Intel Z68 SSD Caching

horrorwood · 24 Dec 2011 at 21:04

Is anybody else using this?

Obviously it is almost impossible to give you benchmarks of how it performs. But it really is good. I just do not see much talk about it.

I am using an OCZ Agility 3 64gb as cache for my 2TB hard-drive. It is really almost like having a 2TB SSD.

I have also BSOD'd a few times whilst overclocking and I have had no data loss as far as I can tell. It always does some "stuff" during my next boot (seems to write the data from the SSD back to the HDD) and all is fine again.

I use a 128gb M4 in my laptop (i7 2620qm) and a 64gb M4 in my work PC as the main drive, so I do have something to compare it to. Using SSD caching is very similar in performance as far as I can tell.

Just wondered if anyone else uses it?

boosfuk · 25 Dec 2011 at 08:09

Similar setup here and works great. Use a 64GB M4 as boot drive and a 500GB Caviar Black with Vertex 60G 2E caching for games etc. (also a 1TB Caviar Green for data/backups). Had tried using the Vertex as just an SSD but seemed no faster than the (higher capacity) caching solution.

Montala · 25 Dec 2011 at 08:17

I expect there must be quite a few folks who are using one of each, as it were!

My new set up will consist of a 120 Gb Vertex 2 SSD and a 640 Gb Seagate hard drive.

They will be connected to an Asus Z68 ROG GEN3 mobo, even though I shan't be doing that much gaming, and I am still not sure whether or not just to use the SSD as a Windows boot drive (which was my original intention) or to try out this new clever caching stuff!

Presumably in that case I would install Windows onto the Seagate?

Surveyor · 25 Dec 2011 at 11:08

Montala said:
I expect there must be quite a few folks who are using one of each, as it were!

My new set up will consist of a 120 Gb Vertex 2 SSD and a 640 Gb Seagate hard drive.

They will be connected to an Asus Z68 ROG GEN3 mobo, even though I shan't be doing that much gaming, and I am still not sure whether or not just to use the SSD as a Windows boot drive (which was my original intention) or to try out this new clever caching stuff!

Presumably in that case I would install Windows onto the Seagate?

The maximum you can use for SSD caching is 64GB so using a 120GB drive just for caching would seem a bit of a waste.

[TW]Fox · 25 Dec 2011 at 11:22

Does it cache the entire physical drive or just the primary partition? Can you select which partition?

horrorwood · 25 Dec 2011 at 13:02

[TW]Fox;20876694 said:
Does it cache the entire physical drive or just the primary partition? Can you select which partition?

It does the whole drive I believe. I don't think you can select a partition to accelerate, only a drive.

I am glad it works so well, I did not fancy buying a 256gb SSD

SMed · 25 Dec 2011 at 13:04

I'm debating this for my upcoming build also. I'm getting a 64GB SSD and using a crappy 2.5" 500GB HDD.

SSD main + HDD storage

OR

HDD main + SSD caching?

Elric · 25 Dec 2011 at 14:00

I've been using it for a while now, a 60GB Force 3 drive with a 2TB hdd, works really well.

[TW]Fox · 25 Dec 2011 at 14:10

Just set it up - ended up with 64Gb cache and 20Gb spare partition. BF3 on the spare partition, everything else caching.

Incredible - Windows boots in 13 seconds and a BF3 map loads in about 5-6!

horrorwood · 26 Dec 2011 at 00:51

SMed said:
I'm debating this for my upcoming build also. I'm getting a 64GB SSD and using a crappy 2.5" 500GB HDD.

SSD main + HDD storage

OR

HDD main + SSD caching?

HDD main and SSD caching. 2.5" hdd's are generally not bad due to smaller platters. I can't see it being a really old one with it being 500gb... anyway SSD caching will make up for it

[TW]Fox;20877525 said:
Just set it up - ended up with 64Gb cache and 20Gb spare partition. BF3 on the spare partition, everything else caching.

Incredible - Windows boots in 13 seconds and a BF3 map loads in about 5-6!

It gets faster too

SMed · 26 Dec 2011 at 12:22

horrorwood said:
HDD main and SSD caching. 2.5" hdd's are generally not bad due to smaller platters. I can't see it being a really old one with it being 500gb... anyway SSD caching will make up for it

Thanks. What is the argument for doing it this way? Just as fast but then simpler with regards to installing programs and storing files since you don't have to direct the data anywhere specifically?

Triggaaar · 26 Dec 2011 at 21:47

Should SSDs be set up for caching in general, or is this specific to Z68 motherboards?

SMed · 26 Dec 2011 at 22:20

Pretty sure it's only specific to Z68 boards.

Montala · 26 Dec 2011 at 23:19

Right , so for a setup with a 120 Gb SSD and a 'standard' hard drive of 500 GB or larger; in my case 640 Gb I am now thinking that it will be better for me just to install Windows (and possibly Office, or whatever) on the SSD and to keep the other drive mainly for data etc.

Is this correct?

horrorwood · 28 Dec 2011 at 23:46

SMed said:
Thanks. What is the argument for doing it this way? Just as fast but then simpler with regards to installing programs and storing files since you don't have to direct the data anywhere specifically?

Yes exactly that. You do not even see the SSD, you just see a normal hard-drive which seems to be really fast 99% of the time..

Montala said:
Right , so for a setup with a 120 Gb SSD and a 'standard' hard drive of 500 GB or larger; in my case 640 Gb I am now thinking that it will be better for me just to install Windows (and possibly Office, or whatever) on the SSD and to keep the other drive mainly for data etc.

Is this correct?

I think i'd probably use caching still. It would use 60gb for the HDD. You could then install Windows on the 60gb left over?

SMed · 29 Dec 2011 at 00:03

horrorwood said:
Yes exactly that. You do not even see the SSD, you just see a normal hard-drive which seems to be really fast 99% of the time..

I think i'd probably use caching still. It would use 60gb for the HDD. You could then install Windows on the 60gb left over?

What I'll probably end up doing is just getting the 64GB SSD now, installing my main apps and OS etc and using the 500GB as storage. Then eventually get another SSD to cache the 500GB HDD. From everything that I've found, it's definitely faster to use the SSD as a main drive. And I can't afford a bigger SSD for a while and it's the last thing I need to complete my build, been waiting long enough.

horrorwood · 29 Dec 2011 at 00:10

SMed said:
What I'll probably end up doing is just getting the 64GB SSD now, installing my main apps and OS etc and using the 500GB as storage. Then eventually get another SSD to cache the 500GB HDD. From everything that I've found, it's definitely faster to use the SSD as a main drive. And I can't afford a bigger SSD for a while and it's the last thing I need to complete my build, been waiting long enough.

Yes it is faster to use just an SSD. But as I said it is really not that noticable. I think having 500gb of "fast" storage is a better solution. See here for comparisons:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/4

MOOGLEYS · 29 Dec 2011 at 00:22

I have a 60gb agility 3 and a 2tb drive. I did have the ssd for windows and the 2tb for games, steam etc.
Would I be better using the 2tb as the main drive and ssd as a cache? Will it matter if I partition the 2tb drive so I have a seperate windows partition, will it cache both partitions?

StriderX · 29 Dec 2011 at 03:27

There needs to be more information about this, though frankly with SSD/HHD hybrids getting more appeal, this is already obsolete i guess.

Westyfield2 · 29 Dec 2011 at 12:36

I keep thinking about this but then not actually doing it. Got a friend who went from the normal SSD & HDD setup (with an Intel G2) to the SSD Caching on a P8Z68-V Pro (with a new Intel) and reckons that the caching setup is noticeably slower

.

What I think I'll do on my next rig is instead of my current setup (120GB SSD & HDD) is have a 60GB SSD with OS & Important Apps on it, a HDD with the data & other Apps on it, and a second 60GB SSD but setup as a cache for the HDD. Best of both options

.