OCZ's Vertex 3: Second-Generation SandForce For The Masses

Features
By Andrew Ku
published

Test Setup

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Test Hardware
ProcessorIntel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge), 3.3 GHz, LGA 1155, 8 MB Shared L3, Power-savings enabled
MotherboardGigabyte GA-H67MA-UD2H
MemoryKingston Hyper-X 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1333 @ DDR3-1333/1066, 1.5 V
Hard DriveIntel X25-M 160 GB SSDSA2M160G2GC, SATA 3Gb/s (System Drive)
Row 4 - Cell 0 Kingston SSDNow 100 V+ 120 GB SVP100S2/128G, SATA 3Gb/s
Row 5 - Cell 0 OCZ Agility 2 120 GB OCZSSD2-2AGTE120G, SATA 3Gb/s
Row 6 - Cell 0 Seagate Momentus 5400.6 500 GB ST9500325AS, SATA 3Gb/s
Row 7 - Cell 0 OCZ Vertex 2 120 GB OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G, SATA 3Gb/s
Row 8 - Cell 0 Western Digital VelociRaptor 300 GB WD3000HLFS, SATA 3Gb/s
Row 9 - Cell 0 G.Skill SATA II 64 GB FM-25S2S-64GB, SATA 3Gb/s
Row 10 - Cell 0 OCZ Vertex 3 Pro 200 GB Beta Sample, SATA 6Gb/s
Row 11 - Cell 0 OCZ Vertex 3 240 GB Beta Sample, SATA 6Gb/s
Row 12 - Cell 0 Crucial C300 256 GB CTFDDAC256MAG SATA 6Gb/s
GraphicsIntel HD Graphics 3000
Power SupplySparkle 1250 W, 80 PLUS
System Software And Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
DirectXDirectX 11
Graphics DriverIntel Display Driver 8.15.10.2266
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Benchmarks
Performance MeasurementsCrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64, set to read and write random data to drivePCMark Vantage 1.0.2.0
I/O PerformanceIOMeter 2008.08.18, default configuration, not reading/writing random dataFile server Benchmark, Web server Benchmark, Database Benchmark, Workstation BenchmarkStreaming Reads, Streaming Writes4 KB Random Reads, 4 KB Random Writes

If you have been paying attention to the news, you already know about the SATA degradation problem in the H67 and P67 chipsets. As you know, this only affects the 3 Gb/s ports. We're testing on the 6 Gb/s ports here, so our results are unaffected.

Andrew Ku
57 Comments Comment from the forums
  • lradunovic77
    SSD prices are really down slow and that is because HDD is still selling.
    Reply
  • lradunovic77
    I agree and it is time for HDD to be retired. We don't need them anymore, but Servers.
    Reply
  • bildo123
    A far cry as far as "the masses" are concerned. Still, over $2/GB is too much. Getting closer however. I'd pay $200 for a 256GB SSD with these speeds.
    Reply
  • lradunovic77
    I am sure price will really drop by end of this year.
    Reply
  • acku
    mayankleoboy1the fact that they use ~15% of a quad core SB CPU, is amazing.with the mechanical drives, they were just sitting idle. this more than anything, makes the SSD worthwhile.
    Well what I didn't mention in the review is that the benchmark starts as ~20% across all cores during the first 10 seconds, which is from PCMark setting up the disk trace. After that, the IO activity throttles a single core up to 100% for almost all SSDs. For the hard drives, we see ~60-80% utilization of a single core.

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware.com
    Reply
  • lradunovic77
    I say keep your desktop active all the time. I am running i980x overclocked to 4.0Ghz and there is no way i will put my computer into any type of power saving mode, it is useless and power saving is just mimick. We are talking about very small amount of money over a year. Having Turbo option makes sense from certain point of view but bottom line is that it is just wasted silicon and pretty much useless.
    Reply
  • vvhocare5
    "The problem is that any price above $2/GB is going to be a hard sell unless you're an early adopter by nature. Our choices in recent System Builder Marathon stories reflect this. Look at our December $1000 PC."

    Overall a good article. Anyone into MTBF's will find that one page uninforming and anyone not into it is likely lost.

    I would disagree with that statement only in the sense that a $1000 PC is not going to be filled with high-end superior performing parts. So I dont see a reason to apologize for its price. The person who can afford a $3000+ PC isnt going to blink buying the 240G model and will likely see it as entirely reasonable.

    Me? I think I have found my next ex-drive.....

    Reply
  • acku
    so as i said, will OC increase the scores a bit?

    and what about power saving enabled?

    None of our tests were executed in an environment that allowed any idling. Furthermore, we disabled CPU throttling. Power saving was enabled in the sense that the display was allowed to turn off, which is part of the default profile in Windows.

    OCing may increase performance, but only to the extent that the bandwidth will support it. As I mentioned, PCMark throttles a single core up to 100%. It isn't a sustained trend.
    Reply
  • bto
    on your 1000 dollar gaming system, I'd rather have a vertex 3 than two 460's hell even an agility 2... and still afford better than a 460.
    Reply
  • bto
    But then that's me, and to quote the great Inigo Montoya, "I hate wait" and most games I play are not bleeding edge, I also work on my computer, play HD movies and copying time makes me angry when I'm moving files. Buy an ssd, and later spend 60 bux on a 1tb drive down the road.
    Reply