Turbo Memory + 4Gb with Vista 64bit ???

I have question for you experts

I will add 4Gb to my T61 (whenever it ships) but is there any benefit to turbo memory with such configuration?

Worst...can turbo memory slow down my laptop?

My questions may be stupid but I just can't figure out the impact it would have by myself.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3009

 

Turbo Memory drivers have been improved since then, it should no longer slow down system performance. However, with 4GB of RAM and a moderately fast hard drive, you don't really need Turbo Memory.

 

I actually will get the fastest hard drive I can find (except for SSD).

My worries were a lot about TM slowing down my computer.

Well I don't need it but what is done is done...

 

I've got Vista 64-bit with 4GB of RAM, Turbo Memory, and the Hitachi 200GB 7K200 (currently the fastest HDD available aside from SSD).

It's very fast. No regrets. To overkill it even more... I Have the entire 1GB of Turbo Memory allocated to ReadyDrive and I have a 4GB SDHC Sandisk Extreme III in my internal memory card reader allocated to ReadyBoost.

I didn't think I would notice any improvement with the 4GB card for ReadyBoost, but I was wrong. Applications that normally take a long time to open, such as Photoshop CS3, open in about 4 seconds. Other applications open virtually instantaneous.

 

It should not slow down your performance

 

Maybe you should wait and see the Robson 2.0
I suppose as with a new microarchitecture the TM will do a better job...

 

Yea, a fast HD and 4GB of memory is all you need for now.
But Robson 2.0 would probably be a feature to get since it will allow high-speed solid state flash memory to be used for booting-up an operating system.

 

I could be wrong but I don't think Robson 2.0 will be an option for the Santa rosa platform. I think it is set for Montevina, which means it would never work on the current laptops. Is this correct?

 

That's right, Montevina only... and Penryn.

 

Good to hear!

I was thinking about the Hitachi too, I saw they have a 120Gb version which should be sufficient for what I need to do.

I haven't decided for the readyboost card yet but basically I want it as fast as possible so I will probably end up buying the same card.

Thanks all for the info, great stuff!

 

I don't think the 120GB Hitachi drive is 7200. 2 perpendicular technology. I believe it is 7200. 1. If the 200GB Hitachi 7K200 doesn't fit your budget you would be better off getting the next best hard drive which would be the Seagate Momentus 160GB 7200. 2 which is also perpendicular technology.

 

Stallen, so disabling ReadyBoost in the Intel Turbo Memory Console allocates the whole 1GB to ReadyDrive? Also, since you have 4GB of RAM, isn't ReadyBoost pretty much useless since Vista only uses the the Flash memory for ReadyBoost when it runs low on physical memory. All the articles on ReadyBoost say there is minimal to almost no performance gain on systems with 1GB RAM or more.

 

Yes, Stallen how do you allocate readydrive and readyboost params differently? The anandtech says "no touching" the settings.

 

Yeah me too with the 1GB ReadyDrive question. I had the same reservation about the check boxes from reading the Anandtech warning. It would be nice if Intel and Microsoft cleared the air on this.

Also: is there a way to see what the turbomemory ReadyDrive is actually doing? I see the ReadyBoost doing stuff in the Resource monitor; I haven't seen ReadyDrive do anything. Mine appears to be enabled, but how does one tell?

Finally, I still have no clue whether IAANTMON not running (it does not run on Vista 64 since it only has a 32 bit driver) has any impact on this picture.

 

I can't prove that. I am just making the assumption that disabling TM for RB will enable the entire 1GB for RD. I'de really like to know how to check. If someone figures this out, please send me a PM. I figure worse case scenario is that I'm using 512mb for RD and 4GB with the SDHC card for RB.

Geeze! 1GB of RAM... That's what I had in my system out of the box. It was so slow it was almost unusable. 1GB on Vista shouldn't even be a consideration.

I don't claim to be a ReadyBoost expert, but I think I understand it fairly well... ReadyBoost is often misunderstood as a "RAM replacement" or something to enhance RAM performance. It is actually something to improve hard drive performance. In reality it enhances HDD performance. You know how most HDDs these days have an 8mb or 16mb cache. Well, ReadyBoost enables a cache up to 4GB. The performance is not seen immediately, but after using your system with readyboost for awhile your frequently used applications and certain Windows Vista components will become pre-loaded into the ReadyBoost memory card. As Readyboost learns what applications you frequently use and they are pre-loaded these applications will launch much faster because the system will not have to wait for the HDD to seek and read. This can also result in some mild improved battery life performance since the HDD will be access less often.

SOURCE: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/performance.mspx
(Read about RD and RB at the bottom of the link)

All I can say is that the results on my system, considering it has the fastest HDD available and 4GB of RAM, is not earth shattering. BUT it is definitely noticeable. I think it would be even more beneficial for those with 5400RPM HDDs.

I find it mostly noticeable in application launch times. Most of my applications would open within a couple seconds BEFORE ReadyBoost. But I do have some applications (mostly adobe products like Photoshop CS3, Premeire, After Effects and so on) that it would take 15-20 seconds to open. It is those applications that RB improved upon. Those applications usually open in >5 seconds now with 4GB of RB enabled.

