RAPID fails badly in Real World Tests

I was always happy about my AS SSD and CrystalDiskmark scores, but reading the below review shows that in real world tests, RAPID sucks. Doesn't make sense to me as the technology sounds good on paper but falls badly behind in real world usage scenarios:

A closer look at RAPID DRAM caching on the Samsung 840 EVO SSD - The Tech Report - Page 4

and

A closer look at RAPID DRAM caching on the Samsung 840 EVO SSD - The Tech Report - Page 5

OVERALL performance:

A closer look at RAPID DRAM caching on the Samsung 840 EVO SSD - The Tech Report - Page 8

 

Hey Double Helix, I got the same laptop as you except for a i7-4930. The OCZ 256 GB is about $20 cheaper than the 1 TB Samsung Evo, but the Evo has quadruple the storage space, although its downside is that it is a little slower. In terms of value the Evo edges the OTZ. Rapid speeds things along 2x faster than not using Rapid on the Evo for sequential Read/Write.

 

I'm happy with my performance under RAPID, it fits my workflow better anyway, generally I'm loading sub-GB files and executables, so a 1 GB RAM cache works well. Like the article you cited said itself, under some tests and workloads it shows a serious performance gain. I've also got 16 GB of RAM, so I can spare a gig for some cache. Though I'm tempted to experiment with other caching solutions that use more RAM, I don't expect much real-world gain if any.

Anyway, the thread title is a little sensationalist and misleading.

 

As with anything whatever software/hardware fits certain types of workflows. It's up to a person to decide whether RAPID fits their usage pattern. Being at a basic level a caching scheme, it will still present the same drawbacks as most caches.