Page 1 of 1
Performance with Invisible Memory (x86)
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:34 pm
by pbx
CDM versions 3.0.3 and 5.1.2 show different results, latest version being 5-6 times lower. Which one is correct ?
Other tests tend to agree with v5.1.2
Re: Performance with Invisible Memory (x86)
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:50 am
by InquiringMind
Check the
CDM History Page:
"4.0.0 [2015/04/30]
The benchmark result is NOT compatible with 3.0.x
Changed Benchmark Core Powered by Microsoft DiskSpd (The MIT License)"
CDM has changed the way it benchmarks (and 5.x looks to have further major changes) so results aren't comparable with older versions (the 4 tests themselves have changed since there is no longer a 512K file test) but it should still show dramatic improvements over SSDs and hard disks.