• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Should i buy primocache?

Joined
Jun 22, 2021
Messages
54 (0.43/day)
System Name Lenovo ideapad s340 15iml 81NA
Processor i7 10510U
Motherboard -
Cooling single fan cooling system
Memory 20 GB DDR4 2666
Video Card(s) Nvidia Geforce MX230
Storage 1TB samsung MZLVB1T0HBLR-000L2
Display(s) 1080p display 60HZ
Case -
Audio Device(s) dual 2 watt speakers with dolby atmos
Power Supply 65 watt
Mouse Hp omen gaming mouse
Keyboard -
VR HMD -
Software Windows 11
Benchmark Scores Geekbench 5: single core: 1189 multicore : 3997 compute(OpenCL):10976
it tripled my SSD performance!
 

Toothless

Tech, Games, and TPU!
Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
7,713 (2.78/day)
Location
Washington, USA
System Name Veraltet
Processor 3700x
Motherboard AsRock Taichi Ultimate x470
Cooling NH-D15 Chromax
Memory G.Skill 2x16GB 3200mhz
Video Card(s) MSI GTX1080 Ti Gaming X
Storage 2 NVME + 3 HDD
Display(s) LG 34UB88-P + 2x AOC 2425W + Dell 2007F
Case CoolerMaster NR600
Audio Device(s) SteelSeries Arctis 5 + Moano condenser microphone
Power Supply EVGA GQ 850w
Mouse Corsair Scimitar Pro
Keyboard Corsair K55
Software Windows 10 Professional
Benchmark Scores PEBCAK
It didn't. It's using ram as a cache. Your drive isn't faster..
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
16,047 (5.29/day)
Location
USA
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Software Android 4.4.4R5 Custom

Should i buy primocache?​

No. Waste of money. It's just a fancy RAM-Drive type software. Unless you have a frak-ton of RAM(128GB+) is will not be worth the purchase.

I was wrong. See testing below...
 
Last edited:

Mussels

Moderprator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
51,332 (8.24/day)
Location
Oystralia
System Name Rainbow Sparkles
Processor Ryzen R7 5800X (PBO tweaked, 4.4-5.05GHz)
Motherboard Asus x570 Gaming-F
Cooling EK Quantum Velocity AM4 + EK Quantum ARGB 3090 w/ active backplate. Dual rad.
Memory 2x32GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB @4000 C18 (1.4V, SoC 1.15V)
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 3090 SG 24GB: Often underclocked to 1500Mhz 0.737v
Storage 2TB WD SN850 NVME + 1TB Sasmsung 970 Pro NVME + 1TB Intel 6000P NVME USB 3.2
Display(s) Gigabyte G32QC (4k80Hz, 1440p 165Hz) + Phillips 328m6fjrmb (4K 60Hz, 1440p 144Hz)
Case Fractal Design R6
Audio Device(s) Logitech G560 |Razer Leviathan | Corsair Void pro RGB |Blue Yeti mic
Power Supply Corsair HX 750i (Platinum, fan off til 300W)
Mouse Logitech G Pro wireless + Steelseries Prisma XL
Keyboard Razer Huntsman TE (custom white and steel keycaps)
VR HMD Oculus Rift S
Software Windows 11 pro x64 (Yes, it's genuinely a good OS)
Benchmark Scores I don't quite know how i managed to get such a top tier PC, I am not rich.
Aww, i was hoping this would be a good primocache thread.

I have a frakton of spare RAM and played with it, but want to see other peoples thoughts and advice on how best to use it before i pay.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
16,047 (5.29/day)
Location
USA
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Software Android 4.4.4R5 Custom
Aww, i was hoping this would be a good primocache thread.

I have a frakton of spare RAM and played with it, but want to see other peoples thoughts and advice on how best to use it before i pay.
Ok, I'll be fair, if you have 32GB+ and you leave at least 16GB for your system, this is useful, but 32GB is the bare minimum! There-in lays the catch, you have to have a serious amount of RAM to get the most out of this program and it is very much a case of the-more-memory-the-merrier!

The program is found below;
Learn more here;
And the Specs;
The minimum is stated as 2GB, and the recommend 4GB, but there is no way in hell a user will make the most of what this program can do unless you give it huge chunks of RAM. The useful minimum is 32GB system RAM with 16GB allocated to PrimoCache.

Honestly, the prices are very reasonable(lifetime use) if you can make the most of it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 22, 2021
Messages
54 (0.43/day)
System Name Lenovo ideapad s340 15iml 81NA
Processor i7 10510U
Motherboard -
Cooling single fan cooling system
Memory 20 GB DDR4 2666
Video Card(s) Nvidia Geforce MX230
Storage 1TB samsung MZLVB1T0HBLR-000L2
Display(s) 1080p display 60HZ
Case -
Audio Device(s) dual 2 watt speakers with dolby atmos
Power Supply 65 watt
Mouse Hp omen gaming mouse
Keyboard -
VR HMD -
Software Windows 11
Benchmark Scores Geekbench 5: single core: 1189 multicore : 3997 compute(OpenCL):10976
thanks, i have 20gb ram
 

Mussels

Moderprator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
51,332 (8.24/day)
Location
Oystralia
System Name Rainbow Sparkles
Processor Ryzen R7 5800X (PBO tweaked, 4.4-5.05GHz)
Motherboard Asus x570 Gaming-F
Cooling EK Quantum Velocity AM4 + EK Quantum ARGB 3090 w/ active backplate. Dual rad.
Memory 2x32GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB @4000 C18 (1.4V, SoC 1.15V)
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 3090 SG 24GB: Often underclocked to 1500Mhz 0.737v
Storage 2TB WD SN850 NVME + 1TB Sasmsung 970 Pro NVME + 1TB Intel 6000P NVME USB 3.2
Display(s) Gigabyte G32QC (4k80Hz, 1440p 165Hz) + Phillips 328m6fjrmb (4K 60Hz, 1440p 144Hz)
Case Fractal Design R6
Audio Device(s) Logitech G560 |Razer Leviathan | Corsair Void pro RGB |Blue Yeti mic
Power Supply Corsair HX 750i (Platinum, fan off til 300W)
Mouse Logitech G Pro wireless + Steelseries Prisma XL
Keyboard Razer Huntsman TE (custom white and steel keycaps)
VR HMD Oculus Rift S
Software Windows 11 pro x64 (Yes, it's genuinely a good OS)
Benchmark Scores I don't quite know how i managed to get such a top tier PC, I am not rich.
thanks, i have 20gb ram
Let's just assume 16GB is needed for the OS and programs, as thats a common recommendation

That means you've got 4GB of data cached, and you cant choose what that data is

Are you really going to benefit? Are you reading/writing small data so often and so fast, that your SSD cant keep up?
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
2,057 (0.58/day)
Location
Bulgaria
System Name Sandfiller
Processor I5-7600K
Motherboard Asus PRIME Z270-P
Cooling Noctua NH-L9i
Memory 2 x 8GB Corsair 2400 mhz DDR4 CL17
Video Card(s) RX 570 4GB NITRO+
Storage Cruicial M.2 275GB drive
Display(s) 2560x1080 LG 29"
Case TT Urban R31
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z
Power Supply Fractal Design IntegraM 650W
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Dell Somethin wireless
Software Windows 10 x 64 bits
Man, I had forgotten about this one. There was a time I had played with it, but it was a while back. It all depends of course. If you have decent SSD/ RAM perhaps AV software (if needed), backup software (paid if needed) and you still feel the need to invest into your PC, yeah go for it.

EDIT: what I mean is, I have way more other bases to cover before I even consider splashing cash on this kind of software.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
16,047 (5.29/day)
Location
USA
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Software Android 4.4.4R5 Custom
thanks, i have 20gb ram
Ok, try this since you already have the trial version: Set your cache allocation for 8GB. That will leave 12GB for your system, which is a doable amount of RAM. You can always try 4GB as well if your system performance dips.
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2014
Messages
5,727 (2.15/day)
Location
SE Michigan
System Name Dumbass
Processor AMD-9370BE @4.6
Motherboard ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 +SB950
Cooling CM Nepton 280L
Memory G.Skill Sniper 16gb DDR3 2400
Video Card(s) GreenTeam 1080 Gaming X 8GB
Storage C:\SSD (240GB), D:\Seagate (2TB), E:\Western Digital (1TB)
Display(s) 1x Nixeus NX_EDG27, 2x Dell S2440L (16:9)
Case Phanteks Enthoo Primo w/8 140mm SP Fans
Audio Device(s) onboard (realtek?) SPKRS:Logitech Z623 200w 2.1
Power Supply Corsair HX1000i
Mouse Logitech G604
Keyboard Logitech G910 Orion Spark
Software windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://i.imgur.com/aoz3vWY.jpg?2
I have a frakton of spare RAM
In a wooden frame hanging on the wall? :D :rolleyes::nutkick:

On topic ~
While I was play testing a mod for 7 Days to Die, ram usage topped 27Gb, took a while to load. Those with less than 16gb systems experience really crap performance. Using a tool like this would put that whole thing into the pagefile, could ruin a drive lol.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
15,530 (5.98/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Audio Device(s) Situational :)
Power Supply EVGA G2 750W
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II (Best K/B ever... <3)
Software W10 x64
Never had any trust in these solutions. It just reeks too much of downloading RAM or 'your computer has 670161 problems we can fix'.

As if the most efficient data management isn't already built into the whole rig as it is...
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
9,344 (2.20/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R7 3800X@4.350/525/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero7 @bios 2703/?
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu Monoblock Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 32Gb in four sticks./16Gb
Video Card(s) Sapphire refference Rx vega 64 EK waterblocked/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power qlc nvmex3 in raid 0/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.
Case Lianli p0-11 dynamic
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
Aww, i was hoping this would be a good primocache thread.

I have a frakton of spare RAM and played with it, but want to see other peoples thoughts and advice on how best to use it before i pay.
I payed , I don't use it now, simply not worth the effort for a typical home user.
Games didn't all of a sudden fly or load much quicker.
 

Superzuber

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
29 (0.13/day)
depends on the use case - just for read cache for SSD probably no, it's good for cache/prefetch on HDD (ofc Windows does that too but with Primocache you have control over it) and great if you need functions like write L2 caching and defer write function
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
16,047 (5.29/day)
Location
USA
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Software Android 4.4.4R5 Custom
Decided to actually test this rather than rely on past experiences. Testing showed interesting results. See screenshots.
The testing system is one of my Dell T3500s with 12GB of RAM and a Xeon W3680 6core CPU running Windows 11 Build 22000.194. I wanted to use this system as it's the one I've been testing Windows 11 on and has the least amount of RAM of all my desktop type systems.

This is a test on a non-cached partition, which shows the bare drive performance. This acts as a control baseline result. This is what was expected from the drive in question(Seagate 7200RPM HDD).
NonCachedDrive.jpg


This is with a 2GB cache. As you can see, there is a marked improvement in read speeds, but not much in write speeds, which were only slightly better.
2GBCache.jpg


This is with a 3GB cache. This is where the read speeds bump an even larger margin(more than double). The write speeds went back down to the baseline, not sure why.
3GBCache.jpg


This is a 4GB cache. Once again an improvement, but not a big one compared to the 3GB test.
4GBCache.jpg


This is with a 6GB cache. This was an interesting improvement. The memory bandwidth of that system is 13GB per second so the cache is approaching the system bandwidth limit.
6GBCache.jpg


So I was wrong, this program is not a waste. This software is not like others of this type. However, the testing clearly shows that you need a fair amount of system RAM to use it effectively.

@OctupleGolf001
You should be able to allocate 6GB of your system RAM and not choke your system while taking advantage of what this program has to offer. I'm changing my advice to: Yes, buy it if you will use it alot. Seems to work really well.

@Everyone
I think the pattern in the results is clear here, the more RAM the better, but unlike disk caching programs of the past, a frak-ton of RAM in NOT actually needed. You can get a solid result just using a 2GB cache.

My original recommendation though still stands, the more RAM the better. The advice I'm changing is the bare minimum, which is 12GB. I will say if you're going to use this program on a constant basis, start with 24GB and an 8GB cache. RAM is affordable these days so upgrading if you need to should not be expensive. This program seems to be very efficient and 8GB cache size should provide anyone a great result.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
5,018 (1.73/day)
Location
Kiev, Ukraine
System Name WS#1337
Processor Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard ASUS X570-PLUS TUF Gaming
Cooling Xigmatek Scylla 240mm AIO
Memory 4x8GB G.Skill Ares OEM DDR4-3200 (B-die)
Video Card(s) GTX 1070 Ti
Storage Adata SX8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) Samsung U24E590D (4K/UHD)
Case ghetto CM Cosmos RC-1000
Audio Device(s) ALC1220
Power Supply SeaSonic SSR-550FX (80+ GOLD)
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Modecom Volcano Blade (Kailh choc LP)
Software Windows 10, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS
Primocache is essentially superfetch on steroids. Short-term satisfaction is good (so as "on paper" numbers), but actual daily benefits are highly questionable, especially if you are already running an SSD.
I assume Windows 11 only feels snappier only because they fixed preloading algos to account for higher RAM capacities, which means it's another con to buying software which can potentially become obsolete in a couple of months.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
274 (0.10/day)
Location
UK
Aww, i was hoping this would be a good primocache thread.