Go to the TM console (Start-> all programs-> Turbo Memory). If not found there, go to Start and type turbo memory then click enter. If this does nothing, you need to download/install the TM driver from Lenovo support and Downloads.

When you get to the TM console just deselect ReadyBoost. Leave ReadyDrive enabled.

Can you provide a link for that. How old is the article? Maybe there has been a driver update since then. I did touchy... no problems. I will say that I didn't mess with any TM settings until I had multiple reboots over several days.

I'd like to add that I'm not the only person that has had success with this. (Success meaning some performance gain and no loss of stability). I got the idea from kengetz on the thinkpad forum: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopi...bo+memory+sdhc+readyboost+readydrive&start=30
.
.
.

 

The link he is referring to is Anandtech's primary turbo memory review about 2 months ago.

The general consensus was that the drivers are in such beta form at the moment, the turbo memory UI is only good for verifying that the options are 'initially' turned on.

Intel had recommended to anand that they not touch any of the settings, even deselect one of the checkboxes - as there is no surefire way of ensuring the items are turned back on or if they are working at all.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3009

 

I think today you need 1GB of RAM also for Windows XP. 2-3 years ago I was sure that 512MB was enough, but not today. Even Winamp is not a small and light player anymore. All programs are growing in size. And Vista has more resources hungry features than XP, so naturally it needs more.

 

Just to make sure, are these the correct drives or only the 200Gb >>>
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=hitachi+7k200

Well finally I can afford the 200Gb anyway...I will go for it

 

Yes, those are all the latest technology. I wasn't aware that the 7K200 was available in smaller than 200GB sizes. Somthing to keep in mind is that it is always a good idea to opt for a larger size HDD than you think you will need. If nothing else for the simple fact that it becomes more difficult to optimally defragment a HDD after it is more than half full... especially after it becomes 75%+ full.

 

I will be looking to go with the 320 perpendicular Hitachi when it comes out; I'm using the 100 in the meantime.

I think with the larger drive, the Turbo Memory might be more of an advantage.

 

.......
how so?

 

I've heard that before, and the thought is that with a larger drive, you need a larger cache. This is false because a higher density drive actuall reads faster, so a large cache (in the form of Turbo Memory) is less needed. General consensus is that anything over a 160GB 7200RPM drive benefits little from Turbo Memory, with increasingly diminishing returns with faster and larger drives.

 

It depends on how you use your machine. I use the machine for very large numerical applications. When I have the larger drive, I can use more precomputed tables, and those will interact with SuperFetch. As soon as I understand a little more about the SuperFetch policies, I will be able to write the precomputations to take advantage of the turbo memory. Mainly to keep my stuff in RAM and shunt lesser stuff onto the turbo memory. At the moment, I don't have tons of disc space available so the RAM footprint of precomputed tables still fits within the 4GB RAM I have. I can't add more RAM (which would be better). I mean the turbo memory is there. I will end up using it one way or the other.

 

So they are making the bigger drives with smaller on-drive caches?....

No, I don't think they are doing that.

 

What?? I was referring to the greater or lesser need for Turbo Memory....

 

No zen, the point is when the drives have higher areal density, they also read faster - which would decrease the need for turbo memory.

turbo memory is somewhat of a harsh hack just to get us through till mass quantities of big and cheap SSDs are available.

 

That's my point. If you see these bigger hard drives coming with bigger caches, (and I do), then that means that bigger caches are useful for bigger hard drives.

So the part of turbo memory which enlarges the drive cache is likewise more useful for larger drives.

 

The density on the platter is a small improvement in speed. It's nice, and it's always there, it speeds up writes and reads the same amount, but it does not really come up to the speed at which small, scattered, read requests can be handled by the turbo memory.

But, and this is why I mentioned the drive caches getting bigger - even with similar locality of reference, the access for a larger drive, which can have more different things on it, tends to have a bigger footprint in caches.

Will turbo memory make the disc I/O faster? As far as I can tell, yes. But I also think that Microsoft ended up releasing a very conservative version of SuperFetch that could make some better choices as far as I can see. (Sony actually publically said this.) With an upgrade in SuperFetch intelligence, turbo memory could be quite a bit more interesing.

But if a lot of the time, your hard drive is idle, then whatever cache you have is really saving the battery more than anything else. Let's not forget that is important too.

 

Hi, I'm new with this Intel Turbo Memory and you seem to be a successful adopter so here are my remarks;

1. The INTEL Intel Turbo Memory feature Manager said that the 1G TM is partition in two 512MB, one for RD and one for RB. So here is my question for you; how did you allocate the full 1G TM to RD?

2. Assuming that you have the full 1G for RD, then this would explain why you can have your external SDHC working with RB, but this means that you have no RB in the TM. I think you only have 512MB for TM RD and that you have disabled the 512MB TM for RB, this is why you can have the 4G SDHC.

3. Yes, it would seems that if you have 4G RAM, and Vista 64 OS, then TM has no benefit. It has some benefit under certains conditions (very long theme) for Vista 32 OS, when you have low RAM, and where the no-volatile feature of the TM buys you drivers execution speed session after session. But having anough RAM which is much faster than TM, there is no need for it.