Sequential Performance – HDTach, HDTune, File Copy, YAPT (sequential)
We have shifted over to combining our results into two groupings for consumer reviews. First up is sequential performance:
HDTach:
HD Tach will test the sequential read, random access and interface burst speeds of your attached storage device (hard drive, flash drive, removable drive, etc). All drive technologies such as SCSI, IDE/ATA, 1394, USB, SATA and RAID are supported. HDTach tests sequential performance by issuing reads in a manner that was optimized more for HDD access, but this unique method has proven useful in evaluating the sequential response time of SSDs. The accesses are relatively small in size (2k), and are issued with a single working thread (QD=1). The end result is that devices with relatively IO high latency will not reach their ultimate rated speed.
We see some oddities here. The Patriot Ignite had issues with HDTach's QD=1 reads, but that problem has been solved in the Trion 100's, presumably due to firmware tuning. What was odd was the write speeds. Typically SSDs with limited write speeds only do so at the lower cpaacities, and those speeds tend to scale as capacity goes up. If you double the number of dies on an SSD, you effectively double the possible throughput to the flash. Either the Trion 100's just do not like QD=1 writes, or there is something else at the controller level hanging up the write throughput. More to follow on that front as these benches continue…
HDTune:
HDTune tests a similar level of features as compared with HDTach, but with a different access pattern. Thus provides us with an additional set of benchmark numbers to compare between storage configurations. CPU utilization has proven negligible with modern processing horsepower, and is no longer included. Additionally, we do not include write performance due to HDTune's write access pattern not playing nicely with most SSDs we have tested it on.
We have HDTune configured to perform large block reads, but the test is performed after the HDTach run (small sequential writes). No trouble with reads on the Trion 100 units here, though Phison in general seems a bit less solid than the competition in this metric.
PCPer File Copy Test
Our custom PCPer-FC test does some fairly simple file creation and copy routines in order to test the storage system for speed. The script creates a set of files of varying sizes, times the creation process, then copies the same files to another partition on the same hard drive and times the copy process. There are four file sizes that we used to try and find any strong or weak points in the hardware: 10 files @ 1000 MB each, 100 files @ 100 MB each, 500 files @ 10 MB each and 1000 files at 1 MB each.
Well now we know that it was not just HDTach's QD=1 performance as the cause for the slow write speeds. File creation test results are equally as bad here for the Trion, as all three capacities are beaten by a three year old 1TB Velociraptor (hard drive) in nearly every test.
We know the read performance of the Trion 100's is good, so the poor results here are most likely solely the result of the poor write speeds seen earlier.
YAPT:
YAPT (yet another performance test) is a benchmark recommended by a pair of drive manufacturers and was incredibly difficult to locate as it hasn't been updated or used in quite some time. That doesn't make it irrelevant by any means though, as the benchmark is quite useful. It creates a test file of about 100 MB in size and runs both random and sequential read and write tests with it while changing the data I/O size in the process. The misaligned nature of this test exposes the read-modify-write performance of SSDs and Advanced Format HDDs.
YAPT tests with a workload that is small enough to fit within the SLC cache area of the Trion 100's, so those results are only of the SLC speed available. Later in this article we will determine just how much SLC we have to work with.
OCZ….Meh!
OCZ….Meh!
Not even Toshiba could save
Not even Toshiba could save them from the very bad habit of making crappy SSDs, lol.
Maybe they will come out with
Maybe they will come out with a NVME version!!!!?
OCZ in the name is deal
OCZ in the name is deal breaker for me. Lot of hype and nothing at the business end. 2nd deal breaker is TLC flash. Not a fan of it by long shot. I would be more optimistic if they come with pure TLC drive and like 4-5TB capacity for 400-500$.
If they want to take a stab at something, stab the region where no competition reached before. And that’s beefy SSDs for the masses intended as storage. You don’t need 500MB/s+ transfers here. Also random access/write/read is not major factor. I said as long as SSDs are around. Storage of rarely accessed data that’s the only good place for SSDs.
$.10 per GB I like that
$.10 per GB I like that idea
BackBlaze StoragePod made of only SSD
Only like $20k
Thanks for the solid write
Thanks for the solid write up, Allyn.
As I see it, OCZ continues to struggle. I thought with Toshiba acquiring them, allowing the access to Toshiba’s inventory “at cost,” they would provide some solid SSDs at affordable prices. Think Crucial. Instead we have prices higher than Samsung with subpar performance.
I’d love to support OCZ but they make it so darn hard! Unless they have some huge OEM contracts, I don’t see how they can stay relevant.
Perhaps Toshiba should ask
Perhaps Toshiba should ask their manufacturing partner Sandisk
for a little help here,as it’s possible the flash they are using
is exactly the same………………..
Haven’t seen write speeds that low since the 120GB-840……
Uphill battle-even if OCZ reduces prices by 30% they still have
the-“Friends don’t let friends OCZ” to contend with…………
It makes you wonder why OCZ
It makes you wonder why OCZ released this product when they could clearly see in their testing/validation that it couldn’t compete with the 850 Evo? Releasing a product after the competition that costs more that offers worse performance? *sigh*
My spoon is too big…
My spoon is too big…
*Sings in David Bowie’s
*Sings in David Bowie’s voice*
G-g-g-g-GAR-BAGE, G-g-GARBAGE. G-g-g-g-GAR-BAGE, Ga-ga-GARBAGE!
One major plus for me is that
One major plus for me is that OCZ offers a linux version of their “SSD Guru” utility. I’m wondering if some of the short comings in this review might be mitigated by an update.