I have a frakton of spare RAM and played with it, but want to see other peoples thoughts and advice on how best to use it before i pay.
I tried a 16-24GB RAMDisk on a 32GB RAM system, and quite honestly it isn't worth it for general gaming. My findings:-

1. If you switch your computer off every night then you're basically going to have to "install" / copy the game over anyway every day. Total loading time = copy time from HDD/SSD to RAMdisk + the time when you start the game from the RAMDisk + the extra "human time" you spend setting it up is actually longer than just running it off an SSD.

2. Exponentially depreciating gains. An 80% reduction from say 75s (5,400rpm HDD) to 15s (SSD) feels huge. But a further 5% reduction from 15s (SSD) to 14.3s (RAMDisk) is not noticeable in the real world, especially when 11s of both involves unskippable intro movies, epilepsy warnings, etc, or CPU bottlenecked decompressing data files. I have one smallish 1.6GB game (Quantum Conundrum) that takes 34s to load on a 5,400rpm HDD and yet still 29-30s on a RAMDisk / SSD. Why? It's an endless string of intro movies you can't skip. RAMDisks won't help with this stuff.

3. Whenever you access any file, you're loading it into the Windows file cache anyway. So when you copy a file from SSD to RAMDisk, you're actually making two copies : 1. RAMDisk and 2. Windows file cache. And the first place Windows looks is the latter. So for many games you're not actually starting it from the RAMDisk but the cache. If you have a lot of RAM (16-32GB) and your game only uses say 6GB, then Windows will be holding it all in RAM anyway even without a RAMDisk even if you made a "null" file copy or simply "read" the files some other way, eg, MD5-ing the game folder will cache a game into RAM (Windows File Cache) even without a RAMDisk.

4. Games are getting larger than RAMDisks can handle faster than RAM is coming down in price. With +50-100GB game installs becoming more common, it's already getting pretty ridiculous and expensive to buy 64-128GB RAM to try and keep up with the "rat race" vs buying an increasingly cheap 2TB SSD.

Bottom line : If you never reboot your system, play only the same small game over & over, day after day, can't afford a large SSD yet simultaneously happen to have +32GB of expensive RAM lying around unused there's probably some value in RAMDisks to some people. For most people, however, there isn't. Overall, I decided a 2TB SSD was a better investment than RAMDisk-ing 32GB RAM and a whole lot less fiddling about "pre-loading" every time I rebooted / shut down / wanted to play something else. The only real practical use I found for a RAMDisk was a 1GB web browser cache for heavy daily browsing sessions, and even then most of that benefit was less about speed and more about reducing SSD defragmentation / maximising PE cycles.

Edit: I know Primocache works differently than a pure RAMDisk (most commonly / recently accessed based algorithm) but the same principle applies - if you play only the same small games over & over and perhaps have a fast boot SSD + a large secondary HDD, it may increase the speed of games loaded from the latter. But if you play a variety of games (especially larger ones), then whatever the algorithm decided to cache / pre-load yesterday may not be what you want to play today and it's no different to loading from an SSD directly.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
16,047 (5.29/day)
Location
USA
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Software Android 4.4.4R5 Custom
Primocache is essentially superfetch on steroids.
No, this seems to be something else entirely. The caching is on RAM not on disk like SuperFetch is.
Short-term satisfaction is good (so as "on paper" numbers), but actual daily benefits are highly questionable
I have not done any long term tests, but I predict that there is something tangible to gain.
especially if you are already running an SSD.
This I doubt, but it can be tested just as easily on the same system which has an SSD installed. I'd be willing to run tests with that drive if requested.

