As always, we're turning to PCMark 7 and our own Storage Bench v1.0 to help us examine storage performance. If you're unfamiliar with Storage Bench v1.0, make sure you take a look at page 10 of this piece.
OCZ's newest SSD performs differently in the Storage Bench chart above and the PCMark results below. Those results are in-line with what we'd expect, as Storage Bench is most heavily composed of sequential transfers. It reflects the workload of an enthusiast using his PC for productivity-, entertainment-, and gaming-oriented tasks. If this helps put the actual amount of data into context, consider that a single Web page contains less than 1 MB of data, whereas 15 minutes of Crysis 2 gameplay involves reading and writing over 1 GB to the drive. In that context, Octane outperforms Crucial's m4 at the same capacity.
PCMark 7 uses the same underlying technology as our Storage Bench v1.0, but it's based on an amalgamation of several different traces. Overall, Futuremark ends up giving more weight to random transfers, which is why the Octane only ranks slightly faster than Crucial's 64 GB m4. A more apropos comparison would be Crucial's 512 GB m4 versus our 512 GB Octane, though. In PCMark 7, the m4 is a scant 5% faster than the Octane, which wouldn't be a bad showing at all for a drive OCZ considers a small step down from the Vertex 3. However, you'll find the m4 selling for $760 on Newegg, while the Octane is still listed at $900.
- OCZ's Octane SSD Taps Indilinx For Performance
- Indilinx's Everest Controller Does 6 Gb/s
- Test Setup And Firmware Notes
- Benchmark Results: Storage Bench v1.0 And PCMark 7
- Benchmark Results: 4 KB Random Performance
- Benchmark Results: 128 KB Sequential Performance
- Sequential Performance Versus Transfer Size
- Performance Over Time And TRIM
- Octane: A Portent Of What's To Come From OCZ
- Storage Bench v1.0, In More Detail
- More Background On Our Benchmarks