Skip to main content

OCZ Octane 512 GB SSD Review: Meet Indilinx's Everest Controller

Sequential Performance Versus Transfer Size

All of our sequential transfer tests in Iometer are run at a queue depth of one in order to represent the most typical desktop workloads, where this drive is designed to operate. It's not hard to imagine a situation where an enthusiast might subject an SSD to higher queue depths, though. And indeed, that's where an SSD really stands apart from a conventional hard drive.

Here we're using ATTO to test the sequential reads/writes over 2 GB at a queue depth of two. Why only a queue depth of two? Even when you're pushing more taxing workloads, I/O commands are handled so much faster on an SSD that queue depths higher than two or three are uncommon on an average desktop. Our gaming traces demonstrate this over and over (check out SSD Performance In Crysis 2, World Of Warcraft, And Civilization V and Exploring SSD Performance In Battlefield 3, F1 2011, And Rift if you missed them).

The other reason to use ATTO is its ability to easily test different transfer sizes. While 128 KB is fairly standard for measuring sequential performance, larger or smaller transfers are of course still relevant.

At a queue depth of two, OCZ's Octane performs a lot like the 250 GB SSD 510. Crucial's 512 GB m4 performs slightly better thanks to its 0009 firmware, but Samsung's 830 continues to dominate in sequential transfers. The margin favoring the 256 GB 830 is really small, though, so we're hardly prepared to declare a winner.

OCZ's Vertex 3 leaves other SSDs in the dust at transfer sizes greater than 16 KB. Its SandForce controller enjoys a major advantage as we hammer it with compressible data, though. Subject the same drive to incompressible information at the same queue depth and throughput drops to about 240 MB/s (using 128 KB blocks) instead.

The Octane's Everest controller isn't subject to the same performance stipulations. As a result, sequential transfer rates don't fluctuate depending on the type of data you send down the pipe, and performance continues looking a lot like what Intel's SSD 510 spits back. That's pretty good when you consider that you're getting a 60-70 MB/s speed-up over the largest Crucial m4s.

  • theuniquegamer
    I think in 2 to 3 years we can get a affodable and fast 1tb ssd in market
    Reply
  • theuniquegamer
    Wow CRYSIS 2 reads and writes above 1 gb data per 20minutes
    Reply
  • ksampanna
    theuniquegamerI think in 2 to 3 years we can get a affodable and fast 1tb ssd in market
    Fast yes, affordable no. My guess is atleast 5 years for a 1 TB ssd to be under $100
    Reply
  • EDVINASM
    Still comparing Crysis 2 to everything that moves? I had WD Blue in RAID 0 for quite a while and was relatively happy. Before Christmas however, I have replaced them with just simple, SATA 300 Intel 320 SSD 80Gb. Boy what a difference! No more HDD scratchy sounds, no heat from them, no vibrations, no annoying ticks when idle, silent.. Speed wise PC boots up within 30 sec, and I am only running Intel i3 2100 with no OC. To those who are holding onto HDD I would say unless capacity is the key - sell it off for an SSD. Especially now that HDD prices are skyroketting it is proving easier and easier to do the swap.
    Reply
  • nebun
    ksampannaFast yes, affordable no. My guess is at least 5 years for a 1 TB ssd to be under $100it's so much fun to dream....don't expect prices to drop that much....that's what people people said about CPUs a few years back, yet nothing has changed.... another example is the mid and top end video cards....since manufacturing techniques have improved and have become more efficient one would think that the products would be cheaper....that's not the case....it's called demmand....people demand faster components and will pay a premium price for it, why would manufacturers drop the prices?...they still have to make a profit
    Reply
  • mayankleoboy1
    theuniquegamerI think in 2 to 3 years we can get a affodable and fast 1tb ssd in market

    yeah.
    and in 2 to 3 years we can get a 20 core intel 9999 X edition for $50.
    and gtx990X2 for just $100.
    Reply
  • buzznut
    edvinasmStill comparing Crysis 2 to everything that moves? I had WD Blue in RAID 0 for quite a while and was relatively happy. Before Christmas however, I have replaced them with just simple, SATA 300 Intel 320 SSD 80Gb. Boy what a difference! No more HDD scratchy sounds, no heat from them, no vibrations, no annoying ticks when idle, silent.. Speed wise PC boots up within 30 sec, and I am only running Intel i3 2100 with no OC. To those who are holding onto HDD I would say unless capacity is the key - sell it off for an SSD. Especially now that HDD prices are skyroketting it is proving easier and easier to do the swap.
    And I recommend folks hold onto their current hard drives and get a boot SSD. 80GB may be enough for you, but a lot of us have bigger storage needs. Its gonna take about a year for the hard drive market to recover, so hang on to those mechanical drives.
    Reply
  • drwho1
    theuniquegamerI think in 2 to 3 years we can get a affodable and fast 1tb ssd in market
    mayankleoboy1yeah.and in 2 to 3 years we can get a 20 core intel 9999 X edition for $50.and gtx990X2 for just $100.
    I do believe that 3-5 years from now we will see a huge increase on performance accompanied by a huge drop in price (compare with today's prices and performance)

    Then we will probably have SATA 4 on the market and the "right price/GB/TB" will be on SATA 3 SSD's.

    With that in mind, I have always build my systems a generation "behind" which is always more than "a few" generations of whatever I had built last, I have always double or triple my previous built performance for around the same money invested on it.

    (plus/minus a few new "tricks" that probably were not on the previous built that could raise my budget
    200 dollars or so)

    Is is possible to get an 1TB SSD for around $100-$200 dollars in 3-5 years?
    I believe it will be.
    just don't expect to also be the faster SATA 4, you will have to "compromise" by been a little "behind"
    in speed.








    Reply
  • mikenygmail
    Add "SSD" to the title.
    Reply
  • tetracycloide
    nebunthat's what people people said about CPUs a few years back, yet nothing has changedAMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz circa 2005 - $475.99 inflation adjusted to 2011 ~$548.22
    Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz circa 2007 - $279.99 inflation adjusted to 2011 ~$304.10
    Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz circa 2011 - $219.99

    I'm sorry, you were saying?
    Reply