The OCZ Trion 150 SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on April 1, 2016 8:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.
The Trion 150 offers very slightly improved average data rates over the Trion 100 on the Heavy test. Sub-20nm planar TLC still falls short of everything else on this write-heavy test.
The average service time of the 240GB Trion 150 is substantially worse than the Trion 100, but the larger capacities only barely regressed.
The larger two capacities of the Trion 150 offer modest improvements to the number of high-latency outliers, but still struggle much more than most MLC drives. The 240GB model performs about the same as its predecessor.
Power consumption is improved for all capacities of the Trion 150, but only slightly. Even the most aggressively power hungry MLC drives fare better.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
View All Comments
ummduh - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Ditto. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, not a chance.Murloc - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
yeah they could just kill the brand for anything SSD-related.NeonFlak - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The Mushkin Reactor not being included on any charts for SSD reviews must be a conspiracy, right? You guys did review it and it's in your best SSDs for 2016 list. Yet it doesn't appear to be included on the charts for any of the SSD reviews. Or am I just missing it?Billy Tallis - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
It was reviewed with the 2014 test suite and I don't have the drive available to re-test with the current (2015) suite. The results from the Mushkin Reactor review may not be directly comparable to the current reviews, but indicate that it performs a little worse than the Crucial BX100 that has the same controller and flash.ghanz - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Hi Billy, will there be a future review on the Sandisk Plus which presumably uses SM2246XT & MLC NAND?It's the lowest tier in Sandisk's SSD lineup & is priced even lower than the TLC based Ultra II.
hojnikb - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
+1 for that. Almost picked it up but went with a second hand 840pro instead.Samus - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
I actually had an 840 Pro that was 2 years old fail on me a few months ago. It was hell getting Samsung to warranty it. The process was awful. I've been using it lightly a few months, and I'd sell it if you want it. $90 bucks. It's a 256GB.vanilla_gorilla - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The people complaining about the drives performance need to consider that what's beating it cost significantly more. These are drives for low-mid range computers. And for 99% of your desktop use, if I swapped out your much more expensive (probably Samsung) SSD you'd probably never notice the difference in day to day use.Take a breath, have a little perspective, stop worrying about inconsequential (relative to the intended use) benchmarks and take a close look at the cost.
Arnulf - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Not really - this drive costs more and sometimes performs worse than its in-house competitor (Trion 100). The fact that it only reliably trumps BX200 is quite telling ...Tanclearas - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Take a look at the Mushkin Enhanced Reactor. Its results will be VERY close to the BX100. That drive outperforms (often by a large margin) the OCZ in nearly all benchmarks, and it costs the same. In fact, Newegg regularly has it on sale for $209.