Windows 7 Fake RAM or GHz?

See Link Removed

A better alternative to ReadyBoost is eBoostr.
eBoostr Official Website: Accelerate your Computer! - Home
Version 4 just came out, haven't tested it but I hear it has some nice new features.
I believe there is a free version.

Caution about Swap File on SSHD:

Highwayman said:

To be perfectly honest there is no substitute for adding more real ram, none of the alternatives barring adding a SSHD and manually setting a large pagefile would make a useful difference unless you had less than 2gig ram.

Click to expand...

From what I have read, even with the TRIM feature on SSHDs ("Wear Leveling"), adding a pagefile (which in the context of this thread, will be heavily utilized) would drastically shorten the lifespan of the still relatively expensive SSHD ($$HD). It would seem to me to be cheaper, to buy more ram, even if that means a new mobo to accomodate it.

I would find it interesting to see what performance changes would occur in a rig with say, 512MB RAM and a large (like 4 to 6 GB) SWAP file on its own dedicated partition, with static sizing (min=max=setting). As opposed to the same rig with 1GB max., dynamically resized swapfile on the OS partition.
One slightly irksome problem I used to encounter was popup "drive full" warnings if the swapfile was set to more than 50% of the partiton size. Read about a reg hack, but figured just sacrifice the 2 GB and be done with it.
DrWattsOn

Possibly so - - Maybe

I will relate to you a personal observation on this subject. I will be flamed by some for saying this and some will be nice and say something like, "It simply doesn't work like that!", but I observed this on a computer of mine. With a baseline computer with a PC Chips P23G Motherboard, 3.x Ghz Celeron processor and 1 Gb ram running Windows XP Professional, I added a 1 GB stick of RAM in an attempt to speed the computer up. (Following the generally espoused philosophy of "to speed your computer, add more RAM"). This doubling of ram made negligible difference in how fast the computer processed opening or processing of a graphic or an application. I then replaced the processor with a Pentium D dual core 2.8 Ghz processor and observed a dramatic speed increase in the opening and processing of graphics and the loading speed of applications. (During these two separate upgrades, no additional changes were made to subject computer) From this experiment, I concluded that it is considerably more important how fast you can process information than how much information you can hold in cache (RAM) for ready retrieval.

So, In response to your original question, I would predict that a faster processor would probably do much better at giving you the results that you are looking to get from more RAM than more RAM would.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. (Others may have different stories.)

What causes the bottleneck?

John,

It really depends on the specs of the system. On a netbook the bottleneck is the Atom processor for sure. On an i7 with 12GB DDR3 RAM the hard drive or video card becomes the bottleneck.

I would concur it is specific in each instance. With fast enough solid state hard drives in a RAID, theoretically the RAM is never much of a bottleneck because the paging will be fast enough when the computer runs out of RAM, which is interesting...

Agreed, Mike.
You're going to want an SSD or a 7200 RPM or higher HDD.
As for video cards, I guess we should ask kemical what's new in the DirectX 11 department