OCZ Vertex 3 (240GB) Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 6, 2011 1:50 AM ESTTRIM Performance
In practice, SandForce based drives running a desktop workload do very well and typically boast an average write amplification below 1 (more writes to the device than actual writes to NAND). My personal SF-1200 drive had a write amplification of around 0.6 after several months of use. However if subjected to a workload composed entirely of incompressible writes (e.g. tons of compressed images, videos and music) you can back the controller into a corner.
To simulate this I filled the drive with incompressible data, ran a 4KB (100% LBA space, QD32) random write test with incompressible data for 20 minutes, and then ran AS-SSD (another incompressible data test) to see how low performance could get:
| OCZ Vertex 3 240GB - Resiliency - AS SSD Sequential Write Speed - 6Gbps | |||||
| Clean | After Torture | After TRIM | |||
| OCZ Vertex 3 240GB | 284.4 MB/s | 278.5 MB/s | 286.3 MB/s | ||
| OCZ Vertex 3 120GB | 162.1 MB/s | 38.3 MB/s | 101.5 MB/s | ||
The 240GB drive is simply more resilient when faced with the same length of workload than the 120GB drive. It's possible that the extra physical spare area the 240GB drive has is responsible for its better behavior after torture. The larger drive may simply have to be tortured for longer in order to see a similar drop in performance. However 20 minutes of incompressible 4KB random writes would still fill up all of the drive's spare area and force the SSD into block recycling in only half that time. SandForce's block cleaning algorithm might do very well on the first pass of filling the drive but fall short after multiple passes where the spare area is overwritten. Either way, a desktop user is highly unlikely to ever encounter any serious slowdown with the 240GB drive.
Power Consumption
Power consumption is in line with the 120GB Vertex 3. Our earlier sample had issues with idle power consumption which have since been resolved in the final shipping firmware. Note that all of our tests are conducted with LPM disabled, a feature that seems to be problematic on some combinations of chipsets and SF-2200 hardware.
Final Words
When we previewed the 240GB Vertex 3 it looked like game over for the SandForce competitors this round. With the final hardware tested, I have to agree with our original conclusion. If you're spending $500 on a drive, the 240GB Vertex 3 is your best bet.
There are some mild changes in the results here and there but nothing significant (other than lower power consumption compared to the pre-release sample). Intel's SSD 510 and Crucial's m4 are the closest competitors. The only reason I can see going for Intel's 510 over the 240GB Vertex 3 is the reliability aspect. Intel has typically had lower return rates than OCZ and while OCZ tends to take care of its customers very well, many would just rather not have an issue to begin with. I will say that SandForce reliability has come a long way in the past year but there's still a lot of proving that both SF and OCZ have to do with the Vertex 3 to really cement themselves as a top tier player in the SSD space.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
fowldogs - Friday, May 6, 2011 - link
Anand,I have recently researched which SSD to purchase and from several reviews, your's as well as many others, the OCZ Vertex 2 or 3 seemed like the best choice for performance. However, as I read consumer reviews on different shopping sight (Newegg, Amazon, etc), the Vertex 2 and 3 drives received numerous low reviews; including many that said the drive died on them soon after purchase.
Can you shed any light on this? Have you had any discussions with OCZ about their quality? I know that Mac's can be very finicky about SSD drives, but it seems many PC users were encountering problems too.
For now, I have decided on a Crucial drive, but I would like to know more about the quality issues of OCZ.
Omid.M - Friday, May 6, 2011 - link
If it's a ribbon cable issue for the 6 Gbps interface, then it would make the most sense to get the Intel 320 series SSD. Take a look on MacRumors about this drive versus Vertex 3 in the MBP, especially the 2011 models.Many more people are having good luck with Intel 320 than with Vertex 3. Sad.
Maybe someone should tweet and email OCZ about it, given how closely they seemed to be working with AnandTech to address reliability issues?
