The OCZ Octane Review (512GB)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 23, 2011 12:00 PM ESTPower Consumption
As we saw in our Samsung SSD 830 review, power consumption of these 512GB drives can be quite high. The Octane is no exception. At idle the Octane uses a little less power than the 830, but still more than any of the other smaller drives we have:
Under load the Octane is competitive with sequential write power draw (likely due to its suboptimal sequential write speed in Iometer), but during heavy random writes the drive consumes noticeably more power. We can't draw many conclusions here compared to drives at other capacities, but at least compared to the Samsung SSD 830 the Octane draws less power.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
75 Comments
View All Comments
jwilliams4200 - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - link
"OCZ sent us a 512GB version with sixteen NAND packages and four 8GB die per package. We typically don't see any interleaving benefits beyond two die per package, so I'd expect similar performance between the 512GB drive and the 256GB version (despite the significant difference in specs)"What a strange thing to say. Do you really mean that you think that despite OCZ quoting a 270MB/s sequential write speed for the 256GB model (vs. 400MB/s for the 512GB model), that the two sizes will actually have the same sequential write speed?
If so, I'd be willing to be a lot of money with you that you are wrong.
jwilliams4200 - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - link
be -> betAnand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - link
The only reason I said that is because I wasn't really able to hit OCZ's "400MB/s" in our Iometer tests. Instead I got 280MB/s, which is closer to what OCZ specs the 256GB version at.I'm 100% ok with being wrong and I'll be sure to point it out if I am in the next review :)
Take care,
Anand
jwilliams4200 - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - link
But you measured 395 MB/s for the 512GB Octane sequential write with AS-SSD.It seems that the Octane sequential write speed varies a lot (other review sites have measured 348 MB/s with AS-SSD). Maybe it depends a lot on the block size, or on the size of the test file (span), or on whether the SSD is in a used or fresh state.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - link
But if you look at HDTach and Iometer the perf is down at 280MB/s. I'm not entirely sure what's going on with AS-SSD...Take care,
Anand
gevorg - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - link
"I believe OCZ needs a good 12 months of an Intel or Samsung-like track record to really build confidence in its products."I completely agree!!
LoneWolf15 - Thursday, November 24, 2011 - link
""I believe OCZ needs a good 12 months of an Intel or Samsung-like track record to really build confidence in its products."I completely agree!! "
That makes three of us. I'll say one more --they also need to build a proven track record of customer service as well.
Right now, Intel, Crucial (specifically the m4), and Samsung are the choices I look at if a client needs an SSD.
MrSpadge - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - link
What's this "double write endurance" and "faster boot" about?MrS
iwod - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - link
I think it just shows how Random Read is EXTREMELY important to Real world workloads.Since we have already establish Random Write over 40 - 50MB/s doesn't make any difference, And Seq Read Write matter a lot less then Random Read.
Taft12 - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - link
Fully agree here, in fact random read is the only thing that really matters as far as anything you'd ever notice in real world desktop use.Anything more is benchmark porn (no offense to the fetishes of many AT readers)
Longevity and stability is most important by far, too bad a benchmark can't determine that.