Hard Drive Bottleneck

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

The way we are moving fast to higher speeds.
If the company's keep progressing the way they are, we will end up @ a
speeds
of encoding video that no hard drive can keep up with.
It ends up that a bottleneck is already here, or almost.
We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
150 MB Per Second for Sata.
My question here is a way around this?
Even the fastest Sata drive cant keep up with CPU & RAM.
Go To http://www.emusega-forever.com Forums for more..
I'll try to put something there for this.

I've still not got a good answer for True FSB.
But no prob, I don't mind.
There R things that even good ppl don't understand.
;-)
The RavingRaichu is just a drunk, &....
(Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you) Amp's not
including..........

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

RaichuRaichu wrote:
> The way we are moving fast to higher speeds.
> If the company's keep progressing the way they are, we will end up @ a
> speeds
> of encoding video that no hard drive can keep up with.
> It ends up that a bottleneck is already here, or almost.
> We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
> 150 MB Per Second for Sata.
> My question here is a way around this?
> Even the fastest Sata drive cant keep up with CPU & RAM.
> Go To http://www.emusega-forever.com Forums for more..
> I'll try to put something there for this.
>
> I've still not got a good answer for True FSB.
> But no prob, I don't mind.
> There R things that even good ppl don't understand.
> ;-)
> The RavingRaichu is just a drunk, &....
> (Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you) Amp's not
> including..........
>
>
Ahhhghh soon we will have 120gb flash drives faster than the speed of
juice flowing from the electric fence to your uleavragh...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"RaichuRaichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:I6WdnS3jzfASkNjfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> The way we are moving fast to higher speeds.
> If the company's keep progressing the way they are, we will end up @ a
> speeds
> of encoding video that no hard drive can keep up with.
> It ends up that a bottleneck is already here, or almost.
> We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
> 150 MB Per Second for Sata.
> My question here is a way around this?
> Even the fastest Sata drive cant keep up with CPU & RAM.
> Go To http://www.emusega-forever.com Forums for more..
> I'll try to put something there for this.
>
> I've still not got a good answer for True FSB.
> But no prob, I don't mind.
> There R things that even good ppl don't understand.
> ;-)
> The RavingRaichu is just a drunk, &....
> (Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you) Amp's not
> including..........
>
>

The problem is supposed to be being addresed with the SATA interface.The
latest increase is the SATA 300 spec being introduced this year. The
bandwidth is there but the drives haven't caught up. SATA 150 drives are
hardly faster than UATA 100/133 drives.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"dawg" <don't look@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Qik1e.462540$w62.302530@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "RaichuRaichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:I6WdnS3jzfASkNjfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > The way we are moving fast to higher speeds.
> > If the company's keep progressing the way they are, we will end up @ a
> > speeds
> > of encoding video that no hard drive can keep up with.
> > It ends up that a bottleneck is already here, or almost.
> > We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
> > 150 MB Per Second for Sata.
> > My question here is a way around this?
> > Even the fastest Sata drive cant keep up with CPU & RAM.
> > Go To http://www.emusega-forever.com Forums for more..
> > I'll try to put something there for this.
> >
> > I've still not got a good answer for True FSB.
> > But no prob, I don't mind.
> > There R things that even good ppl don't understand.
> > ;-)
> > The RavingRaichu is just a drunk, &....
> > (Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you) Amp's not
> > including..........
> >
> >
>
> The problem is supposed to be being addresed with the SATA interface.The
> latest increase is the SATA 300 spec being introduced this year. The
> bandwidth is there but the drives haven't caught up. SATA 150 drives are
> hardly faster than UATA 100/133 drives.
>
>
There's always hoping.
Huh? my Sata drive is faster on tests @ least then any of my IDE Drives.
300, that MB?
If they go up twice every time, that will help a lot.
;-) Cool.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

RaichuRaichu wrote:

> The way we are moving fast to higher speeds.
> If the company's keep progressing the way they are, we will end up @ a
> speeds
> of encoding video that no hard drive can keep up with.
> It ends up that a bottleneck is already here, or almost.
> We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
> 150 MB Per Second for Sata.
> My question here is a way around this?
> Even the fastest Sata drive cant keep up with CPU & RAM.
> Go To http://www.emusega-forever.com Forums for more..
> I'll try to put something there for this.
>

A solid state disk drive would do what you want. If you have enough memory
on the motherboard, you could even create a ramdisk...

