![](/uploads/1/2/7/3/127392253/432477520.jpg)
Hey Guys,After watching an LTT video on Optane vs StoreMI I caught on to his preview of how Primocache actually outperformed them all. I've used Primocache for 8 months straight because of recommendations from others here on this forum. Within the first month of using the program and seeing all the incredible numbers from my benchmarks I was ecstatic with the software and most pleased so I purchased the program for $30.My rig had 32GB of RAM and had been running 14GBs of it dedicated for Primocache to use.One day about 1.5 month ago I paused Primocache's cache in order to defragment my hard drives without the write buffer interfering with the process (the developer recommends pausing the cache while defragmenting. Well I actually forgot to ever click to resume the cache and used my PC without Primocache's read and write buffer for a few days doing just productivity work, no benchmarking or gaming at all, just work on the machine with productivity apps.During this time I noticed that my PC felt considerably faster than it normally did over the past several months so after having this thought, I checked Primocache's hit rate assuming it would be quite high. It had been switched off!I decided to do a disk intensive real-world subjective test where I opened up a folder with thousands of files in it and mess around with opening/closing the folder. Copying these files back and forth and so on.
![Fancy Fancy](/uploads/1/2/7/3/127392253/799886150.png)
FancyCache is a supplementary software caching scheme that cooperates with system memory to provide data caching for volumes/disks. It improves system.
What I unfortunately discovered is that Primocache was actually slowing my PC down during my real world tasks. I verified and double verified this by enabling the cache, playing with moving files around, disabling it and doing the same. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, in most of the stuff I do on my computer, Primocache absolutely slows things down.Where I noticed the cache shining the most was installing apps. Applications would install just head-spinningly dramatically fast so it helped there immensely for sure.
For everything else it almost always hurt performance.My advice is to use a stopwatch and test your games and file copies first hand and don't depend on synthetic benchmarks to test this. I'm sure given the right workload situation, the program is great. But for how I use my PC, it hurts more than it helps.I've since uninstalled the program and don't ever intend to use it again despite owning a license.Also just wanted to say before someone calls me a hater. I used to tell EVERYONE about this program.
Told friends to buy it, went on about how great it was on other forums based off benchmarks. I wanted to love this program. Most of these Cache software cheats benchmark by caching read/write request that are requested to be uncached.This kind of tricks has been used since the good old dos days.So you cant use benchmarks that are meant to test the speed of the storage media.(aka the above benchmark in OP's psot are useless/wrong)Adding in placebo effect make it hard to take into affect anything about 'feels faster working with it'You need to make some empirical measurement on real workload to avoid both Placebo and benchmark 'Cheating'We saw the same with samsung rapid disk. Everyone said it was helpflull eveyone was showing the same flawed/cheated benchmarksbut when we measured realworld applications and usage it was slower than just using windows own cache. I've used Primocache for 8 months straight because of recommendations from others here on this forum. Within the first month of using the program and seeing all the incredible numbers from my benchmarks I was ecstatic with the software and most pleased so I purchased the program for $30.My rig had 32GB of RAM and had been running 14GBs of it dedicated for Primocache to use.One day about 1.5 month ago I paused Primocache's cache in order to defragment my hard drives without the write buffer interfering with the process (the developer recommends pausing the cache while defragmenting. Well I actually forgot to ever click to resume the cache and used my PC without Primocache's read and write buffer for a few days doing just productivity work, no benchmarking or gaming at all, just work on the machine with productivity apps.During this time I noticed that my PC felt considerably faster than it normally did over the past several months so after having this thought, I checked Primocache's hit rate assuming it would be quite high.
It had been switched off!I decided to do a disk intensive real-world subjective test where I opened up a folder with thousands of files in it and mess around with opening/closing the folder. Copying these files back and forth and so on. What I unfortunately discovered is that Primocache was actually slowing my PC down during my real world tasks. I verified and double verified this by enabling the cache, playing with moving files around, disabling it and doing the same. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, in most of the stuff I do on my computer, Primocache absolutely slows things down.Where I noticed the cache shining the most was installing apps.
Applications would install just head-spinningly dramatically fast so it helped there immensely for sure. For everything else it almost always hurt performance.My advice is to use a stopwatch and test your games and file copies first hand and don't depend on synthetic benchmarks to test this. I'm sure given the right workload situation, the program is great. But for how I use my PC, it hurts more than it helps.I've since uninstalled the program and don't ever intend to use it again despite owning a license.Also just wanted to say before someone calls me a hater. I used to tell EVERYONE about this program. Told friends to buy it, went on about how great it was on other forums based off benchmarks.
