OCZ Vertex 3 Pro Preview: The First SF-2500 SSD
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 17, 2011 3:01 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload
Lighter use cases still show a benefit from the SF-2500, but again we see that a 6Gbps interface is necessary to really distance this drive from the pack:
Read performance continues to be a tremendous advantage of the SF-2500. Again, 6Gbps matters a lot here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
144 Comments
View All Comments
eva2000 - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
Thanks for the review, curious why the 256GB Crucial RealSSD C300 only included in some benchmarks and not others ?Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
That's simply a data entry issue, I'll get it fixed :)Take care,
Anand
therealnickdanger - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
Also, I'm curious as to why none of the REVO benchmarks are included? On the one hand, I understand how niche PCIe drives may be, but on the other, they can offer significant performance over both SATA 3Gbps and 6Gbps drives. It would be nice to see the new Heavy and Light benchmarks applied to those as well.ludikraut - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
+1 on including REVO drive results in the drive comparisons.markjx1 - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
because REVO drives are garbage. they're nothing more than a bunch of vertex2's slapped onto a board with a cheap Silicone Image controller that has a PCI-X to PCIe bridge. Resale value on REVO is crap and if one of the drives dies, you have a nice paperweight.bji - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
Your own personal opinion on the drives are not a reason to disclude them from the review.therealnickdanger - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
Garbage that can pull down 800MB/s...? Go away, troll. For users without SATA 6Gbps, it's a very practical solution to achieve huge speed. In fact, even people WITH SATA 6Gbps would get a boost. The cost/GB is even under $2 for some of the REVOs, making them a reasonable alternative.Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
All graphs should now have the 256GB C300 in them :)Breogan - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
Is the data in the Incompressible Write Speed Test mixed for the SF2500 drive or does it perform actually worse after trim?. It seems weird to me that a dirty drive performs as if it was stock and the trim actually worsens its perfomance.Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
It's not TRIM that is making the drive slower, it's the next write pass that's actually pushing the drive into a lower performance state as there's more garbage collection/cleaning that's going on. If I hadn't TRIMed and just ran another pass of the AS-SSD test you'd see the same number.Take care,
Anand