On v3, the direct disk access speed was around 15-17 MB and the cache-enabled access speed was around 300 MB. On v4, however, the cache-enabled access speed is around 200-220 MB.
v4 slightly slower than v3 (minor bug)
(6 posts) (4 voices)-
mradr
MemberI did the test and got the same results, a slight differnts in speed between each v3 to v4... my results as followed:
Did speed check 3 times for each version and took the average, windows xp 32 bit, same flash and system, fresh install of the eboostr.
DA = Direct access
CD = Cache enabled access
AV = average + versionAV3DA = 8.3979
AV3CD = 27.482
AV4DA = 6.4703
AV4CD = 21.433Posted 2 years ago # -
churomax
MemberIn my case, checking speed return these values (v.4):
Direct access speed: 12.190824 MB/s
Cache enabled access speed: 181.338501 MB/s
Ratio: 14.875000 MB/s
I have 1.5 MB-RAM in 32-bit WinXP OS and of course there isn't any unmanaged memory to use. eBoostr v.4 is working with a 4GB Kingston pendrive and allocated memory size is 3824MB. There's no problem and runs flawlessly.Posted 2 years ago # -
David Gardiner
MemberI have never seen cache-enabled speeds even approaching your figures. My direct speeds are around 5 to 6 MB/s and my cache enabled speed ratios were around 1.025 with vesion 3 and 1.01 with version 4.
I'm running XP on an Athlon 3500+ with 1GB RAM, a Seagate SATA1 hard disk (7200 RPM) and a "ReadyBoost' certified 4MB Flashdrive.
What sort of system are you guys using?
David Gardiner
Posted 2 years ago # -
mradr
MemberYou can hit the "edit" link under your post to change/edit your post. Um I used a normal Flash drive, everyone else used a SSD or the ram, both will push that really high. If I ran off just the ram for my cach I would hit around 800.
Flash has a limit of around 45 I think so you wont get BIG boost from a normal flash drive, while ram (if your MB supports it) can go up to about 2000 or even faster. This depends on the MB, ram and how much you want to spend ofcours. What makes flash better then a HDD in the terms of speed, is that they have a really fast acc time. Meaning they can get small files way faster then a HDD could. Beyound that, HDD are actully faster at getting largs chuncks of data (most of the time at around 50) then a usb when it comes to larg files. Notice I said usb, SSD are actully a little faster due to being limited by the SATA 300 vs the usb being limited by the chip them selfs, around 45+-.
Actully churomax results dont really play into anything. He needs to do a check on both v3 and v4 and then post his results. He'll notice there will be a sighlt differnts in speed, around 20%-30%.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.