Win7: how much slower if swapfile = SATA drive instead of ssd?

[JEDI]

Amd phenom II x4, 4 gigs ram

I mainly surf the web and watch movies.
I have lots of tabs open in my web browser.

I just got a 240gig ssd.
It's going to be my os and program drive.

My 2tb SATA will be my data drive.

I read that ssd have a limited amount of read/write in it's lifetime.
That's why I'm thinking of setting my swapfile to D: drive.

How much slower will my system be?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Don't bother moving it. SSD lifespan FUD is FUD.

Honestly, a rig that old, it will die before the SSD does.

But to actually answer the question, open Resource Monitor and see how many page faults you're getting. The more you get, the bigger the improvement with your swap on flash.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Don't bother moving it. SSD lifespan FUD is FUD.

Even on my most abused SSD, I've "only" managed ~5TB of writes in about 2 years. It has a 288TB limit, so at the current rate of 2.5TB/year it'll croak in about 113 years time. At which point I doubt it'll be my problem.

In other words, unless you have an extremely write intensive workload, it's a complete non-issue.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I should probably check my SSD lifespan in my Lenovo laptop, for S&G, but it's an older SATA6G MLC drive, 240GB, and I only have 4GB of RAM in that box, and it OFTEN goes into the pagefile. (My Commit Charge ends up at like 8-9-10-11GB, sometimes, after a month of browsing and Hibernation cycles.) Either way, the laptop will probably wear out before the SSD does.

Anyways, running out of RAM with the SATA6G SSD, isn't as nearly a big a deal as with a HDD. With a HDD, your PC would slow to a crawl. With the SSD, you just get some "pausing", but it's kind of bearable. I have an 8GB kit of RAM here somewhere to throw in, but I've been too lazy. (And with the SSD, running out of RAM isn't too painful.)