Info on storemi and is it like an ssd

[Gavins23]

Hi, I’ve been gathering parts online and I came across something called storemi. It says I can load your games at ssd speed but I don’t know. So can some help get me some info please. Thank you in advance.

[Enderman]

It's a scam.

[Gavins23]

Really because it’s ands tech should I trust them

 

[Streetguru]

6 minutes ago, Enderman said:

It's a scam.

How?

 

 

9 minutes ago, Gavins23 said:

Hi, I’ve been gathering parts online and I came across something called storemi. It says I can load your games at ssd speed but I don’t know. So can some help get me some info please. Thank you in advance.

It's just like more advanced SSD caching, licensed from a company called Enmotus, comes free with X470 boards, or is $20 if you have a Ryzen system.

Basic info
 

Wendell Info

 

[Gavins23]

Ok so it’s separate from amd boards then

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

How?

Do you also download your ram?

[Gavins23]

No but have you heard of over clocking

[Streetguru]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

Do you also download your ram?

I feel like you're just trolling

 

 

3 minutes ago, Gavins23 said:

Ok so it’s separate from amd boards then

It's probably a decent chunk of money if you don't have an AMD system.

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

I feel like you're just trolling

I feel like you don't understand how storage speed works and why you can't use software to magically "turn your HDD into SSD speeds"

[Gavins23]

Ok I’m getting an amd system is it separate from an amd motherboard 

[Gavins23]

And to me it sounds like the same thing as over clocking to get more speed from a cpu or a graphics card.

[t4ils]

10 minutes ago, Gavins23 said:

And to me it sounds like the same thing as over clocking to get more speed from a cpu or a graphics card.

Not really. Yes, it does make loading times faster, but all it's really doing is moving your most accessed files to an SSD like a cache. Intel's doing something similar with their Optane memory, which Linus Tech Tips (and I believe Techquickie) does have a few videos about. Tech YES City also has a few tests:

 

I think you'd be better off buying a 120GB-250GB SSD, such as the Samsung 850/860 EVO or Crucial MX500, unless the AMD StoreMI method fits within your budget of buying a 32GB SSD like Intel Optane (and you don't mind the speeds in the aforementioned video).

[Arika]

20 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

It's just like more advanced SSD caching, licensed from a company called Enmotus, comes free with X470 boards, or is $20 if you have a Ryzen system.

so kind of like AMDs answer to Optane?

[Streetguru]

5 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

so kind of like AMDs answer to Optane?

Basically at least as far as what first gen Optane did

 

 

6 minutes ago, t4ils said:

 

The whole point is to give you the storage of a hard drive, with the speed of an SSD, with no extra work from the user. At least it's free on the new motherboards.

[Enderman]

37 minutes ago, Gavins23 said:

And to me it sounds like the same thing as over clocking to get more speed from a cpu or a graphics card.

You can't overclock storage speed.

 

21 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Basically at least as far as what first gen Optane did
 

The whole point is to give you the storage of a hard drive, with the speed of an SSD, with no extra work from the user. At least it's free on the new motherboards.

27 minutes ago, t4ils said:

Not really. Yes, it does make loading times faster, but all it's really doing is moving your most accessed files to an SSD like a cache. Intel's doing something similar with their Optane memory, which Linus Tech Tips (and I believe Techquickie) does have a few videos about. Tech YES City also has a few tests:

 

I think you'd be better off buying a 120GB-250GB SSD, such as the Samsung 850/860 EVO or Crucial MX500, unless the AMD StoreMI method fits within your budget of buying a 32GB SSD like Intel Optane (and you don't mind the speeds in the aforementioned video).

Optane is crap, and so are  any of these "caching" solutions.

 

If you have an SSD you can just put your stuff on it in the first place and get real SSD speeds.

Any caching solution is always slower than an SSD, and often even slower than a hard drive.

 

Not only that, but it has to constantly update the data that's stored in the cache depending on your usage.

You don't get to choose what goes there, it chooses for you.

It also constantly changes the data there depending on what it thinks you use most often, causing excessive writing to the nand.

 

On top of that, it's only useful if you use a very small amount of data over and over, like playing the same game every day, in which case you could literally have just installed the game there manually and not used any caching software.

When you choose to use a different program or file or whatever, it will be HDD speeds again, and probably even worse because it then has to rewrite all the data from the cache back to the hard drive, while moving data from the hard drive to the cache.

 

 

Overall, it just sucks.

Instead of using a piece of BS software just use your storage drives normally.

If you can afford an SSD then buy one and put the data you want on it, don't use it as a cache.

If you can't afford an SSD, then no you can't magically speed up your hard drive speeds.

[NMS]

So if it's like Optane and even worse, it's complete crap? Because you know, Optane is just crap by default.

 

I mean let's be honest here, who the hell will spend ridiculous amount of money on a small caching drive instead of getting a proper SSD for same price?

[Gavins23]

No need for arguing I just wanted info before I get stuff but thanks I will be appreciated 

[Streetguru]

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

 

If you put your OS on say a 240GB SSD, you're only going to be able to fit a few modern games on it. With the caching solution you have your full 2TBs and the frequently used programs will be sped up to SSD speeds. Seems very useful to me, especially if it's free.

[Enderman]

9 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

If you put your OS on say a 240GB SSD, you're only going to be able to fit a few modern games on it. With the caching solution you have your full 2TBs and the frequently used programs will be sped up to SSD speeds. Seems very useful to me, especially if it's free.

If you put your OS on a 240GB SSD you will have over 200GB free, more than enough for plenty of programs and files.

You can still have a 2TB drive for stuff you access less frequently.

 

This way you get to choose exactly what programs and files are sped up, and it's not some random algorithm that wastes SSD write cycles whenever it wants.

If you open a program or file you rarely use, the algorithm will try to move that to the SSD, which will cause additional latency and reduction in speed compared to simply accessing it from the hard drive without any caching BS.

It will also remove more recently used stuff from the SSD and move it back to the hard drive, making the hard drive slower to access during that time.

 

If you were only opening that rarely used program/file once, then the algorithm just slowed down your more often used programs/files while speeding up that thing that you rarely access.

Next time the recently used program/file is accessed it will be even slower than a HDD as it has to get moved back in to the SSD again, wasting nand writes yet again.

 

The only reason to use a caching drive is for an old person who has terrible file management and doesn't know how to keep their stuff organized in two separate drives.

[Gavins23]

 if I could redirect your attention to a different forum please I'd rather you answer this than argue

[Streetguru]

9 minutes ago, Enderman said:

The only reason to use a caching drive is for an old person who has terrible file management and doesn't know how to keep their stuff organized in two separate drives.

I'm just lazy though

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

I'm just lazy though

Well it's a bad way to do things for both performance and SSD life.

[Streetguru]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Well it's a bad way to do things for both performance and SSD life.

Doubtful that it does any major damage to the lifespan vs using it as an OS drive.

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Doubtful that it does any major damage to the lifespan vs using it as an OS drive.

When the cache algorithm is constantly changing what is cached based on what it thinks you plan to use, yes it does.

Also another reason why I never recommend people use hybrid HDDs.

 

OP should definitely not use caching software if he's got a separate SSD and HDD.

[Streetguru]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

When the cache algorithm is constantly changing what is cached based on what it thinks you plan to use, yes it does.

Also another reason why I never recommend people use hybrid HDDs.

 

OP should definitely not use caching software if he's got a separate SSD and HDD.

Isn't it only going to move files after it recognizes they've been used a few times?