USB Storage Memory question

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shane12m

In Runtime
Messages
110
Hey guys ...I was wondering if anyone has tried a usb memory drive to increase ram?

I was wondering how much it really help , so that way I dont have to get internal memory because I only have two slots and they have 512 in each so if I wanted to upgrade I would hae to waste at least 512 of ram

Ok thanks just wanted to know if anyone has tried this new feature with vista
 
Well. I did see this thread once you first posted it. I immediately thought of Vista, which you stated. Using USB storage isn't really that great. I have not seen anyone do it so I don't know is it better. But If you really want to have better performance, buy some more ram.

According to Tom's Hardware, using ReadyFetch helps to improve application startup time. This doesn't make the program run faster, but it just make the startup time of the programs faster. I think it does this by loading the program onto the stick, so I doesn't preload on the main memory, and opens it when you run it.

Tom's Hardware said:
Conclusion

SuperFetch takes care of buffering applications proactively; ReadyBoost provides the additional memory space to do so. Both new features cannot make systems faster than they are; which means that power-hungry applications do not benefit from them. SuperFetch uses available main memory space that may have been unused under Windows XP, and ReadyBoost utilizes a mature and cheap technology by means of USB 2.0 Flash memory devices to provide additional memory capacity for the SuperFetch feature. With only a little "learning", Vista will know which applications are most important for you, and it will preload them into available main memory and onto the ReadyBoost device. In short: Vista succeeds in utilizing existing resources and technology to provide more balanced performance.

Source:
Windows Vista's SuperFetch and ReadyBoost Analyzed | Tom's Hardware
 
Wow thanks alot man because that is decieving then what i read just basiclly says that it is faster then actual ram and is good for computers that cant upgrade anymore so that kinda sucks ,
 
USB interface is slow compared to onboard SATA/IDE drives, so while you could technically use a USB drive as a paging file or 'virtual memory', you'd be better off just using some HD space.
 
USB interface is slow compared to onboard SATA/IDE drives, so while you could technically use a USB drive as a paging file or 'virtual memory', you'd be better off just using some HD space.

I could be wrong here, but wouldn't USB memory drives, be faster than hard drives?...since the USB memory drives, don't have any moving parts...like those solid state drives?
 
The drives themselves may be faster, but the interface (USB 2.0) is not.

It takes longer to read/write to a USB flash drive than a HD platter on SATA/PATA interface.
 
Not exactly. USB 2.0 reads/writes at a transfer rate of 488Mbps. While SATA is at 300Mbps. PATA transfers at 150Mbps. So it turns out that USB transfer is faster. Those are max speeds and optimal settings. So using them as a RAM replacement is more effective than using a HDD with Virtual Memory.

The problem with HDD's is that the read/write head is always moving accessing data and writing data. It can not be obtaining your info and writing info to the Virtual MEmory at the same time. So you have to sacrafice performance to gain speed. This is the thought behind Super Fetch and the whole USB Thumb Drive as RAM. It is easier for the PC to write the info to the USB drive and access something from the HDD than trying to force the HDD to perform both functions at once when it is physically impossible to do so.

Super Fetch and the Ready Boost feature is only decent on machine with less than 1GB of RAM. Even then you should have twice as much on your USB stick as you do RAM. So if you have 512RAM you should use a 1GB USB stick.

I used this on a PC with 768RAM and a 2GB USB stick. It didnt work all that well. The PC gained only about 1 sec of preformance when doing anything. Which isnt worth the whole process overall. It is more efficent to buy more RAM for you system than a 2GB or more Thumb Drive.
 
Not exactly. USB 2.0 reads/writes at a transfer rate of 488Mbps. While SATA is at 300Mbps. PATA transfers at 150Mbps. So it turns out that USB transfer is faster. Those are max speeds and optimal settings. So using them as a RAM replacement is more effective than using a HDD with Virtual Memory.

The problem with HDD's is that the read/write head is always moving accessing data and writing data. It can not be obtaining your info and writing info to the Virtual MEmory at the same time. So you have to sacrafice performance to gain speed. This is the thought behind Super Fetch and the whole USB Thumb Drive as RAM. It is easier for the PC to write the info to the USB drive and access something from the HDD than trying to force the HDD to perform both functions at once when it is physically impossible to do so.

Super Fetch and the Ready Boost feature is only decent on machine with less than 1GB of RAM. Even then you should have twice as much on your USB stick as you do RAM. So if you have 512RAM you should use a 1GB USB stick.

I used this on a PC with 768RAM and a 2GB USB stick. It didnt work all that well. The PC gained only about 1 sec of preformance when doing anything. Which isnt worth the whole process overall. It is more efficent to buy more RAM for you system than a 2GB or more Thumb Drive.

Theoretical max speed for USB 2.0 is 480Mbit/s or 60MB/s. For SATA 2.0, 3.0Gbit/s or 300MB/s (throughput, not max). 300MB/s is 5 times faster than 60MB/s. SATA 2.0 is faster than USB 2.0.

The drives themselves may be faster, but the interface (USB 2.0) is not.

It takes longer to read/write to a USB flash drive than a HD platter on SATA/PATA interface.

WRONG
Actually, seek time on flash based drives almost do not exist, whereas mechanical drives have to more its head to the location.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom