OCZ Vertex 3 Pro Preview: The First SF-2500 SSD
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 17, 2011 3:01 AM ESTPerformance vs. Transfer Size
All of our Iometer sequential tests happen at a queue depth of 1, which is indicative of a light desktop workload. It isn't too far fetched to see much higher queue depths on the desktop. The performance of these SSDs also greatly varies based on the size of the transfer. For this next test we turn to ATTO and run a sequential write over a 2GB span of LBAs at a queue depth of 4 and varying the size of the transfers.
On a 6Gbps SATA port the Vertex 3 Pro is unstoppable. For transfer sizes below 16KB it's actually a bit average, and definitely slower than the RealSSD C300. But once you hit 16KB and above, the performance is earth shattering. The gap at 128KB isn't even as big as it gets, we don't see leveling off of performance until 2048KB transfers.
The 3Gbps performance is pretty unimpressive. In fact, the Vertex 3 Pro actually comes in a bit slower than the SF-1200 based Corsair Force F120. If you're going to get the most out of this drive you had better have a good 6Gbps controller.
ATTO's writes are fully compressible, indicative of the sort of performance you'd get on applications/libraries/user data and not highly compressed multimedia files. Here the advantage is just hilarious. By the 8KB mark the Vertex 3 Pro is already faster than everything else, but by 128KB the gap is more of a chasm separating the 6Gbps Vertex 3 Pro from its competitors.
Over a 3Gbps interface the Vertex 3 Pro once again does well but still doesn't really differentiate itself from the SF-1200 based Force F120. Real world performance is probably a bit higher as most transfers aren't perfectly compressible, but again if you don't have a good 6Gbps interface (think Intel 6-series or AMD 8-series) then you probably should wait and upgrade your motherboard first.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
144 Comments
View All Comments
cgorange - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
Anand,Is there some reason that the Samsung 470-series wasn't included on all charts?
Diosjenin - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
"Paired with a decent SSD controller, write lifespan is a non-issue. Note that I only fold Intel, Crucial/Micron/Marvell and SandForce into this category."So did you deliberately or accidentally leave out Indilinx?
Chloiber - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
Of course he couldn't include all the controllers, only those which he tested thorougly. So I'm pretty sure he left them out deliberately because there are so many broken drives from Indilinx. My 32GB drive also went down the drain. Maybe it was also part of the many, MANY broken firmwares they released. But even if you trust their SMART values, the write amplification on those drives is VERY high.Mr Perfect - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
I'm glad to see a component review on AT again, even if it's just a preview. It has been feeling like Engaget or some other phone review site around here.cactusdog - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
haha i know, they seem to like phones these days.MrBrownSound - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
nice to see that the intel x-25m still is in the ranks of the new generation drives.I bought a intel x25-m 160GB and booted my OS right away without reformating. Will it suffer performance loss?
ajp_anton - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
Your "x GB drive appears as y GB in Windows" look very much like GB<->GiB conversion errors.deadrock01 - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
Anand,Any possibility of getting the OCZ Revo PCI Express Cards and other SSD-like items in the SSD benchmark list?
marraco - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
^^^that.ilkhan - Thursday, February 17, 2011 - link
Numbers look real nice.For someone on a budget looking for a 120GB (or close enough) SSD on a 3Gbps controller, whats the recommendation. Wait for the new drives, grab a corsair force, else?