@moids
dagamer34 - Friday, May 6, 2011 - link
Always follow the law of reviews: no one actively thinks to leave a positive review, people always glamor for attention with negative reviews.darwinosx - Friday, May 6, 2011 - link
Yes but there is a critical mass of people with issues and much commonality among their complaints so that doesn't really work here.seapeople - Saturday, May 7, 2011 - link
Yes, but when Intel drives get 3% of 1-star ratings and the Vertex 2 gets 20% of 1-star ratings with numerous people claiming multiple RMA's, it makes you think there's a significant difference in reliability.Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, May 6, 2011 - link
Perhaps a little background is in order :)Whenever I hear about a failure of any component from one of our readers (either via a comment, email, twitter, etc...), I forward it on to the manufacturer of the product. Usually this results in two things: 1) the AT reader getting taken care of a little quicker than normal, and 2) the manufacturer getting the faulty product back sooner so they can figure out what went wrong. I do this with all products but SSDs are the most common given the large amount of growing pains we've had there as an industry.
For a while there I was spending a lot of time talking to OCZ about failed Vertex 2s. Unfortunately I was traveling a lot at the start of it and didn't have time to pursue in great depth, but I alerted OCZ that there seemed to be a growing trend and asked for an explanation. Meanwhile I believe OCZ also saw the same trend, determined a root cause and addressed it.
OCZ has the problem of being a relatively small company competing amongst much larger ones in the SSD space. As a result there's pressure to scale production but it's near impossible to quickly scale without missing something and it seems like quality has suffered at distinct points in its history. Each time OCZ usually makes good by its customers, but it's still a risk associated with buying from a smaller company vs. an Intel for example. I do believe the trend is generally positive, I do expect the Vertex 3 to be more reliable and consistent than anything in OCZ's past - but for utmost reliability, Intel seems to have the best return rates in the industry for SSDs.
I have been meaning to check out OCZ's new manufacturing facilities which may give me some more insight into its investment in production and testing. I know on the validation side OCZ is leaps and bounds better than it was 2 years ago (I spent a lot of time discussing validation with OCZ back in the Vertex 1, Vertex 2 and Core days) but I'm not sure where they stand in terms of production.
The Mac problems I believe are separate. There's a problem with some (not all) MBPs and some SSDs but I can't figure out what. OWC seems to think that the problems on the 17-inch 2011 MBPs are related to EMI and Apple's quirky SATA cable - I suspect this may extend to all of the models, I honestly just haven't had the time to test it.
Take care,
Anand
darwinosx - Friday, May 6, 2011 - link
OWC is the one that made the false claims about OCZ ram specs (which you debunked) and they also sell a replacement cable. So I don't take anything they say very seriously. Weren't you the one who said manufacturers should ship to get things out even if they weren't quite ready? A post I strongly disagree with and is likely the cause of OCZ's troubles.cactusdog - Friday, May 6, 2011 - link
Its really a shame you get a big performance hit with the 120GB version. Its easy to see how the marketing works.....first release the fast 240Gb version, once the reviews are up, release the slower mainstream 120GB version and hope no one looks at the fine print.thornburg - Friday, May 6, 2011 - link
I realize that you're a big believer in the SandForce drives, but where are the reviews of other products?Is Intel the only one able to get any coverage?
Where are the reviews of the new Samsung SSDs?
NCM - Friday, May 6, 2011 - link
Somebody is sure in love with their 4-die NAND packages! Enough that the 480GB drive costs well over triple the price of the 240GB version, even though virtually everything but the NAND should be the same. I could see a 480GB SSD for a grand, but $1800? (Or a 320GB for $750.) That's silly money, and a self-fullfilling prophecy to boot: they don't sell because they're so expensive because there's no production volume.Anand, to repeat somebody else's request in one of your previous SSD reviews, could you please include a typical 5400 rpm laptop drive in your power consumption comparisons? (The Seagate Momentus XT 500 hybrid doesn't really count as typical.)