More RAM = Faster SSD's...

I have long stated that a balanced platform is required for sustained productivity over the lifecycle of a system. A balanced platform requires a current gen platform (SNB, IB, Haswell, etc.) as it's basis. It also needs a true Quad Core (or higher) processor and as much quality RAM as the system can handle too.

In addition, it needs the latest O/S (Win8x64 Pro), an adequate gpu depending on the focus of the system (on board graphics have been more than capable for my workloads for years now) and a large, fast storage subsystem (240/256/512GB SSD's or larger at this point in time).

In such setups, I have felt that the SSD's responded better, the more RAM the system had... Last week, I read the 'proof' of what my 'gut instincts' told me about this relationship.

See:
Experiment: Can Adding RAM Improve Your SSD's Endurance? - Can You Get More Speed From Your SSD By Adding RAM?



So not only does maxing out the RAM enable a cpu to do (much) more work in the same amount of time - it also allows an SSD to offer the best sustained performance over time, while also decreasing WA (by decreasing unnecessary writes) which in turn makes for a much more responsive setup (TRIM, GC and other background housekeeping chores will less likely interfere with the user inputs - because they'll stay in the background as they're meant to).


When the RAM is maxed on an SSD based setup - and the SSD is over provisioned by at least 30% - the steady state performance of the system remains (very) high almost indefinitely. Almost no matter the workload.

What I also value is the responsiveness of a system when setup like that. Simple things like navigating the O/S, web-browsing, processing email, and other 'light' usage scenarios seem to happen via thought alone - especially when compared to a 4 or 8GB RAM setup.

Sure, using an IB, QC, 16GB+ RAM dual 240/256GB SSD based setup for web-browsing/etc. will be fast - but that is what has essentially become the new 'norm'.

Anything less is not just 'a little' slower; but also much more destructive to your SSD's nand.

Some may argue that nand endurance is so high we don't need to baby SSD's anymore. They're simply wrong. Endurance does not equal performance - one takes away from the other (there is no free lunch). Setting up the system in a way to reduce background housekeeping chores on the SSD ensures we (the users) get the highest performance from it - for as long as possible, given our workloads.

So here is one more 'proven' reason why a balanced platform is a better platform - no matter how you use your system (unless you simply boot up once a day and stare at the pretty pictures for a while... ).


So, does anyone else 'feel' the difference that RAM makes on the responsiveness of their SSD's like I do? Even before reading the linked article and the 'proof' it offers?

 

Would the presence of the pagefile responsible for the write difference? more RAM allows more breathing space so less paging is required. I wonder if the results of 8gb would be similar to 16gb if one disables the pagefile (4gb is too tight to allow disabling of the pagefile).

As far as I'm aware, Windows 8 has fairly dynamic caching algorithms which pre-loads stuff to the RAM (I am assuming Superfetch is playing a role here) so its no surprise that things are more responsive with more RAM. However, RAM is not as cheap as it once was anymore, plus high density ram is slower with higher power consumption. This is not really ideal for Laptops but desktops have no such limitation.

To be totally honest, I find the biggest determinant of SSD-based system responsiveness is the CPU, then the next in line is the specifics of the SSD in question. More cores at the highest possible clockspeed is king, then comes the speed of the SSD. My Desktop has an i5-2500k at 4.4ghz with SLI GTX 570s and the Plextor M5s and it feels distinctly snappier than my Laptop (the W110er) which housed the exact same SSD at one stage. However, I upgraded my Laptop to the Samsung 840 Pro 256gb and it now feels the same as my desktop albeit it boots about 8 seconds faster.

 

Given that all my rigs with SSDs have a quad core, 16 GB RAM or more, nope. My G73 is a tad slower, but it's SATA 2 only so that accounts for something.

Regarding superfetch, Windows will really put everything it can in your RAM, I've seen 28 GB or my 32 GB taken up by superfetch at one point and it does make a difference, I was pretty much capable to launch everything I used that day (program/file/whatever) instantly.

 

tijo,

yeah; it's hard to settle for anything less than the best (once we taste it)...



Marksman30k,

You contradict yourself in your last paragraph - SSD's do make a difference.

I also agree with you that the faster the cpu - the faster every component is on a system. You have seen the proof of that when you had identical SSD's to compare to.


As for the RAM? The (small amount of) extra power required is an easy tradeoff (for me) for the performance gained. And if anyone is using the system like me (turn it on in the morning - turn it off ~14 hrs later) then the caching that Windows is able to do is better than having the SSD in the first place (not to mention MUCH, MUCH less wear and tear on it too).


Thanks for the comments guys!

 

By this standard, everyone on tablet /phone have 0 productivity ?

 

I meant the higher speed of the 840 pro closed the performance gap created by the faster i5-2500k
I think what the article is implying is, grab heaps of RAM, turn off pagefile and let Superfetch have a field day.

 

I don't know about everyone, but I know when I try to do anything on a tablet/phone I want to throw that piece of junk through the wall. Even web browsing on an Apple Tablet today lasted all of 4 minutes before I gave up and turned on my real computer.

No, you have this wrong. Any storage device cannot increase the performance of a cpu... only RAM can do that.

Work = CPU + RAM


(Increase cpu power or ram capacity/speed and you'll increase the platforms performance).

 

I can deal with using an Atom Z2760/2 GB of RAM for some tasks, there are times when I really miss my M6700 though. The device is fine for note taking, browsing NBR and watching netflix, but that is about it.

 

On my laptop (i7 720qm 1.6 GHz, 8 GB RAM), my 7200 RPM HDD is often the bottleneck. Occasionally Aurora or IE10 will randomly lock up, and the Resource Manager showed low RAM/CPU usage, but it showed the HDD taxed out.

The lock ups occur more frequently when an anti-virus scan is running, especially with Windows Defender.

 

Windows Defender is a known culprit for high utilization of the storage subsystem (but I still won't use anything else). Hoping MS can sort that out very soon (have hope for Win8.1...).

Not sure about your specific platform - have you tried 16GB RAM installed?

Won't hurt to try and the benefits can be substantial - especially if your workloads (and specific software) allows you to turn off the pagefile completely.

You may also want to try this to improve your HDD's performance:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...arks-brands-news-advice-1065.html#post9292781


Good luck.

 

I'll rephrase that.
I think we can agree that the 840 pro is a heck of a lot more responsive than the Plextor M5s for a given platform?

Desktop with 2500k + Plextor m5s + 16gb RAM = 110 points of snappiness/awesome
Laptop with i7-3610m + Plextor m5s + 8gb RAM = 75 points of snappiness/awesome
Laptop with 3610m + Samsung 840 pro + 8gb RAM = 100 points of snappiness/awesome

I meant the extra speed of the 840 pro compensated for the extra responsiveness gained by the 2500k vs 3610m. Thus the w110er "feels" similar to the desktop.