One problem with DDR3 based ssd is that DDR3 ram is volatile. It is also more expensive than nand based storage.
For a smaller size, you could make a ramdisk of perhaps up to 24-30gb with enough storage. Add a ups in case of electrical failure. Ramdisk programs will load the ramdisk from a hard drive and unload it, from time to time, or at shutdown.
I think there are some pci-e based ssd's that combine a large ram buffer with nand chip backup. They are very expensive.
Except for a specialized situation, it is probably not worth the effort.
Drat, thanks. I was hoping for a newer DDR3 unit, since DDR2 is quite expensive. Guess I should stick with a flash-based SSD. But I wanted to scratch the itch and investigate DDR3 RAM based SSDs. Thanks for the help.
You can get a software that make part of your RAM as a partition with a filesystem on which you can store your cache or something, but you need to back it up before your shutdown if you want to keep that data there.
A RAM SSD would be MUCH faster than a regular SSD...quicker access times, much lower latency and a lot quicker sequentials, but it would be uber expensive. Still possible though.
I can imagine lets say having a PCI-E based SSD, where lets say you have 100GB RAM SSD and another 100GB Flash SSD. The device can have a controller that backs up the RAM onto the SSD every X amount of seconds and automatically loads everything in on startup, which takes just seconds if the interface is fast enough. So it seems like it may very well be possible, unfortunately, I cannot see it acting as a boot drive though, because you need some software like a BIOS-add on that activates the file transfer from the FLASH to the DRAM SSD before you boot into an OS.
I came across the same idea but mine was if DDR3 is cheaper why is DDR2 more expensive and i found out that it was the specs or standards for each that made the price difference.
Ok i did find a few but the ONLY one i'm considering since all the other ones are smaller companies i've never heard of is the (Plextor M5S Series PX-256M5S 2.5" 256GB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive) when you look at the site itself it shows it uses DDR3 and costs $196.99 on new egg. but is currently out of stock as of posting this.
I havent heard of what battery it uses or how much it'll give you or if you can even upgrade the mem or battery it'self. i'm going to look into this today. i hope this helps
Before pouring some very big $$$ on anything SSD, stop to consider the MTTF (Mean Time To Failure) with them. Being non-volatile, these are the descendants of EEPROM chips from my much younger days. As with the EEPROMS, the NAND memory, more so than NOR but it still applies, has a definitive number of times that it can be read from and written to, especially the writing. While the SSD's are growing in capacity (several 1TB are now available), there speeds are up (500 Mbps reads & 250 Mbps writes), there warranty periods have decreased from the 5 years to the 3 years they now state they will stand behind their products. While I have asked several of the manufacturers' engineering departments why this is, they all say they simply do not know. While faster is great, it is not always better. In this case, that speed has a cost, and a big one in the long run. As most people use SSD's their boot/OS drives, when the SSD dies so does their ability to boot up. Unless you run regular performance test on the SD's to watch for speed degradation and size decrements, SSD's can, have, & will leave you low, wet, and broke.
If speed is a real concern, strongly consider a SATA III (6.0 Gbps) with a 10k, or even 15k, spindle speed. They will likely last you longer (barring some electro-mechanical event/fault), dollar for dollar are cheaper ($/megabyte), and are easily monitorable via SMART technology. While many SSD's state they have SMART monitoring, there thresholds/events that trigger a warning are currently woefully inadequate. The 10k/15k speed, especially combined with a RAM disk option (recall the good old DOS days?), should satify all but the most diehard speed demons and will likely last mush longer (I and many others still have SATA 1.0 (1.5 Gbps) HD's over 10 years old.