There's more that one way to skin a cat... or improve a bottle neck...


--

******************************************************************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
12:32am up 168 days, 8:18, 8 users, load average: 0.10, 0.13, 0.09

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

M. Bezzel wrote:

> RaichuRaichu wrote:
>> The way we are moving fast to higher speeds.
>> If the company's keep progressing the way they are, we will end up @ a
>> speeds
>> of encoding video that no hard drive can keep up with.
>> It ends up that a bottleneck is already here, or almost.
>> We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
>> 150 MB Per Second for Sata.
>> My question here is a way around this?
>> Even the fastest Sata drive cant keep up with CPU & RAM.
>> Go To http://www.emusega-forever.com Forums for more..
>> I'll try to put something there for this.
>>
>> I've still not got a good answer for True FSB.
>> But no prob, I don't mind.
>> There R things that even good ppl don't understand.
>> ;-)
>> The RavingRaichu is just a drunk, &....
>> (Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you) Amp's not
>> including..........
>>
>>
> Ahhhghh soon we will have 120gb flash drives faster than the speed of
> juice flowing from the electric fence to your uleavragh...

You mean uvula...




--

******************************************************************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
12:36am up 168 days, 8:22, 8 users, load average: 0.10, 0.14, 0.09

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

yeah, currently SATA drives are running at burst rates of 150 MB/s
(don't you hate how hard drive burst rates are in MB/s, network rates
are in Mb/s... lack of consistency in units ;-). Didn't know that
300MB/s was just around the corner... that's cool! Also heard that
SATA's bandwidth tops out around 600 MB/s, so they've got a little room
to play around with soon. Even at 300MB/s, they'll be a lot better than
ATA100/133 drives I'm sure...

Plus those are burst transfer rates... if you benchmark them, you'll
probably get different numbers again. My Maxtor 160GB ATA133 with 8MB
cache benchmarks @ around 60MB/s with SiSoft Sandra; I'd be curious to
see how an SATA150 drive compares to that... (haven't looked into other
peoples' reports on that sort of thing yet)... because you can't tell it
all from the burst transfer rates... look at USB2.0 (480 Mb/s) vs
Firewire 400 (400 Mb/s)... firewire400 is still faster for most
applications (e.g. transferring files to/from an external hard drive),
despite its slower burst speed. I'm not 100% clear on the reasons for
all this, but I think marketing comes into play a lot...

JB

RaichuRaichu wrote:
> "dawg" <don't look@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Qik1e.462540$w62.302530@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>"RaichuRaichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:I6WdnS3jzfASkNjfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>>
>>>The way we are moving fast to higher speeds.
>>>If the company's keep progressing the way they are, we will end up @ a
>>>speeds
>>> of encoding video that no hard drive can keep up with.
>>>It ends up that a bottleneck is already here, or almost.
>>>We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
>>> 150 MB Per Second for Sata.
>>>My question here is a way around this?
>>>Even the fastest Sata drive cant keep up with CPU & RAM.
>>>Go To http://www.emusega-forever.com Forums for more..
>>>I'll try to put something there for this.
>>>
>>>I've still not got a good answer for True FSB.
>>>But no prob, I don't mind.
>>>There R things that even good ppl don't understand.
>>> ;-)
>>>The RavingRaichu is just a drunk, &....
>>>(Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you) Amp's not
>>>including..........
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The problem is supposed to be being addresed with the SATA interface.The
>>latest increase is the SATA 300 spec being introduced this year. The
>>bandwidth is there but the drives haven't caught up. SATA 150 drives are
>>hardly faster than UATA 100/133 drives.
>>
>>
>
> There's always hoping.
> Huh? my Sata drive is faster on tests @ least then any of my IDE Drives.
> 300, that MB?
> If they go up twice every time, that will help a lot.
> ;-) Cool.
>
>

 

[Spajky]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:21:48 -0500, "RaichuRaichu"
<ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote:

>We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
> 150 MB Per Second for Sata.
>My question here is a way around this?

