Later today, I tried Primo Cache on an Intel P45 desktop system - E8400 CPU - and also 4GB or 2x2GB RAM, and also DDR2-800. It would only matter for the SSD.īut it is a mystery to me that the tests with Primo Cache don't show much of an improvement. Since the throughput of the latter in the spec doesn't exceed 147 MB/s, you would think the controller wouldn't matter. It doesn't matter much whether the cache size is 512 or 1,024MB, either.Īs it stands, without caching, The SSD seems to show about double the performance of a WD "Blue" SATA-III HDD. frankly, the writes improve to a greater degree.
according to the chipset/laptop spec, the storage controller is "AHCI" and "SATA-II" ready or "compatible."īut caching the MX100 in RAM barely results in as much as 100MB/s improvement in the AS SSD benchmark for sequential reads and writes. I configured it with 512MB and 1,024MB of RAM respectively. That is, I wanted to see how allocating a mere single GB to such a caching program would foretell what would happen with more RAM.
Primocache vs fancycache trial#
Like I said, I downloaded the trial Primo Cache to get some idea what would happen if I increased the RAM by another 2GB to 4GB. And add to that the MX100 - which leads me to some other puzzling discoveries and ideas. So far, I've sunk maybe $75 into the existing 2x2GB RAM upgrade, and $10 for the wireless-N mini-PCIe module. I'd deferred - even avoided - fiddling with laptops for years. Better to save the ducats for something better in the future. ĪDDENDUM: I'm also wondering whether the lackluster results so far derive from the old DDR2-800 RAM limitations.Ĭlick to expand.I think you're right about that - definitely. The nice thing: Primo Cache is pretty nifty, and especially nice because the "trial period" is 90-days - not just a month. I can order the RAM "just to see," and get a refund in the 30-day time-frame if it's only partially successful or otherwise proves to be of little advantage.Īny thoughts about this? Other folks with laptops might have a more robust experience to convey on this matter. On the other hand, despite the lackluster results with Primo Cache, I'm wondering if doubling or tripling the allocated cache would give me even higher scores. Ignoring the dollar outlay, I'm not sure if it's really worth it.
Primocache vs fancycache free#
Since even with the active Primo Cache, the system shows about 1.5 GB of RAM available or free with a few applications running, I'm wondering whether I'll see any further improvements if I increased the RAM as I suggest above. Somehow, I think the bottleneck - excluding the SATA-II controller - is in the processor and the Intel X3100 gfx accelerator - which grabs some of the RAM. The 4K tests were really quite astounding - maybe as high as 120 to 140. With Primo configured to use 1GB of the 4GB RAM, the same seq-read test showed about 350. Without installing the trial Primo Cache software, I think the seq-read bench was around 260 MB/s. The laptop is now fitted with an MX100 SDD (on an SATA-II controller).
So I'm at a crossroads for gambling one or two Ben Franklins on the "big experiment." I'm pretty sure I have a "latest" or "special" BIOS in the lappie: However it was "purposed" initially, it came with a T8300 processor - not the T7xxx cores with which it was released by Gateway. The initial problem was quickly put to rest, but the discussion turned toward the compatibility of similar Crucial 4GB modules with the GM965 chipset.Ī forum colleague verified that folks had indeed been able to configure 6 to 8GB of RAM on an assortment of these GM965-based laptops. I started a thread in the OS forum to unravel an initial mystery about getting this old Gateway E-475M to recognize all 4GB of a new 2x2GB Crucial SODIMM kit I installed.