I assume Windows 11 only feels snappier only because they fixed preloading algos to account for higher RAM capacities, which means it's another con to buying software which can potentially become obsolete in a couple of months.
Those are a few assumptions. Time will tell.
I tried a 16-24GB RAMDisk on a 32GB RAM system, and quite honestly it isn't worth it for general gaming. My findings:-
That is because your configuration was flawed. If you have 32GB of RAM and you set a 16GB or 24GB cache, your system performance will tank as a result. The rest of your points are invalid as they are based on your experience with a flawed configuration. Try an 8GB or 12GB cache and let us know how it goes.
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
5,018 (1.73/day)
Location
Kiev, Ukraine
System Name WS#1337
Processor Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard ASUS X570-PLUS TUF Gaming
Cooling Xigmatek Scylla 240mm AIO
Memory 4x8GB G.Skill Ares OEM DDR4-3200 (B-die)
Video Card(s) GTX 1070 Ti
Storage Adata SX8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) Samsung U24E590D (4K/UHD)
Case ghetto CM Cosmos RC-1000
Audio Device(s) ALC1220
Power Supply SeaSonic SSR-550FX (80+ GOLD)
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Modecom Volcano Blade (Kailh choc LP)
Software Windows 10, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS
No, this seems to be something else entirely. The caching is on RAM not on disk like SuperFetch is.
The only difference is that Superfetch does it automagically without user intervention, while PrimoCache creates a RAM disk(and wastes resources) to do essentially the same thing manually.
Most linux distros do similar thing with preload. The only thing that's kinda beneficial - is user control(e.g. choosing what to preload), other than that - I can't really think of any.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
274 (0.10/day)
Location
UK
That is because your configuration was flawed. If you have 32GB of RAM and you set a 16GB or 24GB cache, your system performance will tank as a result. The rest of your points are invalid as they are based on your experience with a flawed configuration. Try an 8GB or 12GB cache and let us know how it goes.
I tried all sizes (starting with 2GB) and ended up at 16-24GB (for caching sub 10GB smaller games outright). It can make a huge difference if you're loading from a 5,400rpm HDD and the algorithm gets it right, but vs a fast SSD, it didn't made much difference in the real-world for reasons mentioned. My RAMDisk shows CrystalDiskMark Sequential screenshots of over 12,000MB/s vs only 520MB/s from an MX500 SATA SSD, yet that really doesn't mean games will load 23x faster as games simply don't load like that. In the real world, they'll request a chunk of data, then go through a lot of CPU cycles unpacking it, initialising it, etc, only then request another chunk, etc. It isn't a continuous "sequential" stream at all. "If my SSD is 2,000MB/s and my RAMDisk is 10,000MB/s then that means game load times will fall from 15s to 3s because that's what CrystalDiskMark says" as some believe just doesn't happen in the real world for the same reason the newest P31 NVMe review isn't showing 6x lower load times for games than 2016-era SATA's on the same chart. The theoretical CrystalDiskMark Sequential -> real-world Game Load times never was something that ever scaled linearly, let alone do so to infinity beyond depreciating gains of which fast SSD's are already well into the realms of.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
Messages
5 (0.02/day)
System Name Selene
Processor Ryzen 5 2600X
Motherboard Asus ROG Strix B450-F
Cooling bequiet Shadow Rock LP, Arctic P12 case fans
Memory 32GB Dual Rank 3333 16-18-16 1T Goodram IRDM PRO
Video Card(s) Nvidia RTX A4000
Storage WD SN500 1TB
Display(s) HP 24x, Benq RL2450HT
Case SilverStone Grandia GD09
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar U7 mkII, Sennheiser Game One
Power Supply Seasonic Focus GX-650
Mouse Lenovo Y Precision
Keyboard Trust GXT 870
Modern SSDs already use a technology called HMB (Host Memory Buffer) that uses system RAM for performance optimization, even aside from any preloading and caching your OS does for you, so paying money for yet another thing that puts RAM between your Operating System and your SSD seems of marginal use at best.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
16,047 (5.29/day)
Location
USA
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Software Android 4.4.4R5 Custom
The only difference is that Superfetch does it automagically without user intervention, while PrimoCache creates a RAM disk(and wastes resources) to do essentially the same thing manually.
Most linux distros do similar thing with preload. The only thing that's kinda beneficial - is user control(e.g. choosing what to preload), other than that - I can't really think of any.
I tried all sizes (starting with 2GB) and ended up at 16-24GB (for caching sub 10GB smaller games outright). It can make a huge difference if you're loading from a 5,400rpm HDD and the algorithm gets it right, but vs a fast SSD, it didn't made much difference in the real-world for reasons mentioned. My RAMDisk shows CrystalDiskMark Sequential screenshots of over 12,000MB/s vs only 520MB/s from an MX500 SATA SSD, yet that really doesn't mean games will load 23x faster as games simply don't load like that. In the real world, they'll request a chunk of data, then go through a lot of CPU cycles unpacking it, initialising it, etc, only then request another chunk, etc. It isn't a continuous "sequential" stream at all. "If my SSD is 2,000MB/s and my RAMDisk is 10,000MB/s then that means game load times will fall from 15s to 3s because that's what CrystalDiskMark says" as some believe just doesn't happen in the real world for the same reason the newest P31 NVMe review isn't showing 6x lower load times for games than 2016-era SATA's on the same chart. The theoretical CrystalDiskMark Sequential -> real-world Game Load times never was something that ever scaled linearly, let alone do so to infinity beyond depreciating gains of which fast SSD's are already well into the realms of.
I'm not going to argue. Believe what you want.