http://www.bitmicro.com/products_ide.html
http://www.pqi.com.tw/pqi-eng/main.asp
etc.etc ...
--
˛˛ ˛˛ Regards , SPAJKY ®
\\.//_. mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
\°/ ".. long live & prosper.." - 3rd Anniversary running it:
|| "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Spajky" <Spajky@##volja.net> wrote in message
news:3j9b411jpjor3lrd0m3fag714uragcn02s@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:21:48 -0500, "RaichuRaichu"
> <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
> > 150 MB Per Second for Sata.
> >My question here is a way around this?
>
> http://www.bitmicro.com/products_ide.html
> http://www.pqi.com.tw/pqi-eng/main.asp
> etc.etc ...
> --
> ?? ?? Regards , SPAJKY ®
> \\.//_. mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
> \°/ ".. long live & prosper.." - 3rd Anniversary running it:
> || "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
Nice, now how bout some links that go somewhere?

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"RaichuRaichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:I6WdnS3jzfASkNjfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> The way we are moving fast to higher speeds.
> If the company's keep progressing the way they are, we will end up @ a
> speeds
> of encoding video that no hard drive can keep up with.
> It ends up that a bottleneck is already here, or almost.
> We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
> 150 MB Per Second for Sata.
> My question here is a way around this?
> Even the fastest Sata drive cant keep up with CPU & RAM.
> Go To http://www.emusega-forever.com Forums for more..
> I'll try to put something there for this.
>
> I've still not got a good answer for True FSB.
> But no prob, I don't mind.
> There R things that even good ppl don't understand.
> ;-)
> The RavingRaichu is just a drunk, &....
> (Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you) Amp's not
> including..........

Check out this....
http://www.superssd.com/default.asp
Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Bob" <luna5nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:K7y1e.17325$HD6.7173@fe03.lga...
>
> "RaichuRaichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:I6WdnS3jzfASkNjfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > The way we are moving fast to higher speeds.
> > If the company's keep progressing the way they are, we will end up @ a
> > speeds
> > of encoding video that no hard drive can keep up with.
> > It ends up that a bottleneck is already here, or almost.
> > We have CPU's that can do GB's per Sec. But HDD only does do @ most
> > 150 MB Per Second for Sata.
> > My question here is a way around this?
> > Even the fastest Sata drive cant keep up with CPU & RAM.
> > Go To http://www.emusega-forever.com Forums for more..
> > I'll try to put something there for this.
> >
> > I've still not got a good answer for True FSB.
> > But no prob, I don't mind.
> > There R things that even good ppl don't understand.
> > ;-)
> > The RavingRaichu is just a drunk, &....
> > (Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you) Amp's not
> > including..........
>
> Check out this....
> http://www.superssd.com/default.asp
> Bob
>
>
Thing seems very nice.
It would work well on a server. ;-)
RavingRaichu.

 

[Spajky]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 04:18:19 -0400, "RaichuRaichu"
<ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote:

> Unless you overclock some Very Sweet DDR2.

DDR-II is about 30% slower on same real memory clock than DDR in real
life even if has almost double max.theoretical bandwith ...
(thats maybe why AMD is not planning soon to "uppgrade" onDie memory
controller for their s.754 & further sockets CPUs ... IMHO)
--
˛˛ ˛˛ Regards , SPAJKY ®
\\.//_. mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
\°/ ".. long live & prosper.." - 3rd Anniversary running it:
|| "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"RaichuRaichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:29ednSVNQZVNO9LfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
>& I look like an A**?
> I really do now, answering this after this many days.

You've always come across as an arsehole Denny.

> replying to a thread which most ppl here for the most part has seemed
> to want to let alone, makes you look dumb.

Lol. pot, kettle, black. You're calling somebody else dumb?

> & One is lba 48 while the other is 28.

No. 48 bit LBA was first introduced on parallel ATA controllers, so your
comment is fundamentally incorrect. Both parallel and Serial-ATA have the
capability to run 48 bit addressing.

> Most IDE's only allow LBA 28bit.

> Yeah, so SATA2 can do like 300MB/s
> even if it could do 1GB/s, it's still a huge Bottleneck.

So what? The 300MB/sec interface is a red herring. The *real* bottleneck is
the sequential read/write rates to/from the disk itself, which in the case
of even the Western Digital Raptors is still to break 100MB/sec.

> Now, even if I don't have the speed right, it's still nowhere close
> to what cpu & ram can do.

Indeed not. Short of moving wholesale to solid state drives (which is not a
cost-effective scenario right now), there is no way to get around this
reality. CPU's and leading memory technologies will *always* outstrip hard
disk bandwidth. Always have done.

> This is something I'm not sure on.

There are many things you're not sure about Denny, along with many more
things you're totally clueless about. Still, don't let ignorance ruin your
day.

> I heard somewhere that one of the Three CPU makers has now a
> chip (5 Chip makers) that can do over 10 GB/s Bandwidth CPU
> speed, there's no ram for that yet.

Of course not. However, via dualling the memory channels, it's possible to
match RAM and CPU bus bandwidths.

> Unless you overclock some Very Sweet DDR2.

That's debatable. DDR1 bandwidth is arguably higher than DDR2 at the moment.
Clock for clock, DDR1 is significantly better. DDR2 still can't match the
latencies of DDR1, and it won't pull ahead until DDR2-667 and DDR2-800 are
in production.

> I have no clue in hell why I just answered this,,..

You're just clueless.

> And ppl like you, grrrr,... You Have Got To Be German.

What on earth are you talking about? I wonder if Xenophobia/racism violates
your ISP's AUP. Hmmm...

> And I've got wayyyyyyyyyyy, nicer.

You're a twat Denny. Were before, are now. I don't see any change.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace nospam with pipex in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

The short answer to the first line is yes, & for a long time.

Phil Weldon

"RaichuRaichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:29ednSVNQZVNO9LfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
>& I look like an A**?
> I really do now, answering this after this many days.
> replying to a thread which most ppl here
> for the most part has seemed to want to
> let alone, makes you look dumb. (This includes me.)
> let alone the fact that we have already talked about
> the SATA2
..
..
..

 

[Neil]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

We dont hear much about solid state drives anymore are they still happening
or what?


Neil



"Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:424fff86$0$294$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> "RaichuRaichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:29ednSVNQZVNO9LfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
>>& I look like an A**?
>> I really do now, answering this after this many days.
>
> You've always come across as an arsehole Denny.
>
>> replying to a thread which most ppl here for the most part has seemed
>> to want to let alone, makes you look dumb.
>
> Lol. pot, kettle, black. You're calling somebody else dumb?
>
>> & One is lba 48 while the other is 28.
>
> No. 48 bit LBA was first introduced on parallel ATA controllers, so your
> comment is fundamentally incorrect. Both parallel and Serial-ATA have the
> capability to run 48 bit addressing.
>
>> Most IDE's only allow LBA 28bit.
>
>> Yeah, so SATA2 can do like 300MB/s
>> even if it could do 1GB/s, it's still a huge Bottleneck.
>
> So what? The 300MB/sec interface is a red herring. The *real* bottleneck
> is the sequential read/write rates to/from the disk itself, which in the
> case of even the Western Digital Raptors is still to break 100MB/sec.
>
>> Now, even if I don't have the speed right, it's still nowhere close
>> to what cpu & ram can do.
>
> Indeed not. Short of moving wholesale to solid state drives (which is not
> a cost-effective scenario right now), there is no way to get around this
> reality. CPU's and leading memory technologies will *always* outstrip hard
> disk bandwidth. Always have done.
>
>> This is something I'm not sure on.
>
> There are many things you're not sure about Denny, along with many more
> things you're totally clueless about. Still, don't let ignorance ruin your
> day.
>
>> I heard somewhere that one of the Three CPU makers has now a
>> chip (5 Chip makers) that can do over 10 GB/s Bandwidth CPU
>> speed, there's no ram for that yet.
>
> Of course not. However, via dualling the memory channels, it's possible to
> match RAM and CPU bus bandwidths.
>
>> Unless you overclock some Very Sweet DDR2.
>
> That's debatable. DDR1 bandwidth is arguably higher than DDR2 at the
> moment. Clock for clock, DDR1 is significantly better. DDR2 still can't
> match the latencies of DDR1, and it won't pull ahead until DDR2-667 and
> DDR2-800 are in production.
>
>> I have no clue in hell why I just answered this,,..
>
> You're just clueless.
>
>> And ppl like you, grrrr,... You Have Got To Be German.
>
> What on earth are you talking about? I wonder if Xenophobia/racism
> violates your ISP's AUP. Hmmm...
>
>> And I've got wayyyyyyyyyyy, nicer.
>
> You're a twat Denny. Were before, are now. I don't see any change.
> --
>
>
> Richard Hopkins
> Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
> (replace nospam with pipex in reply address)
>
> The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Neil wrote:

> We dont hear much about solid state drives anymore are they still happening
> or what?

Yes, but they're much more expensive per unit of storage.

IDE is standard on CF so they're all 'solid state drives'.


> Neil
>
>
>
> "Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:424fff86$0$294$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
>>"RaichuRaichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:29ednSVNQZVNO9LfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
>>
>>>& I look like an A**?
>>>I really do now, answering this after this many days.
>>
>>You've always come across as an arsehole Denny.
>>
>>
>>>replying to a thread which most ppl here for the most part has seemed
>>>to want to let alone, makes you look dumb.
>>
>>Lol. pot, kettle, black. You're calling somebody else dumb?
>>
>>
>>>& One is lba 48 while the other is 28.
>>
>>No. 48 bit LBA was first introduced on parallel ATA controllers, so your
>>comment is fundamentally incorrect. Both parallel and Serial-ATA have the
>>capability to run 48 bit addressing.
>>
>>
>>>Most IDE's only allow LBA 28bit.
>>
>>>Yeah, so SATA2 can do like 300MB/s
>>>even if it could do 1GB/s, it's still a huge Bottleneck.
>>
>>So what? The 300MB/sec interface is a red herring. The *real* bottleneck
>>is the sequential read/write rates to/from the disk itself, which in the
>>case of even the Western Digital Raptors is still to break 100MB/sec.
>>
>>
>>>Now, even if I don't have the speed right, it's still nowhere close
>>>to what cpu & ram can do.
>>
>>Indeed not. Short of moving wholesale to solid state drives (which is not
>>a cost-effective scenario right now), there is no way to get around this
>>reality. CPU's and leading memory technologies will *always* outstrip hard
>>disk bandwidth. Always have done.
>>
>>
>>>This is something I'm not sure on.
>>
>>There are many things you're not sure about Denny, along with many more
>>things you're totally clueless about. Still, don't let ignorance ruin your
>>day.
>>
>>
>>>I heard somewhere that one of the Three CPU makers has now a
>>>chip (5 Chip makers) that can do over 10 GB/s Bandwidth CPU
>>>speed, there's no ram for that yet.
>>
>>Of course not. However, via dualling the memory channels, it's possible to
>>match RAM and CPU bus bandwidths.
>>
>>
>>> Unless you overclock some Very Sweet DDR2.
>>
>>That's debatable. DDR1 bandwidth is arguably higher than DDR2 at the
>>moment. Clock for clock, DDR1 is significantly better. DDR2 still can't
>>match the latencies of DDR1, and it won't pull ahead until DDR2-667 and
>>DDR2-800 are in production.
>>
>>
>>>I have no clue in hell why I just answered this,,..
>>
>>You're just clueless.
>>
>>
>>>And ppl like you, grrrr,... You Have Got To Be German.
>>
>>What on earth are you talking about? I wonder if Xenophobia/racism
>>violates your ISP's AUP. Hmmm...
>>
>>
>>>And I've got wayyyyyyyyyyy, nicer.
>>
>>You're a twat Denny. Were before, are now. I don't see any change.
>>--
>>
>>
>>Richard Hopkins
>>Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>>(replace nospam with pipex in reply address)
>>
>>The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>>
>>
>
>
>

 

[Spajky]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:00:29 -0400, "Neil" <Neil@rogers.com> wrote:

>We dont hear much about solid state drives anymore are they still happening
>or what?

having too much money? )

http://www.m-systems.com/Content/Products/FFDFamily.asp
http://www.memtech.com/25inch.html
http://www.bitmicro.com/products_edide.html
http://www.pqi.com.tw/pqi-eng/main.asp
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=690178
--
Regards , SPAJKY ®
mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
3rd Ann.: - "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"