So i upgraded with +1x 250GB ssd and 8 GB of the same hynix ram that was already indide. Specialy cause i have an low end G750JX, wich came with 1 TB 5400 rpm HDD and 8 GB of ram. My point was not "LOOK AT MY SSD SPEED" cause its realy not that special. I dont think everyone understood what was the point of this thread. Here are my test results with RAPID more enabled for better performance (20-50% faster): I have an Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB + 1TB 5400rpm HDD with 16gb of hynix RAM (i added 8 gb myself) inside G750JX. Or you could go with the Samsung magician built in benchmark tool, but i think it will be better if we all use the same independent program.
![like fancycache but free like fancycache but free](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIipQjEVQAAswKQ.jpg)
U can get simple an very efective benchmark tool here: (free) PLEASE add info about your ssd, price, if in raid0, what you use it for and all the tricks and info, tips that u cant think of so we average users can learn something new and try to get the most of our SSD's. For the rest of us who already have we can see what scores other users have and if our own ssd's are perfoming as they should or even better than they should. I would like for you guys to post your benchmarks of your SSD's, so everyone who are buying a new SSD can see for them self on wich SSD is best for them. If you are seeing a crash when enabling Invisible Memory support in PrimoCache, then either the motherboard chipset is not supported or there is a conflict with the ramdisk software.I would like to start an thread about SSD disk's. Having L2 on a ramdisk would mean cached data being stored 3 times in memory (once in Windows' file cache, once in Primo L1 and once on ramdisk as L2) so would be a waste of memory and CPU time. L2 is more for using an SSD to speed up an HDD.
Like fancycache but free windows#
It works perfectly OK with a cache file, it's just that there is *no point whatsoever* in placing that cache file on a ramdisk - the L1 cache (which can use "invisible memory" above the 3.25GB limit for 32-bit Windows systems) uses RAM so just stick with that. So yes, Fancycache is way more flexible - even if it may be some percent slower. because, you simply dont need to alter/resize the Ramdrive if you want to create -or- delete the (fancy)cache.
![like fancycache but free like fancycache but free](https://www.windows7download.com/softwareimages/ewojsucx.png)
With Fancycache you dont have such Ramdrive hassle with resizing + any unecessary back up steps, (* you need to back up yours data first to HDD and doing so still costs unnecessary time) Ok, now you want to cut H.264 stuff and back to a 8GB Ramdrive = in such case you have reconfigure Primocache + to resize the Ramdrive.Ĭertainly if you resize the Ramdrive = all data in the Ramdrive will be lost (*) So for example you configure the Invisible memory: 6GB Ramdrive + 2GB Primocache I have not tried Primocache + Primodisk, but I am pretty sure this combination will not work "on-the-fly" - because there is no option in primocache to select a Ramdrive. With fancycache I can "on-the-fly" create + delete the cache file -> without (!) changing my Ramdrive size (!) Is there a way to buy the Fancycache Beta for a more fair fee - without - buying primocache? I am not sure if fancycache is at last worth 29Euro if it is still an outdated Beta that will never get any updates.
![like fancycache but free like fancycache but free](https://hardforum.b-cdn.net/data/attachment-files/2018/09/157632_primocachesetup2.jpg)
So, I am at last a little bit surprised if you have to buy first primocache just for getting acess to fancycache.
Like fancycache but free software#
I know there is a switch "using IM/invisible memory" for XP or any other 32bit OS Users in yours primocache software - but this IM switch still crashes XP if you are using a Ramdisk. I need the Ramdrive for Browsercache, Swap, Photoshop and H.264 cuttings, de/muxing. Since a Ramdrive is just memory, so certainly there is no performance lost.
Like fancycache but free Pc#
The PC itself has installed 12GB RAM, so the other (unused/not OS managed) 8GB are used as Ramdrive. So using some off this (4GB) memory for additional caching is just a bad idea, because doing so means still less (free) memory for programms in return. XP can still adress 4GB and thats not much.