The OCZ Trion 150 SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on April 1, 2016 8:00 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
The sequential read test requests 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
All three sizes of the Trion 150 have very similar sequential read speeds and they fall in the middle of a large number of drives that all perform very similarly.
Power consumption is not so tightly clustered, and the larger capacities suffer a bit. All of the Trion 150s require less power than all of the Trion 100s.
 |
|||||||||
The queue depth scaling behavior for sequential reads on the Trion 150 is very typical, with full performance and power consumption reached at QD2 or larger.
Sequential Write Performance
The sequential write test writes 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
The Trion 150 greatly improves on its predecessor's sequential write speeds, but TLC drives still pay a penalty. The 240GB model's improvement is good but far short of the performance doubling achieved by the larger capacities.
The 240GB Trion 150 manages a modest power improvement over the Trion 100 despite the former delivering much better performance. The larger capacities also improve in efficiency, but still manage to draw more power than anything else.
 |
|||||||||
Power usage and performance during sustained sequential writes are almost completely independent of queue depth. The 480GB and 960GB Trion 150s do exhibit modest performance improvement between QD1 and QD2, but things are stable after that.
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.