I wanted to love this program. Most of these Cache software cheats benchmark by caching read/write request that are requested to be uncached.This kind of tricks has been used since the good old dos days.So you cant use benchmarks that are meant to test the speed of the storage media.(aka the above benchmark in OP's psot are useless/wrong)Adding in placebo effect make it hard to take into affect anything about 'feels faster working with it'You need to make some empirical measurement on real workload to avoid both Placebo and benchmark 'Cheating'We saw the same with samsung rapid disk. Everyone said it was helpflull eveyone was showing the same flawed/cheated benchmarksbut when we measured realworld applications and usage it was slower than just using windows own cache. All the benchmarks are doing is benching the speed of the RAM, so of course you are going to get crazy numbers. Samsung, Crucial, ASUS etc all have some sort of cache or RAMDrive software now.
Most of it has really no use, and as yall said, in many of not most cases can result in slowdowns. Some cases however, where you are working for extended periods with the same program or data, putting it into a RAMDrive can really help, big time if you have lots of spare RAM, however right now, with RAM prices still sky high to where they were a few years ago, and SSD prices plummeting it doesn't make sense to use. For that $30 you could have doubled your SSD storage size, as 250GB SSDs are hitting the $30 range.
The new SSD also doesn't eat into your RAM, as if you are running many apps or pro programs that need lots of RAM, you will then be at a disadvantage because you will be hitting that RAM limit far faster. All the benchmarks are doing is benching the speed of the RAM, so of course you are going to get crazy numbers. Samsung, Crucial, ASUS etc all have some sort of cache or RAMDrive software now. Most of it has really no use, and as yall said, in many of not most cases can result in slowdowns. Some cases however, where you are working for extended periods with the same program or data, putting it into a RAMDrive can really help, big time if you have lots of spare RAM, however right now, with RAM prices still sky high to where they were a few years ago, and SSD prices plummeting it doesn't make sense to use.
For that $30 you could have doubled your SSD storage size, as 250GB SSDs are hitting the $30 range. The new SSD also doesn't eat into your RAM, as if you are running many apps or pro programs that need lots of RAM, you will then be at a disadvantage because you will be hitting that RAM limit far faster. Has been the case for windows for a looong time.Pagefiles = optimal use of RAM. Increased cache size and ensure more relevant data is in RAMI've sen a person both recommend to disable pagefile and use a memory cleaners. Not realizing the total paradox of what he was trying to dostep A: Put all data up in ramstep B: Then but all data down out of ram.Wait WHAT.actually now im currious.
Ima probabbly run some proper bencmhark on this trials because why the hell not backup my claims up with somethingPerformance:What I noted was about a 10% increase in items that weren't cached in the Level 2 cache, such as new updates being applied etc due to the cache now write later feature, but the increases could be dramatic on things like frequently played games, such as League of Legends from my SSD, and steam games from the WD Green.Why is there not data to back this up instead of useless disk benchmarks?This would have been such a nice metric to see. Yet without somekind of emperical data all i can do is tuck it up to placebo. Has been the case for windows for a looong time.Pagefiles = optimal use of RAM. Increased cache size and ensure more relevant data is in RAMI've sen a person both recommend to disable pagefile and use a memory cleaners.
Not realizing the total paradox of what he was trying to dostep A: Put all data up in ramstep B: Then but all data down out of ram.Wait WHAT.actually now im currious. Ima probabbly run some proper bencmhark on this trials because why the hell not backup my claims up with somethingPerformance:What I noted was about a 10% increase in items that weren't cached in the Level 2 cache, such as new updates being applied etc due to the cache now write later feature, but the increases could be dramatic on things like frequently played games, such as League of Legends from my SSD, and steam games from the WD Green.Why is there not data to back this up instead of useless disk benchmarks?This would have been such a nice metric to see. Yet without somekind of emperical data all i can do is tuck it up to placebo. My favorite are those that clean everything out like that and go 'but windows now boots 5 seconds faster!!!' However opening every program or any action etc takes longer because nothing is cached.
And you open programs all day, you boot up maybe once a day, or once a week depending on who you are. Now early SSD days, yes, turning off or moving some items to other drives was helpful/needed, but is not the case with newer SSDs for some time now with OSes being SSD aware. Habits die hard though.As for placebo effect, I am guilty as well, I have done any number of things that felt better at the time at least, only to notice issues over time that just were not worth it. I came to hard realaisgin with my own placebo back in my teens after that im anal about testing.not sure which cpu stress program to use. Why not test htem alll (prime95 is king together with linpack. Aida64 is only dcent in comparison)well let do the same with memmory testet ( the built in to windows at boot is amazing horrible and cant even in extend mode not find errors on memory that windows cant boot on)anyway so far ive test 7zip extration ( probaly CPU bound) and srep extraction (lots i/0)About to move a gazzillion files around.
I came to hard realaisgin with my own placebo back in my teens after that im anal about testing.not sure which cpu stress program to use. Why not test htem alll (prime95 is king together with linpack. Aida64 is only dcent in comparison)well let do the same with memmory testet ( the built in to windows at boot is amazing horrible and cant even in extend mode not find errors on memory that windows cant boot on)anyway so far ive test 7zip extration ( probaly CPU bound) and srep extraction (lots i/0)About to move a gazzillion files around. Windows doesn't buffer writes in RAM to the extent that PrimoCache can. It's waaaay too dangerous to be an default OS feature (if you crash/have a power outage, you'll lose all the data in the buffer), but it's also super useful for certain non-critical things.
For example, it sped up demuxing/muxing and transfers with lots of small files immensely for me.EDIT: Batch demuxing with Staxrip would be a good Windows benchmark, if ya'll are looking for one.As for the read cache, AFAIK windows will only cache certain types of files, while PrimoCache is totally file agnostic and just caches whatever data is being read. But my knowledge in that area is a little murkey.
Windows doesn't buffer writes in RAM to the extent that PrimoCache can. It's waaaay too dangerous to be an default OS feature (if you crash/have a power outage, you'll lose all the data in the buffer), but it's also super useful for certain non-critical things. For example, it sped up demuxing/muxing and transfers with lots of small files immensely for me.EDIT: Batch demuxing with Staxrip would be a good Windows benchmark, if ya'll are looking for one.As for the read cache, AFAIK windows will only cache certain types of files, while PrimoCache is totally file agnostic and just caches whatever data is being read.
But my knowledge in that area is a little murkey. Windows cache default all kind of files unless direct no cache read/writes are request or for some specific system files.this is the non cache read/writes that Primo cache does not adhere too and thereby inflate numbers in benchmarks.Lazy writes are a part of windows cache as well. You can even select how often you want to clear the write buffers.If you still do not believe this please link to a proper source of information to backup this claims. I would be interested in itYou do now you can poke around in the Ram and see exactly what files are being cache by windows right?How did you verify certain files was not cached? Windows cache default all kind of files unless direct no cache read/writes are request or for some specific system files.this is the non cache read/writes that Primo cache does not adhere too and thereby inflate numbers in benchmarks.Lazy writes are a part of windows cache as well. You can even select how often you want to clear the write buffers.If you still do not believe this please link to a proper source of information to backup this claims.
I would be interested in itYou do now you can poke around in the Ram and see exactly what files are being cache by windows right?How did you verify certain files was not cached?OK. The L2 part akak SDD cache of HDD is definetly a unique point comapred to not installing it.But hen we are back at just buying a bigger sdd with the money perhaps, im not sure in prices reallyalso asimilar effect can really be done with simple batch scripts by yourself.just move af symlink a folderno need to shell out cash for something you can do yourself with a lot more direct control over itYeah it was just show that I love doing testing of stuff and er very sceptical on anything that might have the slight hint of placebo.
Zaherselo, You can upgrade this key yourself by signing in to and upgrading the key under the 'My Keys' section of this website. .
Submit File/Crack; Contact. FancyCache for Volume 0.8.0 Beta + keygen crack patch. January 21, 2018. Copy Download Link (paste this to your. Aug 31, 2018 - 30, 2018. RELATED STORIES. Take Us With You. Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.
Click to expand.Just to back up other posters - can't comment about that specific model but I've mostly been happy with HP LaserJet printers, and have found them much less trouble than inkjets. For large volumes, lasers are cheaper to run (the cartridges are more expensive but they last far, far longer) and for occasional use you don't waste 10 minutes and a load of ink cleaning the dried-up head each time.
Just get used to the fact that when you come to change the cartridge it might be a toss-up whether its cheaper to get a new cartridge or a new printer (although that's more an issue with colour lasers). The only reason I'd get an inkjet would be for printing photo-quality colour/large format on special paper - which is probably why you can't find any black-only ones! Just to back up other posters - can't comment about that specific model but I've mostly been happy with HP LaserJet printers, and have found them much less trouble than inkjets. For large volumes, lasers are cheaper to run (the cartridges are more expensive but they last far, far longer) and for occasional use you don't waste 10 minutes and a load of ink cleaning the dried-up head each time. Just get used to the fact that when you come to change the cartridge it might be a toss-up whether its cheaper to get a new cartridge or a new printer (although that's more an issue with colour lasers). The only reason I'd get an inkjet would be for printing photo-quality colour/large format on special paper - which is probably why you can't find any black-only ones!
![](/uploads/1/2/7/3/127392253/432477520.jpg)