OCZ Vector 150 (120GB & 240GB) Review
by Kristian Vättö on November 7, 2013 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
- SSDs
- OCZ
- Indilinx
- Vector 150
Final Words
The Vector 150 is a logical successor for the Vector. It doesn't redefine SSD performance, yet OCZ has managed to add enough improvements to the Vector 150 to make it a different product. The first one is IO consistency. While the Vector had good performance consistency to begin with, the Vector 150 takes that one step further. It's without a doubt one of the most consistent (if not the most consistent) SSDs we have tested and that's a big achievement. Especially for heavy workloads with lots of random writes the IO consistency is a very important performance metric because the drives tend to be in steady-state (or close to it) due to the amount of writes and you definitely don't want your application to be waiting for your SSD.
The second major improvement is endurance. 50GB/day for five years should cover almost any power user's need for endurance (or if not, you should really invest in an enterprise class SSD). Remember that it's 50GB seven days a week for five years -- even one day with less writes a week will give you even more headroom to play with.
Power consumption is the only thing I have a problem with. For desktops the power consumption obviously plays no role (unless you're building a huge RAID array and want it to be as power efficient as possible) but for mobile it's one of the cornerstones. Battery life is one of those things where you can never have enough and while the rest of the components usually play the bigger role, an SSD can still have an impact of half an hour or so depending on your laptop.
| NewEgg Price Comparison (11/6/2013) | |||
| 120/128GB | 240/256GB | 480/512GB | |
| OCZ Vector 150 (MSRP) | $130 | $240 | $500 |
| OCZ Vector | $125 | N/A | N/A |
| OCZ Vertex 450 | $115 | $220 | $460 |
| Samsung SSD 840 EVO | $100 | $180 | $340 |
| Samsung SSD 840 Pro | $128 | $215 | $570 |
| Crucial M500 | $120 | $155 | $370 |
| SanDisk Extreme II | $150 | $230 | $460 |
| Seagate SSD 600 | $110 | $200 | $380 |
With the original Vector OCZ shifted their goals and tried to lift up their brand image by focusing purely on the high-end segment and the Vector 150 continues that strategy. As a result, the Vector 150 is definitely at the upper pricing segment but there is always a price you have to pay for performance. Compared to SanDisk's Extreme II, Vector 150's most likely rival, the MSRPs are fairly competitive. At 120GB, the Vector is cheaper but at higher capacities SanDisk has a small advantage. However, it's good to keep in mind that we're dealing with MSRPs, so take the prices with a grain of salt until we see what the retail prices end up being.
All in all, I'm excited to see what OCZ has up their sleeve for their SATA Express (i.e. PCIe) based Barefoot 3 successor. We've been limited by the SATA 6Gbps bus for quite a while already, which is why there haven't been any tremendous upgrades in performance compared to what for example the SF-2281 brought when it was first released. The Barefoot 3 is a platform with lots of potential and it shows that OCZ's Indilinx and PLX acquisitions have provided the company with the knowledge they need to stay competitive in the SSD space.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
59 Comments
View All Comments
DarkKnight_Y2K - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
I have 2 60GB Vertex 2 in RAID-0 that I bought in 2009, that I still boot to as of today with no problems.profquatermass - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
Me 2!A Vertex 3. I think most people don't bother ensuring they've got current Firmware in them when buying from a shop.
Shops (brick or online) are notorious for keeping old stock on their shelves.
Also make sure it is partition aligned correctly.
Pantsu - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
I've been using a 128 GB Vertex 3 since they launched it back in 2011. It had the blue screen issue but that got fixed after a firmware update. It's been working great ever since. Too bad for OCZ, looks like they're beyond hope at this point. Based on the comments their reputation has been soiled, and they'd need a miracle to keep going.derzerb - Thursday, November 7, 2013 - link
I've been using ocz products in several builds psu/ssds and never had any issues. The current affordable prices for ssds is partially attributable to ocz's aggressive pricing in the past.mayankleoboy1 - Thursday, November 7, 2013 - link
isnt the metric "4k random read at QD=1/2the only relefant metric for 80% of a typical desktop workload ?
In that metric, Samsung 840Pro still rules.
JellyRoll - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
Exactly correct. QD 1-3 are all that matter....not Destroyer benchmarks with insane workloads.Gigaplex - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
I'm confused as to why the 4K random reads are so slow. Much slower than writing. Anyone care to explain?Kristian Vättö - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
Random writes can take advantage of write combining (i.e. small IOs are combined to make look like one big IO), which in turn will allow higher level of parallelism as the operation can be spread to a number of die.With random reads that is not possible because when the host sends a read IO request, the controller can't wait to combine it with more reads because that would add unnecessary latency (which means whatever you're doing will slow down because the OS is waiting for your SSD). Low queue depth random reads cannot take much advantage of parallelism because at QD=3, the controller can only read from three dies simultaneously (decrease QD to 1 and it can only read from one die).
piroroadkill - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
Not bad in a review, but the review sample did die.While better alternatives exist, most people would avoid the OCZ brand like the plague, and that's the sad fact of the matter for OCZ.
I too can throw my anecdote into the ring with a Vertex 2 that gave random trouble. I RMA'd it, and the replacement sees only light duty in a seldom used laptop.
BlakKW - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
I have 2 ssd's, both would be considered the cheaper "consumer" quality, and usage would be considered very light. Would spending extra on an enterprise level ssd with higher warranty get me a drive that lasts a good bit longer?