The OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2 Preview: Second-Gen SandForce Goes PCIe

Features
By published

Solid-state tech marches on, and we're already approaching SATA's 6 Gb/s ceiling. OCZ is once again stepping in with a PCIe-based solution with speed in reserve. The company's RevoDrive 3 X2 promises sequential transfers in excess of 1 GB/s.

Test Setup

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Test Hardware
ProcessorIntel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge), 32 nm, 3.3 GHz, LGA 1155, 6 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled
MotherboardASRock Z68 Extreme4, BIOS v1.4
MemoryKingston Hyper-X 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1333 @ DDR3-1333, 1.5 V
Hard DriveOCZ Vertex 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s
Row 4 - Cell 0 Crucial m4 64 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 0001
Row 5 - Cell 0 Crucial m4 128 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 0001
Row 6 - Cell 0 Crucial m4 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 0001
Row 7 - Cell 0 Crucial m4 512 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 0001
Row 8 - Cell 0 Crucial RealSSD 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 0006
Row 9 - Cell 0 OCZ Vertex 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.09
Row 10 - Cell 0 OCZ RevoDrive X2 240 GB PCIe 1.1 x4, Firmware: 1.33
Row 11 - Cell 0 OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2 480 GB PCIe 2.0 x4, Firmware: 2.06
Row 12 - Cell 0 Seagate Momentus 5400.6 500 GB SATA 3Gb/s
GraphicsPalit GeForce GTX 460 1 GB
Power SupplySeasonic 760 W, 80 PLUS
System Software and Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
DirectXDirectX 11
DriverGraphics: Nvidia 270.61 RST: 10.5.0.1022Virtu: 1.1.101
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Benchmarks
Tom's Hardware Storage Bench v1.0Trace-Based
Iometer 1.1.0# Workers = # Logical CPUs, 4 KB Random: LBA=16 GB, varying QDs, 128 KB Sequential: QD=1
ATTO BenchmarkLBA=2 GB, QD=2 & 4, varying transfer sizes
PCMark 7Storage Suite
TOPICS
37 Comments Comment from the forums
  • reyshan
    YoT!damn fast ssd and damn expensive ssd. might buy one 5 years from now(pci-e kind).
    Reply
  • KingArcher
    Wish I had won a lottery :)
    So that I could afford me some drives like these.
    Reply
  • Why_Me
    omg this drive is fast! But way out of my budget :(
    Reply
  • warmon6
    It's not a business-class product. It's for the power user who is able to tax it using the right workload. If you're not one of those folks, the RevoDrive 3 X2 is seriously overkill.

    OVERKILL?!?!
    Nothing is overkill in the computer arena in terms of performance. :p

    Just the price can be over kill. o.0
    Reply
  • julius 85
    Just the price can be over kill. o.0For me the price is a bottleneck :)
    Reply
  • ElectroGoofy
    Dear Santa...
    Reply
  • acku
    Santa is going to need a bigger expense account... :)

    Personally, I'm hoping that OCZ adds TRIM prior to September.

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware.com
    Reply
  • chefboyeb
    Jesus!
    Reply
  • greenrider02
    I saw defense of the Vertex 3's occasional low numbers, but no mention of the solid (and sometimes better) performance that the cheaper and more miserly Crucial m4 showed throughout your tests.

    Perhaps you have some bias towards the Vertex 3 that needs reconsideration?

    Other than that, $700 seems like a fair price when considering the performace difference, especially if utilized properly, for instance as a high traffic web/corporate server
    Reply
  • acku
    greenrider02I saw defense of the Vertex 3's occasional low numbers, but no mention of the solid (and sometimes better) performance that the cheaper and more miserly Crucial m4 showed throughout your tests.Perhaps you have some bias towards the Vertex 3 that needs reconsideration?Other than that, $700 seems like a fair price when considering the performace difference, especially if utilized properly, for instance as a high traffic web/corporate server
    If you read the first page then you know that I give a nod to Vertex 3s as the fastest MLC based 2.5" SSD. I consider that plenty of love. :).

    We'll discuss the lower capacity m4s in another article. FYI, I suggest that you read page 5 and page 6. We are not testing FOB. We are testing steady state. That's part of the reason the SF-based drives are behaving differently with incompressible data.

    On your second point, this is in no way targeted toward an enterprise environment (that's what Z-drives are for). There is no redundancy in the array if a single SF controller fails. The whole card is a dud afterward. You can add higher level redundancy, but enterprise customers have so far been nervous on SandForce products. Plus, there's a general preference for hardware vs. software redundancy. (That's them talking not me). Overall, this makes it unacceptable for any enterprise class workload.




    Reply