Performance consistency tells us a lot about the architecture of these SSDs and how they handle internal defragmentation. The reason we do not have consistent IO latency with SSDs is because inevitably all controllers have to do some amount of defragmentation or garbage collection in order to continue operating at high speeds. When and how an SSD decides to run its defrag or cleanup routines directly impacts the user experience as inconsistent performance results in application slowdowns.
To test IO consistency, we fill a secure erased SSD with sequential data to ensure that all user accessible LBAs have data associated with them. Next we kick off a 4KB random write workload across all LBAs at a queue depth of 32 using incompressible data. The test is run for just over half an hour and we record instantaneous IOPS every second.
We are also testing drives with added over-provisioning by limiting the LBA range. This gives us a look into the drive’s behavior with varying levels of empty space, which is frankly a more realistic approach for client workloads.
Each of the three graphs has its own purpose. The first one is of the whole duration of the test in log scale. The second and third one zoom into the beginning of steady-state operation (t=1400s) but on different scales: the second one uses log scale for easy comparison whereas the third one uses linear scale for better visualization of differences between drives. Click the dropdown selections below each graph to switch the source data.
For more detailed description of the test and why performance consistency matters, read our original Intel SSD DC S3700 article.
Default
25% Over-Provisioning
The IO consistency is very similar to the ARC 100 but the R7 is maybe slightly faster. Compared to the Vector 150 and Vertex 460 there is a small decrease in consistency as performance occassionally drops below 10K IOPS, but on average IOPS of 15-20K is excellent for a client drive. The same goes for IO consistency with 25% over-provisioning – the R7 is not as good as the Vector 150 and Vertex 460 but it is still one of the best performing client SSDs.
OCZ Vertex was better than for example Samsun 840 evo in the last test that I read about (the Extreme II was the winner though...) But in any way OCZ quality has gone up big steps!
You won't find somebody that's had worse luck than myself with OCZ SSD's (having purchased many of their first SSD products including the RevoDrive in 2010) but although most of their older products failed on me (some in days, some in years) the second RevoDrive I'm on has been reliable for 3 years and amazingly my Agility 2 still hasn't failed (quite an anomaly when you Google the results of this drives inherent unreliability across the internet.)
However, my personal Vector 150 and Vertex 460 haven't done anything weird at all, and I've been so happy with them from a price/performance standpoint I've begun, for the first time even, putting OCZ products (with the exception of PC Power & Cooling PSU's) in corporate PC's for clients and at work. No failures so far. The Vertex 460, cheaper than most Samsung SSD's - my usual go-to performance SSD's, is noticeably more responsive.
Still if you're looking for a cheap reliable SSD based on facts, a used Intel SSD320 on eBay or a Crucial MX100 are sure bets. But for performance Barefoot is very, very good, while still appearing to be very reliable.
Stop posting FUD that's thoroughly outdated by later tech.
I have more than 40 OCZ SSDs, never had a problem with any of them, everything from lots of V2Es/V3s to V4, Vector and Vector 150. I also have various Samsung, Crucial, Corsair and other models.
OCZ's later products were really good, especially the Vertex4 and Vector range. Their mistake was allowing the 1st gen Vertex, Octane and Solid models to be just too much on the budget side. Ditto the old Agility, though the Agility3 and especially the Agility4 are ok (I have a few).
You are leaving out the best ssd put there. Samsung has 100% vertical integration on the ssd. From the nand, to the controller, to the firmware, to the dram, Samsung makes it all. Why do you think samsung was first to market with TLC and 3d nand? All their teams can work together and get new products to market super fast.
Well the process tech is a completely separate issue from their integration. If you look at Toshiba's new fabs and tech their shrink will allow them to hit similar price points with much better nand dies that are faster and last longer.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
formulav8 - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link
Was that not mainly their Sandforce drives?haukionkannel - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link
OCZ Vertex was better than for example Samsun 840 evo in the last test that I read about (the Extreme II was the winner though...) But in any way OCZ quality has gone up big steps!Samus - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link
You won't find somebody that's had worse luck than myself with OCZ SSD's (having purchased many of their first SSD products including the RevoDrive in 2010) but although most of their older products failed on me (some in days, some in years) the second RevoDrive I'm on has been reliable for 3 years and amazingly my Agility 2 still hasn't failed (quite an anomaly when you Google the results of this drives inherent unreliability across the internet.)However, my personal Vector 150 and Vertex 460 haven't done anything weird at all, and I've been so happy with them from a price/performance standpoint I've begun, for the first time even, putting OCZ products (with the exception of PC Power & Cooling PSU's) in corporate PC's for clients and at work. No failures so far. The Vertex 460, cheaper than most Samsung SSD's - my usual go-to performance SSD's, is noticeably more responsive.
Still if you're looking for a cheap reliable SSD based on facts, a used Intel SSD320 on eBay or a Crucial MX100 are sure bets. But for performance Barefoot is very, very good, while still appearing to be very reliable.
AnnihilatorX - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link
I thought OCZ is now owned by Toshiba, you can't imagine Toshiba would keep the bad quality control in OCZ uncheckedsnuuggles - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link
Really? Triple negative? :)mapesdhs - Saturday, August 30, 2014 - link
Stop posting FUD that's thoroughly outdated by later tech.I have more than 40 OCZ SSDs, never had a problem with any of them, everything
from lots of V2Es/V3s to V4, Vector and Vector 150. I also have various Samsung,
Crucial, Corsair and other models.
OCZ's later products were really good, especially the Vertex4 and Vector range.
Their mistake was allowing the 1st gen Vertex, Octane and Solid models to be
just too much on the budget side. Ditto the old Agility, though the Agility3 and
especially the Agility4 are ok (I have a few).
Ian.
kyuu - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
Your opinion of OCZ is a few years out of date.Laststop311 - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link
You are leaving out the best ssd put there. Samsung has 100% vertical integration on the ssd. From the nand, to the controller, to the firmware, to the dram, Samsung makes it all. Why do you think samsung was first to market with TLC and 3d nand? All their teams can work together and get new products to market super fast.errorr - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link
Well the process tech is a completely separate issue from their integration. If you look at Toshiba's new fabs and tech their shrink will allow them to hit similar price points with much better nand dies that are faster and last longer.willis936 - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link
Good to see honest journalism. Things like an amd button on the front page had me nervous.