Final Words

The ARC 100 provides what I expected it to do, which is its strength and weakness. The Barefoot 3 platform does provide excellent performance consistency and it has proven to be reliable over the last two years, but the performance in lighter workloads is only mediocre. I am glad that OCZ pursues consistency, but the truth is that average client workloads are more about peak performance as IOs tend to happen in bursts. Think about application installing and launching for instance – they stress the drive a lot but only for a short period of time and afterwards the drive will mostly be idling until another similar request comes in. It is true that an average user will most likely not notice the difference between two modern SSDs, but I still would have liked to see the ARC 100 being more optimized for lighter client workloads.

Another shortcoming of the ARC 100 is its lack of support for lower power states and TCG Opal. With most of today's PCs being laptops, OCZ is missing the needs of a huge market. I am guessing that there are some limitations in the Barefoot 3 silicon itself that prohibit OCZ from implementing proper low power state support – or at least that is what I hope because otherwise there is no good explanation as to why the Barefoot 3 continues to use so much power at idle. OCZ's next generation controller will support both DevSleep and Opal encryption, but in the meantime I can only recommend Barefoot 3 based SSDs for desktops.

NewEgg Price Comparison (8/25/2014)
  120/128GB 240/256GB 480/512GB
OCZ ARC 100 $75 $120 $240
OCZ Vector 150 $85 $140 $280
OCZ Vertex 460 $90 $140 $245
Samsung SSD 850 Pro $130 $200 $400
Samsung SSD 840 EVO $90 $165 $250
SanDisk Extreme Pro - $200 $380
SanDisk Extreme II $70 $140 $295
Crucial MX100 $80 $115 $220
Plextor M6S $80 $135 $280
Intel SSD 730 - $190 $340
Intel SSD 530 $90 $140 $250

Pricing appears to be competitive, although beating the MX100 is very tough. At capacities of 120GB and 240GB the ARC 100 is effectively the same price as the MX100, but I would like to see the 480GB drop in price to be more competitive. The mainstream market is all about price, so the ARC 100 cannot be $20 more expensive than the MX100 if OCZ wants to compete. Then again, 480GB/512GB SSDs aren't the normal target for mainstream users, so it may not matter too much.

I have to say that the MX100 is still my recommendation for most people because the feature set and value are just amazing, but the ARC 100 is a compelling alternative for desktop users. The better performance consistency makes the ARC 100 more suitable for heavier workloads, so for a user with a heavy-ish IO workload and a tight budget the ARC 100 is a great option.

Power Consumption
Comments Locked

54 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anato - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link

    Those pull down menus are pain to use. Please use old buttons instead. Thanks!
  • MHz Tweaker - Sunday, August 31, 2014 - link

    Of the 12 SSD's I have purchased in the last 5 years.....

    qty 4 Vertex 2's
    qty 1 HyperX 3K
    qty 2 Vertex 4's
    qty 3 Samsung EVO's
    qty 2 Samsung 840 Pro's

    I have had 2 failures, both OCZ drives (one Vertex 2 and one Vertex 4)
    The Vertex 2 died within a few months of purchase
    The Vertex 4 died in just under a year

    My top choice would be Samsung then 2nd Crucial and maybe another HyperX 3K drive 3rd
  • danwat1234 - Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - link

    In the article, I don't really see how the Arc 100 , Vector 150, Vertex 460 isn't OK for the laptop crowd. It is only taking half a watt at idle, less than a typical 5400RPM laptop drive of about 1 watt. It is unfortunate DIPM isn't supported but no big deal.

    In the article, doesn't the Arc 100, Vector 150 and Vertex 460 all use the same 19nm flash, but you say the Arc 100 uses slower flash? I know the controller in the Vertex460 and Arc 100 is slower than in the Vector 150 (350 vs 400MHZ or so) and I think slightly slower DRAM cache speed.

    Thanks
  • danwat1234 - Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - link

    Also how much lower is the Arc 100 120GB version in performance versus 240GB? Less die means less performance..

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now