OCZ Vertex 460 (240GB) Review
by Kristian Vättö on January 22, 2014 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
- SSDs
- OCZ
- Indilinx
- Vertex 460
Final Words
The biggest problem I have with the Vertex 460 is OCZ's current situation. The Vertex 460 won't be affected by the acquisition terms because it'll be available after the deal closes, meaning that Toshiba will be covering the warranty. However, I don't feel comfortable recommending OCZ's products until the dust settles and we know more about the future. The drive itself is good, just like the Vector 150, but it doesn't enjoy any major advantage over drives from manufacturers that are stable and proven in long-term reliability.
Update 1/22: We have just received word that Toshiba has finalized the purchase of the OCZ Technology group, making it a wholly owned subsidiary of the Toshiba Group Company. OCZ will still act independently as OCZ Storage Solutions, focusing on SSDs, meaning that the future of OCZ products is essentially confirmed for the future.
| NewEgg Price Comparison (1/21/2013) | |||
| 120/128GB | 240/256GB | 480/512GB | |
| OCZ Vertex 460 (MSRP) | $100 | $190 | $360 |
| OCZ Vector 150 | $120 | $215 | $440 |
| OCZ Vertex 450 | $90 | $160 | - |
| Samsung SSD 840 EVO | $110 | $175 | $345 |
| Samsung SSD 840 Pro | $130 | $200 | $465 |
| Crucial M500 | $90 | $155 | $310 |
| SanDisk Extreme II | $120 | $230 | $300 |
| Seagate SSD 600 | $110 | $170 | $300 |
OCZ's pricing is relatively competitive, although I'd like to see the 480GB SKU being priced a little more aggressively. $300 is really starting to be the sweet spot for 480-512GB drives and with drives like SanDisk Extreme II, there is barely any reason to pay more than that. 120GB and 240GB SKUs are priced a bit more competitively but there are still better deals to be found.
In summary, then, the Vertex 460 is a reasonable replacement for the Vertex 450, but pricing on the old model is actually a bit lower for now when resellers are clearing their stocks.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
blanarahul - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
The 250 GB 840 EVO achieves 260 MB/s write speeds. 120 GB EVO achieves 140 MB/s. 500 GB EVO should achieve 520 MB/s bit it only achieves 420 MB/s. Why??blanarahul - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
I am talking about non-Turbowrite speeds btw.rufuselder - Thursday, October 9, 2014 - link
OCZ Vertex 460 is one of the worst options for storage out there in my opinion (each time I try it out, I get just as disappointed). /Rufus from http://www.consumertop.com/best-computer-storage-g...DanNeely - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Having more NAND dies to multiiplex IO over only helps for some parts of the write process; and the more of them you have the less adding still more will help because other factors dominate more of the total time (Amdahl's law). As a result going to 500 from 250 gives less of a percentage boost than going to 250 from 120.I suspect in the case of the 500, because all the mid/top end drives are clustering in a narrow performance band, that SATA III bottlenecking is coming into play in addition to limitations within the SSD itself.
blanarahul - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Gee thanks. BTW, SATA III maxes out around 540 MB/s for writes. So it's a controller/firmware limitation.Gigaplex - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
It's not that simple. You don't have to hit maximum utilisation to start feeling the limitations of SATA III.lmcd - Thursday, January 23, 2014 - link
I thought there weren't more packages but rather larger packages? If I'm wrong then yeah it's probably SATA limitations but if not it's because it's the same bandwidth allocated per packages as previously.lmcd - Thursday, January 23, 2014 - link
*weren't more packages once 250 GB is met, in the case of this model.Novuake - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Simple. Diminishing returns + limitations of SATA III.Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
It is amazing Toshiba would sully their own name by placing it next to "OCZ".