Moving on...
So after the mention of SSDs, I decided to test the difference. Once again the results were interesting... Same system, just on the Windows 7 installation on an SSD. Here we go..

NonCached partition. Results were as expected.
NonCached.jpg


2GB cache. Once again, the read speeds jumped up dramatically but had a different mix of results from the HDD.
2GB.jpg


3GB cache. Simply massive improvement! This is effectively my system RAM bandwidth minus processing over-head.
3GB.jpg


4GB cache. Almost no change from 3GB. Margin of error flucutation kind of thing.
4GB.jpg


6GB cache. Again, little change VS 3GB.
6GB.jpg


What can we conclude from this series of results? For one, this program offers a much better performance spread with an SSD VS HDD. The second point is that the performance ceiling is limited by overall system RAM bandwidth, so the faster your system RAM, the better the performance. Third, with an SSD, the need for a large cache seem unnecessary, whereas with an HDD a larger cache is of benefit.

I am now very curious how this software actually functions. It seems to have it's own unique caching scheme.

Thinking it's time for a test on a more powerful system with larger data sizes..

EDIT;
More tests done. Tried this on a different system, one with a Xeon E5-2667v2 & 32GB of RAM and an SSD. Once again the results were interesting.

Non-Cached partition.
NonCached.jpg


2GB cache. The boost wasn't the same as the other system's SSD 2GB run. Weird.
2GB.jpg


3GB cache.
3GB.jpg


4GB cache.
4GB.jpg


6GB cache.
6GB.jpg


8GB cache.
8GB.jpg


I did 12GB and 16GB runs with little difference.

I'm going to run some benchmarks later just to compare load times. I know of at least one game engine based benchmark that accounts for drive load times. Will post later...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,272 (5.34/day)
Location
Texas
System Name Ghetto Rigs x299 & z490 & x99 & Q9550 Old timer
Processor 9940x w/Optimus SigV2 & 10900k w/Optimus Foundation & 5930k w/EK Magnitude & Q9550 w/EK Evo
Motherboard X299 Rampage VI Apex & z490 Maximus XII Apex & x99 Sabertooth & Acer WG43M
Cooling D5 combo/280 GTX/ VRM water block copper/280 GTX/ D5 Top/Optimus sigV2/TitanXp/Mora 360x2
Memory Trident-Z 3600C16 4x8gb & Trident-Z 3600c16 2x8gb & Trident-Z 3200c14 4x8gb & 4x2gb crucial
Video Card(s) 1080ti FTW3 & Titan Xp & evga 980ti gaming & Onboard graphic's need another gpu
Storage 970 evo plus 500gb & 970 evo 500gb many 2.5" ssd's and WD BLK hdd's
Display(s) 1-AOC G2460PG 24"G-Sync 144Hz/ 2nd 1-ASUS VG248QE 24"/ 3rd LG 43" series
Case D450 second floor for 2nd rad x2/ Cherry Entertainment center/ 2 Test benches
Audio Device(s) Built in Realtek x2 with Insignia 2.0 sound bars & 1-LG sound bar
Power Supply EVGA 1200P2 & 1000P2 with APC AX1500 & 850P2 with CyberPower-GX1325U & 750P2
Mouse Redragon Perdition x3
Keyboard G710+x3
Software Win-7 pro x3 and Linux Cinnamon 20.1x2 & win-10 pro x3
Benchmark Scores Are in the benchmark section
thanks, i have 20gb ram
Hi,
If you fill in your system spec's everyone that post on your threads... would already know this and more

