cluster size other that 4KB on Intel SSD

[idata]

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} -->

Most program and data files are much larger than they were when 4KB became the default value for cluster size.

I would like to know whether there is any inconvenience (other than wasting some space) in having 64KB clusters.

And what performance improvements could I expect while loading today's programs and data files.

The information found on the Internet is rather conflicting.

But Intel certainly has solid measured results.

[idata]

Hello,

Almost two years later, I finally was able to satisfy my curiosity.

I got a new laptop, with to different SSDs installed (not Intel though).

On five identical size partitions, except for the cluster sizes 4KB, 8KB, 16KB, 32KB and 64KB respectively, I ran CrystalDiskMark Seq and 512K random performance tests.

Result:

All indicated performance figures were within 1.5%, a difference which I consider to be smaller than the measurement accuracy.

And no trend in one way or another!

Conclusion: I formatted all my partitions with 4KB cluster sizes.