[/nom]merikafyeah 09/28/2012 2:41 PM Insert quote. Report -1+ .JeanLuc :I was on Youtube the other day on the Corsair channel and they were showing the advantages of 'Ram cache' which was lights years faster then SSD's in therms of throughput. Could Toms consider doing an article into Ram cache as I think it would be of interest to people who have 16-32Gb systems (since DDR3 is cheap at the moment) can spare the extra system ram to cache files and software. TheSSDReview did something similar:http://thessdreview.com/our-review [...] onds-flat/No point in even comparing RAM to SSDs, as even "slow" RAM is faster than even the best SSDs by about the same amount as the best SSDs are faster than floppy disks.I have read the article and have these thoughts on the subject.1) Why have mobo manufactures not placed an extra four memory slots on their mobo to handle this concept ?2) Why have RAM manufactures not teamed up with mobo manufactures to supply them with 256 GB memory sticks ?3) Has the industry, video and others, (movies, ads, special effects, cartoons, simulations, etc.) moved to this type of strategy to increase their productivity ?[/citation]
1) mobo manufacturers would have nothing to connect these RAM slots too. They need DDR3 controllers and they'd need more of them, so where are those going to come from? The only thing that I can think of is some sort of integrated PCIe device and it would make the motherboard quite expensive.
2) 256GB memory sticks would cost thousands of dollars. Even 16GB memory sticks and especially 32GB memory sticks can already be extremely expensive and difficult to make. We can't just make chips that have more memory capacity in a given size than current memory procces nodes can work with, so any such memory module with 256GB of RAM would be huge, to say the least.
3) It's too expensive.
Basically, cost is the main inhibitor for all three of your questions.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram