• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel Smart Response?

O

Ohmycaptain

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
717
I'm building a new PC relatively soon, and I'm wondering if I should just get a 60GB SSD as a cache with a 1TB drive. I currently own a 128gb samsung SSD, but I kind of find it a pain in the ass having to save all my other stuff on my platter drive.

Just wondering if Sata III will make a huge difference for me in speeds with both a Sata III Sandforce 60GB SSD and a Sata III 1TB Caviar Black HDD?

I don't do anything that really *needs* an SSD, I just like having my programs load faster and, most importantly, my games run faster. I have a lot of games, and I can't fit them all on a 128GB SSD. This is what bothers me most. So, I'm hoping a 60GB Sandforce SSD with 500MB read/write and a 1TB caviar black with intel smart response will be a good, cheaper way to get fast boot and load times for everything, instead of just certain things I can fit on my SSD?

Also, does anybody know what speeds I'll be looking at getting compared to just using the SSD itself? Will I be getting like 300MB with the two drives using the SSD as a cache, or like 100MB? Just wondering how much slower it is than an SSD.
 
and I'm wondering if I should just get a 60GB SSD as a cache with a 1TB drive.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're talking about but just forget-about-it. :D

Ever heard of the KISS principle?

It's "Keep It Simple Stupid".

Naturally that's not directed at you but at anything unnecessarily complex like trying to use a 60GB SSD for a 1TB drive.

Keep the OS and programs on the SSD and everything else in storage.

If you purchased another SSD you could load as many games as it could hold and play from that drive when needed.

SATAIII won't make a difference for any mechanical drive.
 
I think what he was trying to ask was about the SRT on the new Z68 chipset boards? Like if using the 60 GB SSD as the cache on SRT for a new Z68 board? Is this what you are asking OP?
 
ob1 said:
I think what he was trying to ask was about the SRT on the new Z68 chipset boards? Like if using the 60 GB SSD as the cache on SRT for a new Z68 board?
Click to expand...
Ah Ha....I see says the blind Old Hippie! :D

Could be what he was asking.

I'm not sure if that's what he was asking but AFAIK cache size in that situation is limited to 64GB so it would work.

Hey OP, is this the way you were heading?
 
Once the stuff is cached on the SSD, then you'd be getting SSD speed for those files. As to how well SRT works, or how well it chooses what to cache, you'd have to check some reviews. The ones I remember from when it first hit said that if helped, but it was better to just use the SSD for a primary drive instead of using it for SRT. Don't think I've ever seen anyone using both a primary SSD and a chace SSD with SRT before. My opinion, use symbolic links to put the games you play on the SSD, and the rest on the HDD and don't waste time with SRT.
 
As to how well SRT works, or how well it chooses what to cache, you'd have to check some reviews.
Click to expand...
The link in my post is actually an article/test from AnandTech about the Z68 and RST tech.

It's from May 2011 and pretty up to date.

Lotsa info in there if you're interested. ;)
 
Yes I'm asking about SRT and if it's worth using a 60GB SSD as a cache for a 1TB hard drive, because my current SSD just fills up to fast and I have too many games and programs I want to load faster, and no money to buy another SSD. If I use SRT I would be able to get all games and programs to run much faster and not just certain ones I could fit, right? That would be worth the trade off for somewhat slower speeds than an SSD to me.

Also wondering if me using Sata III SSD and Sata III HDD would make a difference in speeds with SRT compared to Sata II.
 
Ohmycaptain said:
Yes I'm asking about SRT and if it's worth using a 60GB SSD as a cache for a 1TB hard drive, because my current SSD just fills up to fast and I have too many games and programs I want to load faster, and no money to buy another SSD. If I use SRT I would be able to get all games and programs to run much faster and not just certain ones I could fit, right? That would be worth the trade off for somewhat slower speeds than an SSD to me.

Also wondering if me using Sata III SSD and Sata III HDD would make a difference in speeds with SRT compared to Sata II.
Click to expand...

SATA makes no difference to spinning HDDs - however putting the SSD being used for SRT on SATA III (if it is a SATA III SSD) would be beneficial.

SRT will make the games that are cached load quicker, but it isn't going to make all the games load quicker because it has to cache them first. If you play a lot of the same game in a row, then it would help, but if you jump around between a few games I don't think you are going to see any benefit (as the wrong one might be cached). Why not just use the 60GB SSD as a second drive, and load the games you want on it manually instead of fooling with SRT?
 
I had the same question.

The problem with using a SSD as a boot and programs drive is that space runs out very quickly.

I have a 150gb Raptor and I find that space ran out quickly, specially since W7 64bit seems to waste a lot of HDD space.

Of course, if I had loads of disposable cash I would go the straight SSD route, but on a budget SRT seems like a decent compromise (I hate compromises, so no [H]ard).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top