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
StrangerGuy - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
What you say is true, but OCZ *and* planar TLC and lower raw performance is a combination not worth saving $30 against a 850 EVO 500GB.Why Toshiba didn't incinerate the toxic OCZ branding like a dead monkey with ebola is the one of the dumbest corporate decisions in history.
AuDioFreaK39 - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The bottom of this article has an advertisement for the OCZ Trion 150 240GB at $45.99. This is actually the price for the 120GB model. The 240GB model is still $61.99 as shown in the price comparison chart.Ryan Smith - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The URL is correct. So it must be a data error on Amazon's part.userseven - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
I have the 480 trion150 and feel completely satisfied with it. I bought it as a replacement for the very last mechanical drive I had. I would probably not use as OS drive, in principle, but for anything other than that I can't find anything wrong with it. Why are you people dissing it? It could be cheaper? Shouldn't everything? It WAS one of the cheapest at that capacity range when I bought it.Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Still prefer the Sandisk Ultra II's.Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Anand "tech"2016
Still no edit option
Bravo amigos.
doggface - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
I think by now we can conclude it is deliberate.Murloc - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
there are middle grounds, like edit available only for 5 minutes (à la stackexchange comments) or until a reply to the comment has been posted.Michael Bay - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
They are trying to make you use your brain before posting.Arnulf - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
My brain hurts!