Asus ROG boards come with ramcache included
I've personally never used it some buddies use it mainly for benchmarks and some use it for programs
Vulnerabilities execute through memory so it's a double edged sword feature like virtual machine/ virtualization which I always disable one less security hole.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
274 (0.10/day)
Location
UK
I'm not going to argue. Believe what you want.
There's nothing to "believe". I literally just tested it (1. Picked a game at random, Mark of the Ninja (and it's the GOG offline installer version so no client running spending time doing DRM checks), 2. Start it from a 5,400rpm HDD then a SATA SSD then a RAMDisk (with a cold boot in-between each to clear the Windows Cache) and 3. Record "time from start click until reaching the main menu":-

A. (5,400rpm HDD) = 12.1s
B. (MX500 SSD) = 3.9s
C. (RamDisk) = 3.8s

^ And that's with the entire game pre-cached (a 100% perfect cache prediction hit rate of a game that completely fits into RAM) vs a slow (by modern standards) SATA SSD. For larger games that won't fit into a RAMDisk, or perhaps playing something else the algorithm hasn't cached, the 3.9 vs 3.8s would be reduced even more as it'll be loading direct from the SSD anyway. As I said, regardless of the Quattuordecillion Yottabytes per FemtoSecond CrystalDiskMark sequential marketing screenshots, real world game load times = depreciating gains...

What can we conclude from this series of results?
That unless you "play" CrystalDiskMark all day long, you're not actually testing anything of real-world substance beyond how CrystalDiskMark specficially can saturate multi GB/s loads in a way normal games / applications don't. (Hint: If you're looking at this software for the purpose of reducing game load times, have you tried testing some actual games)?... ;)
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
16,047 (5.29/day)
Location
USA
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Software Android 4.4.4R5 Custom
If you fill in your system spec's everyone that post on your threads... would already know this and more
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/account/specs
This is NOT a requirement and not everyone looks.

There's nothing to "believe". I literally just tested it (1. Picked a game at random, Mark of the Ninja (and it's the GOG offline installer version so no client running spending time doing DRM checks), 2. Start it from a 5,400rpm HDD then a SATA SSD then a RAMDisk (with a cold boot in-between each to clear the Windows Cache) and 3. Record "time from start click until reaching the main menu":-

A. (5,400rpm HDD) = 12.1s
B. (MX500 SSD) = 3.9s
C. (RamDisk) = 3.8s

^ And that's with the entire game pre-cached (a 100% perfect cache prediction hit rate of a game that completely fits into RAM) vs a slow (by modern standards) SATA SSD. For larger games that won't fit into a RAMDisk, or perhaps playing something else the algorithm hasn't cached, the 3.9 vs 3.8s would be reduced even more as it'll be loading direct from the SSD anyway. As I said, regardless of the Quattuordecillion Yottabytes per FemtoSecond CrystalDiskMark sequential marketing screenshots, real world game load times = depreciating gains...


That unless you "play" CrystalDiskMark all day long, you're not actually testing anything of real-world substance beyond how CrystalDiskMark specficially can saturate multi GB/s loads in a way normal games / applications don't. (Hint: If you're looking at this software for the purpose of reducing game load times, have you tried testing some actual games)?... ;)
You are missing important context and as I said...
I'm not going to argue.
...so move along.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
12,196 (2.11/day)
System Name Desktop / Laptop
Processor Intel i7 6700K @ 4.5GHz (1.270 V) / Intel i3 7100U
Motherboard Asus Z170 Pro Gaming / HP 83A3 (U3E1)
Cooling Noctua NH-U12A 2 fans + Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut + 5 case fans / Fan
Memory 16GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz CL15 / 8GB DDR4 HyperX CL13
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio / Intel HD620
Storage Samsung 970 Evo 500GB + Samsung 850 Pro 512GB + Samsung 860 Evo 1TB x2 / Samsung 256GB M.2 SSD
Display(s) 23.8" Dell S2417DG 165Hz G-Sync 1440p / 14" 1080p IPS Glossy
Case Be quiet! Silent Base 600 - Window / HP Pavilion
Audio Device(s) SupremeFX Onboard / Realtek onboard + B&O speaker system
Power Supply Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 750W / Powerbrick
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 2 Laser wireless / Logitech M330 wireless
Keyboard RAPOO E9270P Black 5GHz wireless / HP backlit
Software Windows 10 / Windows 10
Should i buy primocache?

Sure if you got the cash for the cache....
 
Top