Skip to main content

OCZ Vector 256 GB Review: An SSD Powered By Barefoot 3

Test Setup And Benchmarks

We suspect that a shift to Windows 8 is going to affect our storage benchmarking to some degree. However, making the shift is also going to require a lot of re-testing, which we don't have done quite yet. As a result, we're sticking with our Windows 7-based platform today.

Test Hardware
ProcessorIntel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge), 32 nm, 3.1 GHz, LGA 1155, 6 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled
MotherboardGigabyte G1.Sniper M3
MemoryKingston Hyper-X 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1333 @ DDR3-1333, 1.5 V
System DriveOCZ Vertex 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s
Tested DrivesIntel SSD 320 300 GB SATA 3Gb/s, Firmware: 1.92
Intel SSD 320 80 GB SATA 3Gb/s, Firmware: 1.92
Intel SSD 330 180 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 300i
Intel SSD 330 120 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 300i
Samsung 830 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: CXMO
Samsung 830 64 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: CXMO
Crucial m4 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s Firmware: 0309
Crucial m4 64 GB SATA 6Gb/s Firmware: 0009
OCZ Vertex 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.15
OCZ Vertex 3 120 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.22
OCZ Vertex 3 60 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.15
OCZ Agility 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.22
OCZ Agility 3 120 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.22
OCZ Agility 3 60 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.22
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 1.5
OCZ Agility 4 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 1.5
OCZ Agility 4 128 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 1.5
OCZ Vertex 4 64 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 1.5
Samsung 840 Pro 512 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: DMX02B0Q
Corsair Neutron GTX 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: M206
OCZ Vector 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 1.02
GraphicsPalit GeForce GTX 460 1 GB
Power SupplySeasonic 760 W, 80 PLUS Gold
System Software and Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 7 x64 Ultimate
DirectXDirectX 11
DriverGraphics: Nvidia 270.61 RST: 10.6.0.1002 Virtu: 1.1.101
Benchmarks
Tom's Hardware Storage Bench v1.0Trace-Based
Iometer 1.1.0# Workers = 1, 4 KB Random: LBA=8 GB, varying QDs, 128 KB Sequential, 8 GB LBA Precondition
PCMark 7Storage Suite
  • gnesterenko
    "In the real world, it's almost a certainty that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them (or a number of the nearly-as-fast but tangibly less expensive models featured each month in Best SSDs For The Money)."

    This, This, This. All SSDs are pretty amazing at this point for me, the average user. What I care fare more about is - Are they reliable. At the moment, it still seems that Intel holds the reliability crown. Reviews like this are great, for sure, but they don't answer the most important question sadly.
    Reply
  • acku
    gnesterenko"In the real world, it's almost a certainty that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them (or a number of the nearly-as-fast but tangibly less expensive models featured each month in Best SSDs For The Money)."This, This, This. All SSDs are pretty amazing at this point for me, the average user. What I care fare more about is - Are they reliable. At the moment, it still seems that Intel holds the reliability crown. Reviews like this are great, for sure, but they don't answer the most important question sadly.
    Let's make one thing clear. Endurance, reliability, durability, they all refer to different things.

    When it comes to reliablity, everything we know is rather anecdotal. There are no published RMA rates (only return rates and for a 500 sample size), so its rather flawed. Second, two users subject their SSDs in different ways. The first may have more random data in their workload. You can't make an evaluation that drive x failed for user y therefore its bad. What you do matters. Unlike HDDs, performance and characteristics of the drive change based on what you do to it. Since no two users do the same thing with their system, the only real way to test this out is to get a few thousand SSDs, subject them to the same workload in a big data center for a few years. I'd love to do this but naturally, it's really not feasible. :)

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    Reply
  • mayankleoboy1
    So basically all good SSD's are constrained by the SATA3 interface. I cant wait for the direct PCIE interface(express pcie ?) to become standard.
    Reply
  • Hupiscratch
    Do these drives (specially the Samsung 840) support TRIM in RAID 0 arrays or this is a property related to the chipset?
    Reply
  • acku
    HupiscratchDo these drives (specially the Samsung 840) support TRIM in RAID 0 arrays or this is a property related to the chipset?
    That's a mobo thing. You're going to want a 7-series chipset from Intel.

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    Reply
  • Jerky_san
    Jebus Samsungs are such strong contenders on all fields..
    Reply
  • edlivian
    i dont care how much slower the crucial m4 is compared to the new kids on the block, I will keep stocking them for myself and company, since that is the only one that has never failed me.
    Reply
  • acku
    10447277 said:
    i dont care how much slower the crucial m4 is compared to the new kids on the block, I will keep stocking them for myself and company, since that is the only one that has never failed me.

    Glad to hear the m4s are working out for you! Indeed, they have a pretty good track record.

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    Reply
  • dingo07
    So should I buy some of thier stock now...? It can't get much lower than them going out of business from the lawsuits... :/
    Reply
  • I just hope that there won't be as many firmware updates with this drive. I got tired of that with my past 2 OCZ SSD's (Vertex 3 & Vertex Turbo). It was way too often, almost as much as my GPU drivers. That being said, they both have given me no issues whatsoever and run like champs. I see a 256GB Vector in my future.
    Reply