So what are your observations without taking into account the synthetic benchmarks ? I personally feel that an SSD doesn't really need a RAM cache to speed up the system's performance, in fact it's advisable to not use a program such as Primocache if the SSD is good enough since the performance difference will probably be minor in most cases. The moment your read/write data spills out of the RAM cache you'll see a major performance hit & as such one needs a fairly decent amount of RAM, say 16GB, to make the program real useful. Also the IMC/RAM/CPU & the OS' system process will be continuously pegged making the system slightly unresponsive in such cases where the read/write data won't fit into the RAM cache. This is based on my personal experience using Primocache on a laptop with 8GB ram & a TB of 5400rpm HDD but I guess you can shed better info wrt your SSD.
Perhaps all enthusiast experiments are best preceded by the most detailed rational calculation. In the case of this old [Penryn C2D] laptop, I wanted to see how I could make it "responsive" and serviceable.
So far, I haven't spent a dime on a caching program -- especially owing to the extended trial period on PrimoCache. The problem with both the laptop and the desktop system (another C2D configuration) -- they both use controllers that meet the SATA-II standard with AHCI. This might not restrict the performance of an SATA-III HDD, but most certainly affects the performance of an SATA-III SSD. Without caching, the laptop with SSD still offers significantly better performance than with the WD 2.5" HDD which came with it two months ago. But it is less than half the performance one would expect under SATA-III.
With caching, and regardless which caching program is used, performance and responsiveness for mainstream desktop software is again improved -- less noticeably than the simple comparison of benchmark results, even so.
I suppose the real issue boils down to the meaning attached to the benchmark results.
As for the laptop "investment," I can always replace the SSD with the WD "blue" HDD, so it is less a case of frivolous spending than a possible suboptimal use of parts.
If I could keep my curiosity from influencing my purchasing habits, I suppose I could save more money. But I'm not the only "cat" in these forums -- I'm sure!
AFTERTHOUGHT: As rule of thumb, I'm adverse to adding "complexity" to my systems -- more so now than in the past. PrimoCache has this "L2" feature such that you could use a cheap <=60GB SSD for a persistent cache of an HDD. I'm pretty sure I can't fit two 2.5" drives (SSD and HDD) in the laptop; I couldn't find a second SATA+power plug inside the lappie. I MIGHT try it with the old desktop I mentioned.
I'll leave off here to observe that the lappie was a relative slug with only 2GB of SO-DIMM, and no matter what I do with the currently loaded software, it seems unlikely that I would use 4GB after opening a whole pile of programs. So the only benefit I can get with 8GB of SO-DIMM derives from use of a caching program. Howsoever my observations or perceptions are inaccurate, partial imagination or profoundly real, this is about as good as it gets for a surplus laptop I bought for $250 which once retailed for $2,200. As a "new toy" to play with, it is an antidote for the temptation to spend $1,000 on a new laptop with current-gen processor, controller and 8GB of RAM.
Romex offers a 3-PC license for approximately 2x the single-seat version, and I still have 70 days to "think about it." So far, it looks as though I could use the more expensive license version.
But there are obviously limits to resurrecting old technology, and every increment of improvement costs more.
Facebook
Twitter