Ask yourself: Is it going to be easier to try and sort bunch of marbles into an icecube mold with too small holes or just dumping them into a fast spinning pot? That is exactly the issue here - SSDs work fabulously for small files that need to be stored and accessed rapidly, for linear access of large files not so much. Hence the myth of SSDs being per se superior holds no truth, even if Adobe keep propagating it themselves. For all intents and purposes, there would be barely any difference most of the time. What your SSD could make up in theory by its faster transfer rates will be thwarted by extra wait and lookup cycles as its trying to spread your large files across its empty storage cells. Conversely, a platter drive may even be faster as long as its relatively empty because then the data can be dumped anywhere. See the logic? SSDs really only make sense if you have more than one of them and evewn then there still would be a difference between the more expensive ones for dedicated storage and your average system boot drive. So for what it's worth: Use your platter drive for the caches. Your SSD is probably too small, anyway, since those caches fill up quickly and then nothing works anymore.
Thank you so much for your response. I will keep the files on the Sata drive. See ya!