Again, as the Octane's specifications already tell us, the drive is much more comfortable dealing with data organized in a sequential manner. At a queue depth of one, sequential reads hover around 340 MB/s. That's only 11 MB/s slower than Crucial's 512 GB m4, which leads the pack. We don't have a 480 GB second-gen SandForce-based SSD to compare, but given the posted specs for those drives, we'd really expect to see similar results as the 512 GB Octane.
The Octane doesn't do quite as well in sequential writes at low queue depths. We only see the SSD hit speeds around 260 MB/s, though that again puts OCZ's latest drive on par with Crucial's 512 GB m4 (not at all a bad place to be).
However, we do see Samsung's 256 GB 830 and the 240 GB second-gen SandForce SSDs do significantly better. The really important take-away is that we're testing with compressible data, and SandForce-based drives enjoy a pretty hefty advantage as a result. Presented with incompressible data, throughput on even a second-gen SandForce SSD can drop below 100 MB/s.
- 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