The OCZ Trion 150 SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on April 1, 2016 8:00 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
The random read test requests 4kB 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, which is filled before the test starts. 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 sets a new low for small queue depth random read speeds, with half the performance of the best SATA drives. This is probably the primary cause of the poorer latency scores seen on the ATSB tests. For context, the QD1 performance of the 480GB Trion 150 is still almost 50 times faster than a 7200RPM hard drive.
Power consumption has at least decreased in kind with the reduced performance, but the ADATA SP550 manages slightly better efficiency than the Trion 150 and most MLC drives are much more efficient.
 |
|||||||||
The 480GB Trion 150 doesn't perform quite as well at the highest queue depths as the other capacities, but all sizes perform considerably worse than the competition, especially at high queue depths.
Random Write Performance
The random write test writes 4kB 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 is limited to a 16GB portion of the drive, and the drive is empty save for the 16GB test file. 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.
Random write speed on the 240GB Trion 150 got a huge boost over the Trion 100 and even the larger Trion 150s, but they all improved and widened the lead over SM2256 drives.
Power efficiency during random writes is much improved. The 240GB Trion 150 draws slightly more power than the 240GB Trion 100, but that's completely justified by the performance jump.
 |
|||||||||
The queue depth scaling behavior is quite odd. The 240GB Trion 150 doesn't change past QD4, but the larger sizes see a huge improvement moving to QD8 and beyond. This can make for some nice benchmark numbers but won't have much real-world impact. At low queue depths the 240GB comes out well ahead. This discrepancy is most likely a difference in the SLC caching configuration between the different models. Whatever the cause, the 240GB drive is making the better choices.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
View All Comments
Hulk - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
So I might be doing this calc wrong but I'm seeing the endurance as 250 drive writes? Probably fine for most people and definitely for a media storage drive. Prices are getting low enough for that.stephenbrooks - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
I'd prefer it if they just stated endurance in drive writes rather than as 9,876PB or something. I end up doing the mental arithmetic to divide it down to drive writes every time I see that in the table anyway.nikon133 - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
I got one 480GB Trion 100 for my old Elitebook upgrade.I knew what I'm buying and I am very pleased with it. Here in NZ, I paid 480GB Trion around NZ$30 more than what I would pay for 250GB Samsug 850 EVO (non-pro): they were NZ$150 and 180. I wanted more capacity but didn't want to overspend for machine I rarely use these days.
While it is slow for SSD, it still is revelation in everyday use, compared to HDD. Windows 10 boot time is quick anyway, and SSD takes away all that after-login sluggishness while system is still loading background processes/drivers/utils/...
Like I said, champ it is not, but huge improvement over HDD it is.
SeanJ76 - Tuesday, April 5, 2016 - link
Your pretty damn poor if you can't afford a Intel SSD. Intel will always make the best SSD on the market, they've been in the business the longest!xrror - Wednesday, April 6, 2016 - link
I'm sure glad that brand loyalty makes you a consumer retard. Never compare, never revisit your set opinions. Way to be a true patriot. =(nikon133 - Monday, April 11, 2016 - link
Well said.slowdemon21 - Friday, April 29, 2016 - link
I'm using in PS4 with great resultsprefereduser - Friday, June 3, 2016 - link
OCZ Trion 150 SSD 120GB benchmarks Athon II x4 845 4 GB ramWindows 10 clean install on a Sata III port .
Seq R/W is 130.30 MB/s and 107.29 MB/s respectively
4K = 15.37 MB/s read and 20.71 MB/s
4K -64 Thrd read = 25.55 MB/s write = 52.01 MB/s
Acc. time = 0.274ms read and 0.141ms write
I was looking for more than that (maybe twice or more on seq r/w at least ) but not as much as the i7 test box here even though this is low end part .
OTOH it feels *a lot faster the the not old 1TB 5700 rpm metal hdd ever did and def rag is disabled in windows 10 . .
What you think?
hp79 - Wednesday, September 21, 2016 - link
Is this different from OCZ TR150 (current model)? Looking at the specification of the 480GB on their website (https://ocz.com/us/ssd/tr150-ssd#specs), they are quite different from the TRION 150 480GB in this table. The 4K Write shows up to 83K IOPS instead of the 54K IOPS shown in the table. Others numbers are close though.I have a Trion 150 480GB which I paid $60 at Frys during an awesome sale (probably pricing error). Working very well for my laptop working as a HTPC/home file server.