So how would this be different from turbo-cache? It might actually write as well as read. It might also do more than just your most used files. It might do all files a certain size. Then move on to your most used files. So you can cache all files automatically that are, lets say, 1mb or lower. It all depends on how intel implements it, but if its at the chipset level, intel can definitely do it correctly.
Well the G3 was supposed to be released in february so i guess that they might be running behind a bit. never mind tsunami etc.
Although it's mostly semantics, what you're describing is NOT caching. A cache contains only duplicates of some original data (although possibly an updated newer version if write back) while what you describe just shuffles data around ie the data isn't backed up on the HDD anywhere.It would just be a much larger Turbo Cache. Lenovo actually have a similar technology called Rapid Drive. With a 20GB SSD and 500GB HDD you actually see it as 520GB Drive. It will Auto move your most frequently used files to the SSD for caching.
Of coz we will have to wait and see how well is Intel implementation...
Do you know what someone else wants to have loaded fast? Does that person? Can you accept the fact that not everyone may be knowledgeable enough to make this kind of determination on their own?
Yet you still didn't answer my question about which files of a 15gb Win7 install are accessed often enough for them to be on a SSD. So now we've established that you're just as unknowledgeable as the rest of us, but really it's completely impossible to know that.Anyone knowing what an ssd is probably is knowledgeable enough to know what he wants/needs to run fast.
Anyone knowing what an ssd is probably is knowledgeable enough to know what he wants/needs to run fast.
I agree that if it would be for the masses (which it won't, price...) just making IO faster without user having to do anything would be good but then these users don't care much anyway. I sometimes wonder how some people can even consider working on their pc/laptop.
Although it's mostly semantics, what you're describing is NOT caching. A cache contains only duplicates of some original data (although possibly an updated newer version if write back) while what you describe just shuffles data around ie the data isn't backed up on the HDD anywhere.
I'd wager Intel implements a real cache, because that's much easier to handle and "loosing" 20gb of storage isn't especially noteworthy.
Yeah and that was TOTALLY the point of the argument, but I understand, some people just must nitpick something even if it has nothing to do with the discussion going on.Why are you guys touting 15gigs for win7 installs. If you slipstream win7 cd its less than 5gigs..
Does anyone think that there is a chance that this Larsen creek thing will support AES and be based off the intel 320 series controller ??
The controller are definitely the same. Just up to firmware.
It would just be a much larger Turbo Cache. Lenovo actually have a similar technology called Rapid Drive. With a 20GB SSD and 500GB HDD you actually see it as 520GB Drive. It will Auto move your most frequently used files to the SSD for caching.
Of coz we will have to wait and see how well is Intel implementation...
It all depends on whether lenovo's solution can see the file table or not. I think Intel's solution has access to the file table, which would make a huge difference.
$100 for this thing? FAIL.
yeah
rethinking, I hve a 96gb sd, I have no use for this
this feature belongs on mid to low end.....high end stuff, ssd boot drive shld be pushed as the norm