The Toshiba OCZ VX500 (256GB, 512GB, 1024GB) SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on September 13, 2016 9:00 AM ESTMixed Random Read/Write Performance
The mixed random I/O benchmark starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. The queue depth is 3 for the entire test and each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. As with the pure random write test, this test is restricted to a 16GB span of the drive, which is empty save for the 16GB test file.
The OCZ VX500 delivers slightly better mixed random I/O performance than the Vector 180, but both are still about average for mainstream drives and significantly behind the top performers.
As usual, the VX500 uses very little power and thus has great efficiency, competitive with the much higher-performing Samsung 850 EVOs.
 |
|||||||||
The VX500 starts out at a bit of a disadvantage with a low random read speed, but it never drops in performance as more writes are added to the mix. It does not benefit from the significant spike in performance some drives achieve once the workload shifts to pure writes.
Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance
The mixed sequential access test covers the entire span of the drive and uses a queue depth of one. It starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. Each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The drive is filled before the test starts.
The 1TB OCZ VX500 lands near the top of the chart on this test, but the smaller two capacities are slightly slower than the Vector 180 they are replacing.
Power consumption is good, but only the 256GB VX500 uses significantly less than any of the competition. Efficiency is still very good for all three capacities and competitive with the best drives with planar or 3D NAND.
 |
|||||||||
Once again, due to the drive being filled before the test the smaller two VX500s do not handle the write-heavy portions of the test well. The 1TB model is able to deliver peak write performance during parts of the test, allowing its average transfer rate to recover some in the second half.
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