The OCZ Trion 150 SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on April 1, 2016 8:00 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
The sequential read test requests 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
All three sizes of the Trion 150 have very similar sequential read speeds and they fall in the middle of a large number of drives that all perform very similarly.
Power consumption is not so tightly clustered, and the larger capacities suffer a bit. All of the Trion 150s require less power than all of the Trion 100s.
The queue depth scaling behavior for sequential reads on the Trion 150 is very typical, with full performance and power consumption reached at QD2 or larger.
Sequential Write Performance
The sequential write test writes 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
The Trion 150 greatly improves on its predecessor's sequential write speeds, but TLC drives still pay a penalty. The 240GB model's improvement is good but far short of the performance doubling achieved by the larger capacities.
The 240GB Trion 150 manages a modest power improvement over the Trion 100 despite the former delivering much better performance. The larger capacities also improve in efficiency, but still manage to draw more power than anything else.
Power usage and performance during sustained sequential writes are almost completely independent of queue depth. The 480GB and 960GB Trion 150s do exhibit modest performance improvement between QD1 and QD2, but things are stable after that.
79 Comments
View All Comments
StrangerGuy - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
What you say is true, but OCZ *and* planar TLC and lower raw performance is a combination not worth saving $30 against a 850 EVO 500GB.Why Toshiba didn't incinerate the toxic OCZ branding like a dead monkey with ebola is the one of the dumbest corporate decisions in history.
AuDioFreaK39 - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The bottom of this article has an advertisement for the OCZ Trion 150 240GB at $45.99. This is actually the price for the 120GB model. The 240GB model is still $61.99 as shown in the price comparison chart.Ryan Smith - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The URL is correct. So it must be a data error on Amazon's part.userseven - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
I have the 480 trion150 and feel completely satisfied with it. I bought it as a replacement for the very last mechanical drive I had. I would probably not use as OS drive, in principle, but for anything other than that I can't find anything wrong with it. Why are you people dissing it? It could be cheaper? Shouldn't everything? It WAS one of the cheapest at that capacity range when I bought it.Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Still prefer the Sandisk Ultra II's.Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Anand "tech"2016
Still no edit option
Bravo amigos.
doggface - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
I think by now we can conclude it is deliberate.Murloc - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
there are middle grounds, like edit available only for 5 minutes (à la stackexchange comments) or until a reply to the comment has been posted.Michael Bay - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
They are trying to make you use your brain before posting.Arnulf - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
My brain hurts!