SSD & HDD With 60GB Cache Or SSD + HDD?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K

Kallakix2015

Honorable
May 18, 2015
196
0
10,710
Hi,

Right now I just have a single 2TB HDD, I'm getting a 240GB SSD tomorrow and I was planning on turning 60GB of the SSD into cache with IRST and also installing the OS on it. The HDD would be used for the larger files. By doing this I would have Windows running on the fast flash storage and the HDD will get a performance boost as well.

The other option is to do the simple thing and install Windows on the SSD, along with demanding programs and use the HDD for things that don't need fast storage.

I like option 1 because I get two things improved, option 2 would let me store more on the SSD, but I would have no performance upgrade for the HDD.

What would you guys suggest?


SSD Samsung 250GB 850 EVO
HDD 2TB Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm
 
Solution
Boogieman_WD
Hey there, Kallakix2015.

I've seen a couple of times the first option to be used mainly by heavy duty gamers or for video editing. I guess that there's no wrong answer here, just a matter of personal preference. You could indeed speed up the HDD by having a portion of the SSD to cache it, while having your OS and some programs on another partition. But if you don't want to overcomplicate things and if the storage space on the SSD will be sufficient for the demanding programs and/or games - then I'd say go for the SSD's full storage capacity without a caching partition and the HDD for storage and the other, not-so-demanding software.

Hope that helps.
Boogieman_WD
Sort by date Sort by votes
Boogieman_WD

Boogieman_WD

Judicious
Jul 31, 2014
6,050
2
35,960
Hey there, Kallakix2015.

I've seen a couple of times the first option to be used mainly by heavy duty gamers or for video editing. I guess that there's no wrong answer here, just a matter of personal preference. You could indeed speed up the HDD by having a portion of the SSD to cache it, while having your OS and some programs on another partition. But if you don't want to overcomplicate things and if the storage space on the SSD will be sufficient for the demanding programs and/or games - then I'd say go for the SSD's full storage capacity without a caching partition and the HDD for storage and the other, not-so-demanding software.

Hope that helps.
Boogieman_WD
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
T

Traciatim

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2006
2,057
0
20,460
Is the hard drive really just going to be used for larger file storage like movies? If so, then I would suggest just using the SSD for all of your applications and keeping the hard drive without the cache option as it really won't change the perceptible performance at all.

If you are going to be installing programs on the hard drive that you use regularly as well as storing things, only then will you notice the SRT performance change. Also would be the case if the large files you are storing are actually databases that you access randomly as SRT will cache the most frequently used areas there as well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
K

Kallakix2015

Honorable
May 18, 2015
196
0
10,710


I have a large Steam library, I'd probably use the HDD for the bulk of the games and the SSD for the long loading screen games. Now I think about it , it makes sense to use the full SSD capacity. Out of all the games only around 5 have really bad loading times. By not making a cache partition I'd have an extra 60GB of storage as well.
Think I might go with option 2.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom