RAM Drive Benefifits A Trio of Monitors Laptop Constraints
RAM Drive Dilemma
Dear Doctor, I have built a number of computers, and on all of them, I set up a 24GB RAM drive, and point my temporary directories there. I do this for three reasons. First, I believe it speeds up the machine, particularly the Internet, which seems to read and write a lot of files. Second, I use an SSD for programs, and a mechanical hard drive for writing to, and I think using a RAM drive as intermediate storage space saves wear and tear on those other devices. And third, when I need to hold a file just long enough to send it somewhere else, I store it on the RAM drive to prevent clutter on disk.
Aside from the rare mistake where I work on a file on the RAM drive, I haven’t suffered from the fact that files disappear when I reboot. When I had less RAM, sometimes the temp drive was too small. But at 24GB, I’ve never had a problem.
Do you see anything wrong with what I am doing? If so, what? And is there a RAM drive utility that you favor?
–Neal Nusholtz
THE DOCTOR RESPONDS: Back when the Doc spent his nights and weekends running scripts to benchmark CPUs, RAM drives played a critical role in preventing storage bottlenecks. Around the time Intel introduced its Nehalem architecture, however, the company also started shipping X25-M SSDs. Shortly thereafter, the Doc stopped using RAM drives and started running his test suite from solid-state storage.
The point is, for nearly a decade, SSDs have largely addressed the performance concerns that once made RAM drives necessary for I/O-bound applications. They’ve evolved a ton, too. Today’s PCIe SSDs can move gigabytes of information a second. Their NAND flash does have a finite lifespan (rated in program-erase cycles), so it’s understandable that you’re looking to minimize wear and tear. But most consumer SSDs are plenty robust for common desktop use. And although the Doc appreciates the use of volatile storage to mitigate clutter, he’d rather have 100 files he doesn’t need than lose one he does.
In the end, there’s nothing wrong with what you’re doing. It’s just not economically sensible. Presumably, to set aside 24GB of RAM, you’d want 64GB installed. At $500 for four 16GB modules, that’s almost $8/GB. Good enterprise-class SSDs sell for $1/GB. A 32GB memory kit, high-end SSD, and roomy mechanical disk should address your concerns, save money, and step around the limitations of RAM drives.
Multiple Monitors
Hello Doctor, I have an HP Slim Desktop 410-030. It currently supports up to two monitors. But it also has a PCI Express 2.0 slot. I’m looking for a low-profile PCIe 2.0-compatible graphics card that I can use to attach three displays for business use.
I tried an Asus EN210 Silent video card with 1GB of RAM. Although it has connections for three monitors, I was only able to use two of them. The third monitor could only be used as a mirror of one of the others. I called Asus and it said that PCIe 2.0 only works with two monitors. Is it correct? Will I have to use a USB-based video card to add a third display? –Leon Garfield
THE DOCTOR RESPONDS: It sounds as though the Asus rep was mistaken. Your limitation isn’t related to PCI Express, but rather the GeForce 210’s GT218 graphics processor, which can only output to two independent displays simultaneously. For what it’s worth, a 16-lane PCIe 2.0 slot offers up to 8 GB/s of throughput—bandwidth isn’t an issue here.
Based on pictures of your chassis and the Shave-HSW motherboard that HP uses, a low-profile graphics card is mandatory. But it doesn’t need to live in a single expansion slot. There’s room under the motherboard and, more importantly, there’s another I/O bracket to accommodate a dual-slot form factor.
If you’d like to avoid analog VGA output and are willing to spend $120 or so, several low-profile GeForce GTX 1050s support as many as four monitors through DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort connectors. Nvidia recommends a 300W power supply for these cards. Because you won’t be gaming, though, the HP’s 180W 80 PLUS Bronze PSU shouldn’t have to work hard at all.
Choosing an Upgrade
Hey Doc,I have an eightyear-old Alienware Area-51 (Phobos) PC that’s showing its age. I’m hoping you can help me modernize it, as I spent a lot on it, and can’t afford to buy or build a new machine right now. The system’s current specs include a water-cooled Core i7-975 processor, 12GB of RAM, two GeForce GTX 295s in SLI, two 10K rpm 300GB VelociRaptor hard drives in RAID 0, and two 1.5TB storage disks in RAID 1.
I also have four 750GB Samsung 840 EVOs lying around. Do you recommend that I install them and sling them together in a RAID array? Also, what’s the best single GPU that I could purchase for my motherboard (I don’t know its make or model) that would allow me to play The Division or Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare?
