The OCZ Trion 150 SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on April 1, 2016 8:00 AM ESTMixed Random Read/Write Performance
The mixed random I/O benchmark starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. The queue depth is 3 for the entire test and each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. As with the pure random write test, this test is restricted to a 16GB span of the drive, which is empty save for the 16GB test file.
The 240GB Trion 150 once again shows surprising improvement compared to both its predecessor and its larger siblings, and all capacities handle the mixed random workload as well as any budget TLC drive.
The Trion 150 shows less variation in power consumption across capacities, and better efficiency than the competition.
 |
|||||||||
The 240GB Trion 150's relatively impressive score is due mostly to the good performance on the pure write phase at the end of this test. The larger capacities don't benefit quite as much at the end, but do score slightly higher on the other portions of the test.
Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance
The mixed sequential access test covers the entire span of the drive and uses a queue depth of one. It starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. Each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The drive is filled before the test starts.
The 240GB Trion 150 is barely slower than its predecessor on the mixed sequential test, but the larger capacities perform much better and are close to matching the slowest MLC drives.
The Trion 150 continues to show improved power efficiency compared to the Trion 100, and once again manages to beat the other planar TLC drives.
 |
|||||||||
Quite differently from the mixed random test, on this test the 240GB Trion 150's score is hurt by the performance on the pure write phase. All three capacities manage to show a performance spike at the end of the test, which is absent from the worst scoring drives.
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.