Hello guys, post your speeds. (No RAMDisks)

Hello guys, post your speeds. (No RAMDisks)

Attached: fastbutnoRGB.png (485x473, 387K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rRTkLGheDgE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>winshit
>photographing the screen
yikes

is that a ramdisk ?

No, OP managed to benchmark his L1 cache

Look at the size of the drive, 7,4TB. Probably some M.2/PCI-E SSD or Xpoint drives in RAID

For anyone asking it's 4 NVME rives in RAID on a PCIE 4 Card and Slot.

The latencies must be horrible

Recommend and excellent ramdisk so that I have good use for my 48gb of ddr4

I have two basic bitch 1Tb hard drives. I know you will bully me for this but it just werks for me. Yes the windows 10 takes 30 seconds to boot but I only boot my computer once or twice a day.

Still I am shocked by the speeds you are reaching here. I guess that's why they call you zoomers. ZOOM ZOOM LOOK AT MY READ SPEED ZOOM CHILLI DOGS SANIC THE HEDGEHOG

>t. buttblasted poor boomer

:shrug:

Attached: cdm.png (402x367, 33K)

>t. buttblasted poor boomer

I am 32 and unemployed so all my tech is obtained through dumpster diving.

>0fill enabled
nice try

Primocache ftw

Attached: shits.so.cache.png (402x367, 34K)

I see young basedboys like you while dumpster diving all the time.

>Y-you can't dig through company's trash d-dude we will call police.

Call your mother faggot. I am a tech chad nigger faggot. That 8gb ddr3 stick and that 1TB hard drive are mine pantsy.

I also have an old working OG pc with windows 2000 nigger

>that pathetic 4k q1t1
LOL

Attached: 1557444542769.jpg (320x292, 23K)

Yeah, but his isn't a RAM disk.

You have 8GB of useable space there

OP has over 7TB.

Useless with those shitty 4k speeds, more important than meme sequential.

>needs a fuck ton of ultra fast SSDs in raid 0 to come close to RAM speeds
>still slow as shit 4k
Never gonna make it.

For what...?

With 8GB of space, you're not able to work on anything but small projects at most.

You wont be editing 4k RAW footage on that 8GB.

What do you NEED that high performance WITHOUT having more than 8GB of space? Seems WAYY more niche than a 7TB+ drive with similar performance.

128GB of DDR4 is way cheaper than dozens of blazing fast SSDs in RAID 0, and still very slow random read/write.

nice ramdisk
nice ramcache
good nvme
nice ramcache AND T6 instead of T1

here's mine (my CPU bottlenecks the fuck out of it so here's a screenshot from proclockers using the best CPU)

Attached: ecks de.jpg (406x368, 69K)

128GB of DDR4 is still WAYYYY smaller than 7.45TB

And with 128GB of RAM you're still spending a LOT of money.

Unless you absolutely NEED that performance.

Also, you're comparing a RAMDisk on crystaldiskmark 3.0.3 vs a PCIe NVMe RAID array on Crystaldiskmark 6.0.1 (and 6.0.2 is out as well)

unless you're gonna compare on the SAME version benchmark, or at least within a single 0.0.1 revision, you're just posting bullshit.

They aren't the same tests.

>nice ramcache
it's not a RAM cache, it's a RAID array of NVMe drives.

Sequential speeds are fucking useless if your random read/write is fucking shit. That's exactly why HDDs are slow as shit.

>That's exactly why HDDs are slow as shit.
Same goes for SD cards.

Nigger, it entirely depends WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE DOING

You have no idea what OP wants to do, ASSUMING he needs random read/write performance is RETARDED.

For all you know he SPECIFICALLY wants sequential performance for a certain workload.

I want a ramdisk in raid 0 now.

>ASSUMING he needs random read/write performance is RETARDED
Then buy HDD if you don't care about shitty random 4k speeds lol.

...yeah because sequential literally never matters?

Jesus you're a retard.

It doesn't matter that much, really.

Attached: dRpmQ.jpg (417x377, 176K)

The fucking state of HDD relics. SSDs will follow next.

>RAID array
>redundant array of inexpensive drives array

>still using old versions of crystaldiskmark that are incomparable to everyone else

Wow, so useful.

Attached: 2019-05-29 10_57_50.png (801x692, 870K)

Reminder both Intel and AMD are putting RAM modules right near the CPU. And DDR5 wil double the capacity of RAM memories. 512GB of RAMdisk will be possible in a few years.

Can you imagine the insane speeds?

Attached: amd-iedm-2017-full-3d-stack.png (1107x873, 453K)

Yeah, we can benchmark on g then tell people they are HDs

Wow, 2MB/s instead of 1, outstanding.

The point was to show the test doesn't test the same things anymore, comparing them is retarded.

Do a test with the latest version or shut the fuck up and stop posting.

Why you heff to be mad?

Because retards like yourself keep posting irrelevant benchmarks trying to claim they're somehow relevant despite not doing the same tests in the same manner.

>lose everything when power goes out
>restarting or turning off takes forever because it has to write the drive image to the slower backup drive each time

Probably four 2TB fast SSDs in RAID0

OP here, it's not RAM cache or RAMDisk, it's a PCIe Gen 4 board that has 4 NVME drives running RAID on a gen 4 slot.

2011 ssd ftw

Attached: 2019-05-29-171447.png (501x178, 20K)

I just wanted to post RAMdisk to trigger SSDlets.

Attached: images.jpg (225x225, 9K)

>what is UPS

link me where you can get a pcie gen 4 board that isn't raptorcs (which cant run windows anyway)

>imagine the heat
But seriously, integrated liquid+gold+copper heatexchangepipes amongsts dies and integrate RAM is the only way forward. Molecularity will end. Some day, GPUs will finally be unified into the "CPU" components. AI and graphics will become vastly more standardised for Nvintel, Qualcomm, and AMD consumer desktop SoCs. You'll only get to choose your storage solutions and chassis regarding internals.

Attached: file.png (399x360, 29K)

>tfw my DDR4 ramdisk could only get 8000MB/s

imagine creating and extracting .zip or .tar archives without compression on that shit

Attached: 1555959429199.jpg (251x201, 8K)

>Not Shizuku edition

I mean, I don't care about that, in fact i'd encourage you to post a RAMdisk that was actually fucking tested on the latest version of crystaldiskmark so we actually had a fair fucking comparison to make.

rip

AMD X570 motherboard and Gigabyte PCI-E Gen4 M.2 expander card in raid 0 probably, it's from this video

youtube.com/watch?v=rRTkLGheDgE

God damn you're retarded. Stop posting anytime.

It's a gigabyte aorus board

X570 isn't available yet.

And? Doesn't mean people don't already have them.

Not everyone is a consumer.

I don't know why my SSD does random writes significantly faster than random reads. Usually the writes are slightly slower than the reads, right?

Attached: CDM 2019-05-29.png (406x364, 30K)

X570 is a consumer board you faggot, preorders haven't even s t a r t e d

Here's my 960 Evo
Can't wait to see what kinds of speeds the PCIe 4.0 brings to the table, especially since the early models can already do 5GB/s.
It'll be interesting to see how high they can go a year or two from now as the tech matures.
But what I'd really like to see is the randoms get better on these.

Attached: 960 EVO.png (409x373, 36K)

So fucking what?

Do you think they send out engineering samples of CPUs without having boards available to test on?

Retard, people who review CPUs have access to hardware generally several weeks before the launch in order to test and review properly.

what ssd?

that seems really shitty for an SSD.

Here is my seagate 600 SSD from ~2013/14.

Attached: 2019-05-29 12_06_51.png (798x695, 862K)

SEETHING

Sandisk SDSSDXPS240G from 2015.

Could it be that it's plugged in wrongly, having access to a slow SATA port or having to share a lane with other drives or something?

Seems like SOMETHING is wrong with it, not sure exactly what though.

It SHOULD be getting 350-400MB/s+

probably no DRAM cache (or very small amount of DRAM cache)

basically, all SSD are scam because you get reduced speed if you transfer a file that's larger than 6GB

Sure, but he's specifically doing a 1GB test file, it should have no issues hitting 350MB/s+

I've checked and it's plugged into a special Marvell 6GB/s port on my P8P67-M Pro motherboard. I also have two 6GB/s Intel ports available, should I try one of those? Are SATA cables equidirectional?

I've just tried it out manually copying a random 1.35GB large file within the SSD and the Windows dialogue reported speeds between 110 and 140MB/s. Nowhere near how an SSD is supposed to perform but far better than the idiotic values CDM is shitting out.

i imagine the integrated intel SATA ports would be better, but it should still be better than what you're seeing.

Make sure drivers and shit are updated, as well as chipset and other shit like that.

Maybe even a BIOS update depending on the board.

>But what I'd really like to see is the randoms get better on these.
tried optane yet, headline sequential read speeds might be miles behind a 970 evo but when it comes to random reads it shits all over it and we'll probably reach endtimes before the fucker wears out

cool :)

I've never updated anything. However switching the cable from the Marvell port to one of the Intel ports dramatically improved things and turned my god-awful numbers into mediocre numbers. Either a firmware issue or a borked port. I'm just gonna leave it like this now.

Attached: CDM 2019-05-29a.png (406x364, 28K)

Or rather a borked controller, not a borked port.

I can't remember when was the last time I booted my pc

frens..

Attached: file.jpg (400x362, 50K)

>he doesn't know
intel cpu?

welcome to my world