–An Out-of-Money Gamer
THE DOCTOR RESPONDS: Back in the day, Core i7-975 Extreme Edition was cream of the crop. Its complementary platform controller hub, X58, offered up to 36 lanes of PCI Express 2.0 connectivity, 32 of which your GeForce GTX 295s are monopolizing (to the tune of almost 300W per card).
It would help to know the native resolution of your monitor. Given the age of your PC, though, the Doc is going Use M. 2 and 2.5-inch SSDs to maximize your laptop’s capacity. to guess 1920x1080 (actually, 1920x1200 was more prevalent back then). If that’s the case, a GeForce GTX 1060 6GB would better support modern DirectX 12/ Vulkan graphics APIs, offer plenty of performance, cut power consumption, and crank out way less heat than those GTX 295s. If you’re running at 2560x1440, a GeForce GTX 1070 would be more apropos for first-person shooters, but it’s also pricier.
Now, about those Samsung 840 EVO SSDs. They’re lying around, you say? That’s 3TB of solid-state storage! Get at least one of them into your PC with Windows on it. The difference in responsiveness, even compared to the once-mighty VelociRaptors, will make you wonder why you didn’t make the switch sooner.
Laptop Storage Limits
Hi Doc, I am a long-time MaximumPC subscriber, and I love your mag! I have an Asus K501U gaming laptop that came with an M.2 drive loaded with Windows, plus a 1TB mechanical drive for user data. I swapped out the disk for a Crucial 1TB SSD. The problem is that I like to keep all of my games on the new SSD, and I have a lot of them. Now I’m running out of space.
Should I switch back to a more spacious (but slower) mechanical drive, or buy an external SSD to run my games from? – Oleg Kravtchouk
THE DOCTOR RESPONDS: As a rule, the Doc avoids tacking on external peripherals to laptops. Toting around an SSD for gaming doesn’t sound fun. And dropping back to a conventional hard drive imposes the long level load times gamers try to get away from. Instead, maximize the upgradeability of your laptop’s M.2 2280 slot and SATA interface.
Assuming you purchased your K501U with the largest M.2-based SSD option, it’s only a 256GB drive. Crucial sells a compatible upgrade with 1TB of capacity. There’s also a 2TB model that pops into the 2.5-inch bay, doubling what you have now. Both SSDs maintain Asus’s clean lines and, together, yield up to 3TB.
Moving from Microsoft
Dear Doctor, Most of the PCs I own are pretty old, and the main reason I read Maximum PC is to keep up to date. I want to build a new system with current hardware soon, but one of the things stopping me is my software options.
I'm annoyed with Microsoft because it basically forced Windows 7 to die out. Among other problems now for Windows 7 is that Internet Explorer 12 has issues with many websites. Edge on 10 appears to run more smoothly, and it’s more regularly updated. I use other browsers, of course, but would prefer IE if it worked correctly. In your last issue, you revealed another example of Windows 7 getting the boot: It won’t support Kaby Lake. But the main reason that Microsoft wants its customers off Windows 7 (or anything older) is that it wants to please the entertainment and software industry by trying to stop pirating, since torrent sites may reject PCs running Windows 10. My disgust with Microsoft compels me to adopt Linux for my next build. I’m going to try Fedora first and see whether the updates and bugs are tolerable.
On another topic, I find it interesting that Maximum PC sees high-end Intel processors as over-priced since the release of Ryzen. Clearly, you don’t believe in the saying “you get what you pay for” in this case. Performance benchmarks of the Ryzen 7 1700X and 1800X are pretty impressive, but I’m curious how AMD compares to Intel in areas such as longevity, error control, and so on. Is there any way besides benchmarking to justify Intel’s pricing? – Glen Kussow THE DOCTOR RESPONDS: Perceived value is relative. Nobody wanted to see Intel’s flagship high-end desktop CPU rise from $1,000 to over $1,700, but when Broadwell-E was the only game in town, enthusiasts begrudgingly paid up when those additional cores mattered. Now, power users have a choice, and Intel’s premium price doesn’t buy you as much extra speed.
Platform maturity plays into some purchase decisions more than others. At launch, Ryzen had issues. But most of them were worked out, and the Doc’s Ryzen-based test bed is running fine months later. Only time will tell if AMD built an infrastructure to last. Clearly, though, the definition of value is changing, thanks to AMD.
As far as Microsoft and Windows 10 go, the Doc encourages you to vote with your wallet (though he’s getting by well with a VPN and common sense under Windows 10). This may be unpopular sentiment, but it’s preferable to see one operating environment developed and protected well than to have engineering resources divided among defending two or three.