The Toshiba OCZ VX500 (256GB, 512GB, 1024GB) SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on September 13, 2016 9:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here.
As compared with the Heavy test, more drives are able to offer peak performance that makes them competitive. The VX500 is not only slower than Samsung's 850 EVO and Pro, but it is also slightly slower than the Phison S10-based PNY CS2211. On the other hand, the full-drive penalty doesn't look as egregious in this test and is less severe than what most TLC drives suffer.
The spread of average service time scores is narrow, so the fact that the VX500 lands near the bottom of the chart isn't saying much. The full-drive average service time ends up less than twice that of the best drive's score.
The number of latency outliers could be better in the full-drive case, but it's not a big problem. The 250GB Crucial MX200 showed that SLC caching can backfire much worse, while the VX500 simply degrades down to the level of a budget TLC SSD.
Power efficiency of the VX500 continues to be great even when it is not performing at its best.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
29 Comments
View All Comments
Lolimaster - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link
LOL $337? You can get 1TB and 1 500GB Crucial MX500 with just a few more bucks.Lolimaster - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link
MX3002016, still no edit button, GG.
sonicmerlin - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link
Feels like SSD prices/GB have been pretty stagnant the last couple years.rhysiam - Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - link
They have dropped significantly. Check out the price table from the 850EVO launch review which was less than two years ago. Cheapest $/GB drive was the 240GB ARC 100 @ 42c/GB. That table in this article has a bunch of drives cheaper than that, and it's mid-range SATA drives. There are entry level 480GB drives going today that are only $10 more than the budget 240GB drives from less than two years ago.I'd call that pretty reasonable progress on the $/GB front.
rhysiam - Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - link
Here's the table from the 850EVO launch review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8747/samsung-ssd-850...sonicmerlin - Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - link
The EVO was always higher priced. Look at the average prices:https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/internal-har...
They've come down, but not as dramatically as before. I remember well over a year ago being able to buy a SDD for 25 cents/GB on a good deal, and now it's about 20 cents/GB. Perhaps it's because of the slow transition to 3D NAND, but I'm hoping the pace picks up again.
Hiniberus - Wednesday, September 21, 2016 - link
When will these go on sale? I'm curious about them but I can't find any store that has them in stock!superunknown98 - Friday, September 23, 2016 - link
I don't really understand the final words giving the drive praise. It didn't seem to perform that much better compared other drives, including it's predecessor. Even in ATSB-Destroyer it had middling performance with good power consumption.cargostud - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link
I had a VTR1-25SAT3-512G with a 5 year Warranty. It has 4k Random Write: 95K IOPS; 4k Random Read: 100K IOPS according to the specs. It died a few weeks ago and it is being replaced with a VX500. It has a spec of 4k Random Write: 64K IOPS; 4k Random Read: 92K IOPS. The replacement drive is slower than the one I had before. Wouldn't a more fair replacement be a VT180? 4k Random Write: 90K IOPS; 4k Random Read: 90K IOPS