After reading articles here, I remembered watching a Video for the i7 2600k. The person said something about using an SSD for Caching and it had to be bigger than 18GB I think. So could I buy an SSD, say 60GB and put my OS and cache it for my processor at the same time? Would this improve performance for say Battlefield 3?
-
T-Mobile Home Internet: Revisiting 5G connectivity for the home after two years
-
Multi-million dollar Cheyenne supercomputer auction ends with $480,085 bid — buyer walked away with 8,064 Intel Xeon Broadwell CPUs, 313TB DDR4-2400 ECC RAM, and some water leaks
SSD Caching for the i7 2600k?
- Thread starter cruc1al
- Start date
JohnnyLucky
Illustrious
- May 30, 2007
- 10,902
- 10
- 42,965
Must be a misunderstanding.
The cache is not for the cpu. The cache is for a hard disk drive. It only improves the hard disk drive performance a little bit. Not as good as intalling Windows 7 ansd software applications on the ssd. I'll see if I can find a plain English explanation for you.
The cache is not for the cpu. The cache is for a hard disk drive. It only improves the hard disk drive performance a little bit. Not as good as intalling Windows 7 ansd software applications on the ssd. I'll see if I can find a plain English explanation for you.
JohnnyLucky
Illustrious
- May 30, 2007
- 10,902
- 10
- 42,965
Found my old post:
Caching is not necessary. There is a lot of misunderstanding about caching. Intel developed caching for clients and businesses that could not afford a large capacity ssd. Back when the concept was on the drawing board, Intel hoped clients and businesses would purchase a small 10Gb or 20GB for about $100.00. Microsoft Windows 7 and all software applications would remain on hard disk drives. The cache only produced a minor boost in performance. Intel hoped that once clients saw the slight performance boost they might be inclined to purchase a larger ssd.
Intel also researched the size of the cache. Intel determined that a 60GB ssd was the point where it made no sense to use the ssd as a cache for a hard drive. Instead if you have a 60GB ssd, then Windows 7 and software applications should be installed on the ssd to take full advantage of the ssd capabilities.
Since you are thinking of purchasing a 60GB ssd, it makes more sense to install Windows 7 and your software applications on the ssd. The ssd performance boost is much higher than the hard disk drive performance increase.
Windows 7 will use up a just a little over 21GB leaving some room for software applications.
As for gaming, I hope you know that an ssd will not improve actual game play and it will not improve FPS. The only thing that happens is that the game will launch faster and levels, maps, or charts will load faster. If you participate in online gaming, then the ssd will not improve anything. You'll still be at the mercy of your Internet Service Provider.
A few days days ago Tom's Hardware published "SSD Performance In Crysis 2, World Of Warcraft, And Civilization V". It is an analysis of ssd's and gameplay. Here is the link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-gaming-performance,2991.html
Caching is not necessary. There is a lot of misunderstanding about caching. Intel developed caching for clients and businesses that could not afford a large capacity ssd. Back when the concept was on the drawing board, Intel hoped clients and businesses would purchase a small 10Gb or 20GB for about $100.00. Microsoft Windows 7 and all software applications would remain on hard disk drives. The cache only produced a minor boost in performance. Intel hoped that once clients saw the slight performance boost they might be inclined to purchase a larger ssd.
Intel also researched the size of the cache. Intel determined that a 60GB ssd was the point where it made no sense to use the ssd as a cache for a hard drive. Instead if you have a 60GB ssd, then Windows 7 and software applications should be installed on the ssd to take full advantage of the ssd capabilities.
Since you are thinking of purchasing a 60GB ssd, it makes more sense to install Windows 7 and your software applications on the ssd. The ssd performance boost is much higher than the hard disk drive performance increase.
Windows 7 will use up a just a little over 21GB leaving some room for software applications.
As for gaming, I hope you know that an ssd will not improve actual game play and it will not improve FPS. The only thing that happens is that the game will launch faster and levels, maps, or charts will load faster. If you participate in online gaming, then the ssd will not improve anything. You'll still be at the mercy of your Internet Service Provider.
A few days days ago Tom's Hardware published "SSD Performance In Crysis 2, World Of Warcraft, And Civilization V". It is an analysis of ssd's and gameplay. Here is the link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-gaming-performance,2991.html
chesteracorgi
Distinguished
- Apr 11, 2011
- 1,956
- 0
- 20,460
JL is correct in his critique of caching. You would be much better off by buying a larger SSD (120+ GB) and putting your OS on the SSD. If the 60 GB is all you can afford it is OK but hardly optimal for hosting the OS. For a primer on this go here: http://thessdreview.com/
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session- Started by Admin
- Replies: 47
-
-
-
Question Is in Intel i3-2100 upgradable to an Intel i5-6600
- Started by thesummers04
- Replies: 19
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram