In general cache is so small the limit will be the other physical limitations of the drive. I'm not sure if anyone has ever tested how different cache sizes affect performance, since the drives are offered as is, and performance as a whole should be considered. Again, for light usage, you'd probably never notice. While less of a problem for game storage, write speeds on the FireCuda really suck as it is shingled, at least on the one I had. If you only play one title at a time maybe you could get some benefit, but if you switch between a couple big titles, you're never going to have the right stuff in cache when you do so. A single major title is already much bigger than 8GB. Where it really fell down was for game storage. You don't need that much at high speed so the overall performance is like a budget SSD. For OS installs, and light usage, this is fine. The biggest limiting factor is the small cache size.
I tried one for OS install, and one for game installs. I think it will come down very much to the use case. They're supposed to offer the best of both worlds of HDs and SSDs, but to me they ended up with the worst of both. I can't say I had that experience myself with SSHDs, and unless they significantly change in future they're not something I'd personally consider. Have you considered an SSHD like the seagate Firecuda? They work really well in my personal experience about 2x faster read/write that a normal HDD Cache is important but for different reasons.
0 kommentar(er)
