Sequential Read Performance

For full details of how we conduct our Iometer tests, please refer to this article.

Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read

Fortunately sequential read performance is better than random, although for some reason the performance decreases as the capacity goes up. It seems like the controller may have trouble keeping up with the increasing number of LBAs to track, or frankly it could be just poor optimization too because the Neutron XT has no similar performance issues despite the similar underlying architecture. Another explanation could be increased latency from higher density NAND packages as there is some performance penalty due to longer wiring, although Samsung doesn't have any performance issues with its high density packages.

Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read (Power)

Unlike the performance, power consumption does go up with capacity, making the higher capacities less efficient.

OCZ Trion 100

The reason for poor performance lies in bad scaling because it takes a queue depth of 16 until the 480GB and 960GB models reach their peak performance.

Sequential Write Performance

Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write

Sequential write performance, on the other hand, is as poor as random write performance. I'm again surprised that the higher capacities present only marginal increase, whereas in write performance the additional NAND should help to distribute writes to a larger number of die for increased performance.

Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write (Power)

Power is again pretty high, though, especially when considering the performance against other drives.

OCZ Trion 100

Random Performance Mixed Read/Write Performance
POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • JellyRoll - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    Wow, it looks terrible to be honest. I agree with the analysis. WAY overpriced, especially considering the Samsung alternative. A swing and a miss from OCZ/Toshiba. Reply
  • ocz_tuff_bunny - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    Hi JellyRoll,
    Thank you for your comment, since this is my first post in regards to this article please allow me to identify myself as a member of the OCZ Storage Solutions. Usually by the time a product launches the MSRP already changed. We’re monitoring pricing very closely and will adjust to where the market goes. We believe with this drive's endurance and reliability it's a good option for users looking to upgrade from a HDD. Thank you again for your input.
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    This drive makes the ARC100 look even more like "the most underrated value drive". The Trion would need to undercut it significantly (and the BX100 and 850EVO). Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link

    To be fair, everyone here would expect a certain degree of performance at each price point... This drive drops the ball on performance, so it needs to pick up the slack when it comes to price.

    Also... To put this in perspective, this drive is probably as fast/maybe even slower than my OCZ Vertex 2 that I am still using today, which I bought 5-6 years ago...
    Reply
  • LtGoonRush - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link

    Here is direct advice for OCZ: this is a very bad SSD, and there's no way to position bad SSDs profitably because the bottom of the market is already crowded with bad SSDs that have to be sold below cost.

    Instead, you should make SSDs that are not bad and are positioned appropriately in the marketplace. It's probably possible to make an SSD with a lower cost-to-manufacture that is not garbage and thus people might actually make a willing, informed choice to buy. I know it's not easy to differentiate your drives in a crowded market, but just making awful drives and hoping people buy them without knowing what they are getting is not a good strategy.
    Reply
  • NvidiaWins - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link

    Samsung is one of those bottom feeding SSD vendors......
    Read this- http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173887-ssd-st...
    Reply
  • Questor - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link

    This article barely mentions Samsung and not in a negative manner. How is it that you feel your comment and the link are relevant to this discussion? Reply
  • ocz_tuff_bunny - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link

    Hi LtGoonRush,
    Thank you for your input. We are a new organization under Toshiba and have made significant changes to everything from the design processes to production and validation. Trion 100 is optimized for value users, the market price will fluctuate and we will adjust. We appreciate your feedback.
    Reply
  • hojnikb - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link

    It's not a bad SSDs. Its slow, i give you that, but not so slow, that typical user will notice. Still orders of magnitude faster than typical HDDs.

    Its just need to be priced lower and it will make sense. And maybe a few firmware tweaks to boost speed a little, where it makes most sense. I'm sure there is something to be done.
    Reply
  • sonny73n - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link

    Hi ocz_tuff_bunny,

    Speaking from my perspective, you can't just create a mediocre product and expect to survive in this day and age, unless it has outstanding value for the money. As for storage solutions, SSD price per GB is still high compared to HDD. Most of us are still not be able to afford SSD for the whole system, boot and storage. Furthermore, it's possible for SSD to lose its integrity if it's not being used for long period of time which defeats the whole purpose of data storing.
    For now I can only hope OCZ and the rest of the underdogs can improve and compete. We, consumers wouldn't want one company completely dominates the market. So, good luck OCZ.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now