New Build - Large partitioned SSD for cache vs smaller faster SSD for cache?

[selborne]

Hi,

I'm working on a new build which I want to be powerful (games/video+photo work), long-lasting and as close to SILENT as possible. Parts so far include

Already Have:

ASUS P8Z68-V Pro Z68 LGA1155 ATX 3PCI-E16 2PCI-E1 2 PCI B3 Motherboard

Antec P183 V3 Aluminum ATX Tower Case 4X5.25EXT 6X3.5 2X2.5INT Front Audio USB3.0 *No PS*

Antec CP-850 850W Cpx Dual PCB Power Supply Modular ATX12V V2.3 80PLUS Active PFC SLI 120MM Fan

PLanning On Getting:

Intel Core i5 2500K Quad Core Unlocked Processor LGA1155 3.3GHZ Sandy Bridge 6MB

GELID Solutions Tranquillo CC-TranQ-01-A 120mm Hydro Dynamic CPU Cooler

Corsair CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9 Vengeance 8GB 2X4GB DDR3-1600 CL9-9-9-24 Dual Channel Memory Kit

Western Digital WD20EARS Caviar Green 2TB SATA2 3GBPS 64MB Cache 3.5IN Hard Drive Oem

Holding out for the Powercolor HD 6850 SCS3 silent


Now I also already have a:

OCZ Vertex 2 Extended Sandforce 240GB 2.5IN SATA2 Solid State Disk Flash Drive SSD

My question is, what is the best way to set up my drive.

My current plan is to utilize the SSD for the OS and commonly used applications and partition 64gb for cache purposes for the 2gig WD HDD. Does this make sense?

Would it be better to utilize the SSD for OS/apps and primary drive purposes and then get a SMALLER, FASTER SSD for cache for the HDD?

I am looking to finish this off this week so thoughts appreciated! (either on parts I still need to get or tips on silencing this system further)
THANKS!

 

[Kenmitch]

Welcome to the forum!

If it was me I'd just pick up a small SSD to run with the 2tb(typo) WD hard drive. I'd think it would most likely work out better for you. I would think that it would be of more benefit to have the larger one fully dedicated to the OS and apps.

 

[Blitz KriegeR]

The small SSDs have really bad value imo. In the 20-60GB area the cost is always around $100-120. Yet you can get a 120GB Vertex 2 for $159 after rebate, or a 60GB Agility 2 for $95 from newegg this week.

Going the SSD Cache option will only improve performance on frequently accessed files. The more files you access the larger your cache will need to be to maintain itself. As per anand's article, you can achieve up to 90% of the performance of a pure SSD but only after 3 or more runs (so the app/files are at the top of your cache). Again, you will see no improvement at first and changing your habits for a few days/runs can cause files to be evicted from the cache and you are back at square one HDD performance. A pure SSD will never have this problem. SSD cache size is currently limited to 40GB max. Don't forget caches will only benefit reads and do very little for writes.

In my opinion, if you have the cash to be looking at 60-160GB SSDs then you are better off running it as your main drive and using HDDs only as file storage.

Speaking as an owner using it daily in my main rig since last Thanksgiving, SSD OS drives all the way!

 

[nanaki333]

i thought intel limits the ssd cache to 60GB

 

[scruff2]

Selborne, you're right on the money.

The main Vertex 2 SSD should have your OS and main programs and frequently used data.

What many don't realize is that your MB allows you to setup a portion of the SSD as a cache to the slower "backup/storage" drive. And for this, 64gb is ample and recommended.

Only the Intel Z68 chipset offers this feature as far as I know. Go with it.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I know you've said a silent system is a huge priority, but it seems like you're sacrificing a lot to get it and trying to compensate. Going with a pair of capable 1TB drives instead of the "green" drive would be my choice, as I can't see the green drives being significantly quieter than some good 7200 RPM drives. With a faster data drive, the question of going with the RST SSD cache becomes less appealing. Are you really expecting to hit your data drive that much?