Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Results: 4 KB Random Performance

OCZ Vertex 450 256 GB SSD Review: Can We Call It Vector Jr.?
By

Again, we turn to Iometer as our synthetic metric of choice for testing 4 KB random performance. Technically, "random" translates to a consecutive access that occurs more than one sector away. On a mechanical hard disk, this can lead to significant latencies that hammer performance. Spinning media simply handles sequential accesses much better than random ones, since the heads don't have to be physically repositioned. With SSDs, the random/sequential access distinction is much less relevant. Data can be put wherever the controller wants it, so the idea that the operating system sees one piece of information next to another is mostly just an illusion.

4 KB Random Read

The Plextor, Seagate, and Corsair drives, all of which employ either 24 or 19 nm Toggle-mode NAND, regulate the field through a queue depth of 16. They're not matched until we push 32 commands concurrently.

OCZ's two drives fall into the middle of the pack, ahead of Intel's SSDs, but behind the three aforementioned models. It isn't until we hit a queue depth of 32 that the Vector and Vertex 450 pick up steam. At that point, the Vector puts 12,000 IOPS on the Vertex 450. With only a handful of outstanding commands, however, the delta is minimal. OCZ's Vertex 450 is rated for 85,000 4 KB random read IOPS, and we get slightly more.

4 KB Random Write

Roughly 10,000 IOPS separate the Vertex 450 from the Vector, but only at a queue depth of four. Everywhere else, the two drives perform virtually identically. Both SSDs are capable of writing faster at lower command counts than the other tested drives, though the entire field catches up at a queue depth of 32.

The Vector and Vertex 450 might have different names, but at least thus far, they aren't distinguishing themselves many other ways. After two 128 KB sequential writes across the entire LBA space, writing 4 KB blocks at a queue depth of 32 for multiple hours reveals the two SSDs as near-twins. The Vector is slightly faster and the Vertex 450 is slightly slower. Representing more familiar drives is Plextor's M5 Pro.

When we look at one-minute intervals, all three SSDs behave similarly. The Vector is still the quickest, but the Vertex 450 is consistently about 12% behind. Meanwhile, the Plextor manages fewer IOPS minute after minute. All three drives boast the same amount of flash, the same accessible space, and the same ratio of over-provisioning.

If we instead log at one-second intervals, not much changes except that the Plextor SSD exhibits a lower coefficient of variation. It's basically razor flat after shelving off what little space remains on a completely filled drive. The two OCZ models are quicker overall, though the spike higher and drop lower as they sort out their garbage collection situations.

None of these charts effectively show what's happening behind the scenes. In what is probably no coincidence at all, both Indilinx-based SSDs look a lot like the Marvell-powered Vertex 4 the Vertex 450 is supposed to replace. Clearly, we need some additional testing in order to help answer our questions.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 27 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 12 Hide
    boulbox , May 27, 2013 9:35 PM
    Kinda wanted to see 840 pro match up with it too. Guess it doesn't really matter since we could just go find your other benchies on it and compare it ourselves but i thought it would just be nice to have it up there.
Other Comments
  • 12 Hide
    boulbox , May 27, 2013 9:35 PM
    Kinda wanted to see 840 pro match up with it too. Guess it doesn't really matter since we could just go find your other benchies on it and compare it ourselves but i thought it would just be nice to have it up there.
  • 1 Hide
    Faisal Mahmood , May 27, 2013 9:37 PM
    Speed and performance are fine but what really counts is reliability which OCZ does not have. I had to RMA Vertex 2 twice and both times it lasted 8 months. Before that I invested in an Intel x25-m and it is still going strong.
  • 3 Hide
    s3anister , May 27, 2013 10:55 PM
    Just bought another 840 Pro. Really can't trust OCZ anymore after so many failed Vertex 3s.
  • 2 Hide
    slomo4sho , May 27, 2013 10:56 PM
    It is pretty common to find quality SSDs in the $0.55-0.65/GB range these days. Game coupon aside, the price of this SSD isn't all that competitive.
  • 3 Hide
    technerd , May 27, 2013 11:00 PM
    Faisal MahmoodSpeed and performance are fine but what really counts is reliability which OCZ does not have. I had to RMA Vertex 2 twice and both times it lasted 8 months. Before that I invested in an Intel x25-m and it is still going strong.

    SAME! I'm going to Samsung for my next SSD. OCZ's reliability is a joke
  • 1 Hide
    kitsunestarwind , May 27, 2013 11:31 PM
    I love OCZ The Vertex4 series SSDs have been nothing but rock solid reliable, much better then their earlier offerings and the problems with the Vertex2/3 series drives
  • 3 Hide
    cryan , May 28, 2013 1:40 AM
    slomo4shoIt is pretty common to find quality SSDs in the $0.55-0.65/GB range these days. Game coupon aside, the price of this SSD isn't all that competitive.


    The Vector gets the Far Cry 3 coupon until July 14th while the Vertex 450 doesn't get it at all. If you're having to choose between the two, the Vector is probably the better bet unless the V450 is significantly cheaper. It's hard to say what the Vertex 450 will cost once generally available, but it'd be prudent to expect prices to be higher for the first few weeks. Initially, the Vertex 450 will probably be near the $235 mark, only a few bucks less than the Vector (about $15). Is it worth giving up two years of warranty and a FC3 coupon to save $15? You be the judge.

    Regards,
    Christopher Ryan
  • 4 Hide
    cryan , May 28, 2013 1:55 AM
    boulboxKinda wanted to see 840 pro match up with it too. Guess it doesn't really matter since we could just go find your other benchies on it and compare it ourselves but i thought it would just be nice to have it up there.


    Stay tuned, because we're working on it. I've been rebuilding the entire database of comparative consumer SSD performance data, and some drives haven't been done yet for one reason or another. In some cases, it's due to time constraints. In other cases, acquiring or reacquiring particular SSDs has been problematic.


    Regards,
    Christopher Ryan
  • 1 Hide
    dgingeri , May 28, 2013 6:21 AM
    I'd like to see it's relative performance compared to a Vertex 4. I have two Vertex 4 drives, a 256 and a 128, and I've been wondering how these new drives would compare, and if they're worth spending the money to swap with my Vertex drives.
  • 2 Hide
    iknowhowtofixit , May 28, 2013 6:35 AM
    I find it interesting that there are almost no benches relating to real world performance. Toms has said in the past that there are diminishing returns beyond a certain performance level for SSDs.

    Why not show some graphs of loading screens in games, Windows start-up times, and other tangible performance metrics instead of a bunch of graphs that mean very little to anyone other than the few who use consumer class SSDs for enterprise applications?

    I'm not saying that we take out the synthetic benchmarks. Just that there should be some real world ones added in.
  • 2 Hide
    raidtarded , May 28, 2013 7:31 AM
    Later in its life, the Vertex 4 shipped with Micron NAND, eschewing Intel's flash for a slight performance drop and better pricing.

    Doesn't Intel and Micron use the same NAND via the IMFT partnership?
  • 0 Hide
    ericjohn004 , May 28, 2013 7:37 AM
    I agree with another poster that said there should be more real world benchmarks. Like Windows 7/8 boot times, shut-down times, game load times, programs load times, and such.

    I would have also like to see the Samsung 840 Pro in there. Afterall, it's the fastest SSD to date, it should be included in any SSD article even if it takes a couple more days to get it.

    Personally, I really like Plextors drive. It really impressed me. If the 840 Pro weren't out I'd get one of those. Too bad I already own a Crucial m4 256GB, Crucial m4 64GB mSATA, Kingston HyperX 3K, and Samsung 840. None of these drives have given me any problems. I buy SSD's based on reliability and price. Buying drives based on performance only you end up spending 50$ more for nothing. I got my 840 and 3K for 89.99, whereas if I would have got an 840 Pro it would have been 149.99, or right now it's still 129.99. That's 40-60$ more for pretty much nothing.
  • -1 Hide
    falchard , May 28, 2013 9:39 AM
    lol there is nothing wrong with OCZs reliability. Most of the Vertex 3 performed exactly how OCZ specified. SSD have a finite lifespan that no manufacturer will overcome. If you want something that won't fail in 3-5 years than get an HDD, an SSD will fail in that time.
  • -2 Hide
    danwat1234 , May 28, 2013 1:01 PM
    @Falchard an SSD is usually much more reliable than a mechanical hard drive. It can handle 100s of Terabytes of writes in it's lifetime, other than that, there is no wear that occurs.
  • 2 Hide
    g-unit1111 , May 28, 2013 1:19 PM
    Quote:
    Faisal MahmoodSpeed and performance are fine but what really counts is reliability which OCZ does not have. I had to RMA Vertex 2 twice and both times it lasted 8 months. Before that I invested in an Intel x25-m and it is still going strong.

    SAME! I'm going to Samsung for my next SSD. OCZ's reliability is a joke


    OCZ's reliability used to be a joke because they used the same garbage Sandforce 2.0 controller that was known to have so many bugs that it plagued every drive it touched. I had an Intel 320 that used the same controller - thing was a nightmare, errors, BSODs left and right, you name it. Swapped it for a Vertex 4 - have not had a single issue with the drive and I've owned it for almost a year now. People need to stop taking the things they say in store reviews so seriously - 90% of the time they're complete BS.
  • 2 Hide
    alextheblue , May 28, 2013 4:30 PM
    boulboxKinda wanted to see 840 pro match up with it too. Guess it doesn't really matter since we could just go find your other benchies on it and compare it ourselves but i thought it would just be nice to have it up there.
    Regular 840 would be nice to have on the graphs too, just to see how close you can get for substantially less coin, and from a reliable manufacturer too.

    But it sounds like Chris is on the case! Thanks in advance. :D 
  • 0 Hide
    cryan , May 28, 2013 7:56 PM
    ericjohn004I agree with another poster that said there should be more real world benchmarks. Like Windows 7/8 boot times, shut-down times, game load times, programs load times, and such.I would have also like to see the Samsung 840 Pro in there. Afterall, it's the fastest SSD to date, it should be included in any SSD article even if it takes a couple more days to get it.Personally, I really like Plextors drive.


    We're working on a suite of "real world" test scenarios. The problem you run into is, just about all modern SSDs perform the same. Take boot time for example. The difference between the fastest SSD and the slowest SATA III SSDs is pretty miniscule. Half a second could cover the entire field. Is it a good metric because it shows there isn't much difference in that case, or is it not very helpful for just that reason?


    Regards,
    Christopher Ryan
  • 0 Hide
    dhemp , May 28, 2013 10:40 PM
    I'm sorry if I missed this in the review, but is that an mSATA on the opposite end of the board, and would it be functional?
  • 0 Hide
    boulbox , May 28, 2013 10:47 PM
    @dhemp

    Yea looks a lot like an mSata. It would be cool if it could be run though an mSata but i think the chip is too big.
  • 0 Hide
    Eric Van Boven , May 28, 2013 11:22 PM
    Actually there was. I had 5 vertex 1 fail on me. Company sent out a new vertex 1 each time. Then they finally upgraded me to vertex 2 which just died yesterday. Vertex 4 still going strong, but I have switched to samsung 840 pros now for 3 machines and will not be looking back. SSD's should not fail in a year when just doing normal everyday stuff on them (no benchmarking, no overclocking, different machines different types of users).

    falchardlol there is nothing wrong with OCZs reliability. Most of the Vertex 3 performed exactly how OCZ specified. SSD have a finite lifespan that no manufacturer will overcome. If you want something that won't fail in 3-5 years than get an HDD, an SSD will fail in that time.

Display more comments