Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Terneuzen, Netherlands
    Posts
    895
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I run Win 7 / 64 on a fast system with 8Gb of RAM...

    I have an old Sony Memory Stick (Extreme III Pro DUO) with 1Gb available and card-reader slots free...

    I've read all sorts of stuff about ReadyBoost helping or not and about it not being usefull if one has (more than) enough RAM (like I do with my 8Gb). I've also seen that others claim that it does more and therefore will make a difference.

    I tried it a bit and it works but I'd like to collect some real data to see if it does anything for me, sooo....

    (1) Anyone who can tell me for sure it will not make a difference on my system (and I certainly do never want it to make my PC slower of course)

    (2) Anyone who can recommend a test-set that includes measurement of boot times and some general speed-tests (like disk, internet, memory or anything that might be impacted)?

    I am not looking to create a whole new thread here (although I would have nothing against that) but need some advice for my situation if possible.

    Any suggestions would be appreciated

  2. #2
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,579
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,057 Times in 926 Posts
    It is very unlikely you would notice any improvement on your system. Readyboost improvement is most noticable when there is a much smaller amount of RAM, 2GB or less, or a slow disk drive such as those found on some inexpensive laptops/netbooks.

    I'd not even bother with it on your system but if you want to experiment go ahead.

    See Readyboost really work?, What is Windows Readyboost, & Improve Your PCís Performance with ReadyBoost Ľ TuneUp Blog about Windows for some more discussion.

    I can't find any reliable performance testing for a large RAM system and Windows 7.

    Joe
    Joe

  3. #3
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    6,121
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 609 Times in 557 Posts
    It would appear that many of the performance pluses from Ready Boost are more or less confined to weaker systems running with low memory and slower type memory.
    ErikJan, you would be hard pressed to notice such improvement in benchmark, let alone human percieved improvement with your system specs.

    Ready Boost was first introduced in Windows Vista and I suspect at the time that hardware had not quite caught up to Vista's performance requirements.
    I also suspect Microsoft knows full well that many of your cheap computer vendors tend to "cheat the operating system" by bogging it down with junkware, and more
    importantly, inferior hardware like slow cheap memory.

    Best Performance Solutions:
    High quality SSD, more system RAM with faster higher quality RAM.

    Ready Boost is not much more than an attempt to augment weak systems imo.

    Under the Hood: Windows Vista ReadyBoost Report
    ReadyBoost Benchmarks: WinRAR, Windows Boot Up
    Readyboost Benchmark
    64-Bit Vista ReadyBoost and Paging
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Build your own system; get everything you want and nothing you don't.
    Latest Build:
    ASUS X99 Deluxe, Core i7-5960X, Corsair Hydro H100i, Plextor M6e 256GB M.2 SSD, Corsair DOMINATOR Platinum 32GB DDR4@2666, W8.1 64 bit,
    EVGA GTX980, Seasonic PLATINUM-1000W PSU, MountainMods U2-UFO Case, and 7 other internal drives.

  4. #4
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Terneuzen, Netherlands
    Posts
    895
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    OK, thanks Joe & Clint... guess I'll not use it then

  5. #5
    Bronze Lounger
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    You might also find Grant Gibson's site to be of interest, especially regarding tests.

    I use it on two 2 GB machines (8 GB flash drives), and it does work, but more with some things than with others (which makes sense when you remember that it provides a boost to your most-used programs). If you are going to try it (and I agree that you won't notice a thing on an 8 GB RAM machine), you will find that it has a learning curve of its own, as it learns what you use, and it's best to have a dedicated machine-readyboost device pair.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator satrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cardiff, UK
    Posts
    4,487
    Thanks
    284
    Thanked 575 Times in 478 Posts
    ErikJan, you'd almost never notice or be able to measure, any improvement using just 1GB of ReadyBoost with your PC.

    ReadyBoost is no replacement for RAM, nor was it designed to be. It's designed to supplement data transfer from slower hard drives by caching smaller non-sequential files for faster access via the almost latency-free solid-state USB/SD/CF whilst allowing the HDD to deal with the larger and sequential files, where the HDD has superior transfer rates. If Windows is installed on an SSD, ReadyBoost should be disabled by default during the install process as it would be of no benefit.

    Most benefit from ReadyBoost should be found (and 'felt') when used on laptops, netbooks and other PC's where slower hard drives - 4,200 - 5,400 RPM - are often used. With a modern 7,200 HDD, the effects are usually much smaller, often imperceptible, with most up to date PC's. It may still show a noticeable improvement under favourable conditions (a program loading many small non-sequential files, high fragmentation levels).

    Basically, RB is likely to show no performance boost with a modern PC, 7,200+ RPM HDD and 4+GB of RAM; however, if your struggling with a maxed out laptop/netbook or older PC with IDE HDD or slow SATA and sub- 4GB of RAM, RB, after it's 'training period', will provide a 'snappier' Windows experience. Of course, the faster your read/write times on the RB device are, the more Windows will use it and the more it's effect will be noticeable.

    I'd not bother using less than 2GB for RB, 4 - 8GB will allow Windows to cache much more data, therefore giving it a much greater chance of it being used frequently and of the user actually feeling the benefit of it.

    With the advent of USB3 and it's faster transfer speeds, it may eventually gain greater acceptance/usage - if RB device makers can improve their read speeds to make use of the greater throughput available.

    I'll leave you with a quote from the previously linked 64-Bit Vista ReadyBoost and Paging page (bear in mind that W7's implementation of RB is a little better than Vista's):
    Without ReadyBoost, there was a noticeable delay before the BAT command started the following test. So, overall elapsed time is shown besides the total reported time. [Reduce totals by 17 seconds as there are multiple passes on first few tests for minimum running time of 5 seconds]. As shown, ReadyBooost can improve performance by more than three times with heavy paging activity.

    During the paging tests, minimum measured data transfer rates were 26 and 29 MB/second for the two sets of tests without ReadyBoost, much slower that had normal disk input/output been used. Minimum speeds with ReadyBoost were 88 and 89 MB/second, faster than disk I/O.

    ReadyBoost improved application loading times somewhat, and this was consistent over three sets of tests. The most noticeable improvement was on system responsiveness following heavy paging, where reactivating an application via Restore was up to eight times faster.
    Testing PC specs:
    Core 2 Duo 2400 MHz, Asus P5B motherboard, 4GB 800 MHz DDR2 RAM,
    Seagate ST3400633AS SATA-300 disk, 16 MB buffer, 7200 RPM,
    GeForce 8600 GT graphics, 64-Bit Windows Vista Home Premium.

    Staples USB Flash Drive 4 GB
    SanDisk Cruzer Micro 4 GB, Enhanced for ReadyBoost


    ReadyBoost default SFCache size of 3.76 GB was used.

  7. #7
    Bronze Lounger
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    For those who didn't explore the Grant Gibson blog, I might add a quote taken directly from one and which might help explain what is really going on (according to that source) with ReadyBoost:

    Many people have asked on forums how this could possibly be effective - after all, flash memory has a much slower data transfer rate than most hard disks. Thatís true, but the trick is that good flash memory has a much lower seek time than a hard disk. By placing many small files on the USB drive, Windows can randomly access these files much more quickly than is normally possible from a hard disk.

    The key point is that the USB drive must have very fast seek times. Many USB flash memory devices, even those with high data transfer rates, donít have sufficiently fast seek times to make them useful for ReadyBoost. Unfortunately, manufacturers donít normally publish random seek times for flash memory like they do for hard disks. This makes shopping for a ReadyBoost compatible flash drive a bit of a lottery.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •