Archive Home arrow Reviews: arrow Storage arrow 240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State Drive
240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State Drive E-mail
Reviews - Featured Reviews: Storage
Written by Olin Coles   
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Table of Contents: Page Index
240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State Drive
OCZ Vertex 3.20 SSD
Features and Specifications
SSD Testing Methodology
AS-SSD Benchmark
ATTO Disk Benchmark
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 Tests
Iometer IOPS Performance
EVEREST Disk Benchmark
PCMark Vantage HDD Tests
OCZ Vertex 3.20 Conclusion

SSD Testing Methodology

Solid State Drives have traveled a long winding course to finally get where they are today. Up to this point in technology, there have been several key differences separating Solid State Drives from magnetic rotational Hard Disk Drives. While the DRAM-based buffer size on desktop HDDs has recently reached 64 MB and is ever-increasing, there is still a hefty delay in the initial response time. This is one key area in which flash-based Solid State Drives continually dominates because they lack moving parts to "get up to speed".

However the benefits inherent to SSDs have traditionally fallen off once the throughput begins, even though data reads or writes are executed at a high constant rate whereas the HDD tapers off in performance. This makes the average transaction speed of a SSD comparable to the data burst rate mentioned in HDD tests, albeit usually lower than the HDD's speed.

Comparing a Solid State Disk to a standard Hard Disk Drives is always relative; even if you're comparing the fastest rotational spindle speeds. One is going to be many times faster in response (SSDs), while the other is usually going to have higher throughput bandwidth (HDDs). Additionally, there are certain factors which can affect the results of a test which we do our best to avoid.

SSD Testing Disclaimer

Early on in our SSD coverage, Benchmark Reviews published an article which detailed Solid State Drive Benchmark Performance Testing. The research and discussion that went into producing that article changed the way we now test SSD products. Our previous perceptions of this technology were lost on one particular difference: the wear leveling algorithm that makes data a moving target. Without conclusive linear bandwidth testing or some other method of total-capacity testing, our previous performance results were rough estimates at best.

Our test results were obtained after each SSD had been prepared using DISKPART or Sanitary Erase tools. As a word of caution, applications such as these offer immediate but temporary restoration of original 'pristine' performance levels. In our tests, we discovered that the maximum performance results (charted) would decay as subsequent tests were performed. SSDs attached to TRIM enabled Operating Systems will benefit from continuously refreshed performance, whereas older O/S's will require a garbage collection (GC) tool to avoid 'dirty NAND' performance degradation.

It's critically important to understand that no software for the Microsoft Windows platform can accurately measure SSD performance in a comparable fashion. Synthetic benchmark tools such as ATTO Disk Benchmark and Iometer are helpful indicators, but should not be considered the ultimate determining factor. That factor should be measured in actual user experience of real-world applications. Benchmark Reviews includes both bandwidth benchmarks and application speed tests to present a conclusive measurement of product performance.

Test System

  • Motherboard: ASUS P8P67 EVO (Intel P67 Sandy Bridge Platform, B3 Stepping)
  • Processor: Intel Core i7-2600K 3.4 GHz Quad-Core CPU
  • System Memory: 4GB Dual-Channel DDR3 1600MHz CL6-6-6-18
  • SATA 6Gb/s Storage HBA: Integrated Intel P67 Controller
    • AHCI mode - Intel Rapid Storage Technology Driver 11.7.0.1013
  • SATA 3Gb/s Storage HBA: Integrated Intel P67 Controller
    • AHCI mode - Intel Rapid Storage Technology Driver 11.7.0.1013
  • Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Edition 64-Bit with Service Pack 1

Storage Hardware Tested

The following storage hardware has been used in our benchmark performance testing, and may be included in portions of this article:

Test Tools

  • AS SSD Benchmark 1.6.4067.34354: Multi-purpose speed and operational performance test
  • ATTO Disk Benchmark 2.46: Spot-tests static file size chunks for basic I/O bandwidth
  • CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1a by Crystal Dew World: Sequential speed benchmark spot-tests various file size chunks
  • Iometer 1.1.0 (built 08-Nov-2010) by Intel Corporation: Tests IOPS performance and I/O response time
  • Lavalys EVEREST Ultimate Edition 5.50: Disk Benchmark component tests linear read and write bandwidth speeds
  • Futuremark PCMark Vantage: HDD Benchmark Suite tests real-world drive performance

Test Results Disclaimer

This article utilizes benchmark software tools to produce operational IOPS performance and bandwidth speed results. Each test was conducted in a specific fashion, and repeated for all products. These test results are not comparable to any other benchmark application, neither on this website or another, regardless of similar IOPS or MB/s terminology in the scores. The test results in this project are only intended to be compared to the other test results conducted in identical fashion for this article.



 

Comments 

 
# RE: 240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State Drivekzinti1 2013-05-27 22:56
There was an article not too long ago that OCZ was going out of business.
Are they or not? They keep coming out with new products so apparently not.
I'd forward the article but now I can't find it.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: 240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State DriveOlin Coles 2013-05-28 07:02
You can't find it because we never wrote that OCZ was going out of business. We did write about their layoffs and stock value about seven months ago:
benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20789
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: 240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State Drivekzinti1 2013-05-28 07:25
I never mentioned that it was you that wrote the article. Never!
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: 240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State DriveMugsy 2013-05-28 06:02
I'm most impressed by the benchmark results for the Vertex 4, which are consistently at or near the top of every test, and well above the 3.20.

I'm disappointed not to see any RAID configurations thrown into the mix (most notably, how a Raid-0 of the 120 compares to a single 240.)
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: 240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State DriveOlin Coles 2013-05-28 07:04
Almost nobody purchases a SSD to put it into a RAID-0 array, so obtaining a second drive for the sake of pleasing 1/10000 of the readers wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: 240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State DriveMugsy 2013-05-28 07:35
Begging your pardon, but that's a pretty stupid reply.

With a 120GB SSD running at almost exactly have the price as it's 240GB older brother, the possible performance increase over running two 120's over two SATA-III ports vs running a single 240 over just one SATA-III port, seems a bit near-sided.
Report Comment
 
 
# lalamoeb 2013-05-28 07:44
as far as i know in raid-0-mode trim and other vital features do not work
Report Comment
 
 
# Trim, RAID 0, Z77Bruce 2013-05-28 08:50
The Z77 Intel Chipset supports Trim with RAID. It's a shame that it only supports two SATA 6Gb/s ports, limiting RAID options to RAID 0 or RAID 1.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: RE: 240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State Drivekzinti1 2013-05-28 08:01
You do know that the only storage capacity running a pair of 120GB ssd's in RAID-0 is 120GB don't you?
You only obtain a faster speed and still have only the capacity of one 120GB ssd. The designation "240 GB's" is meaningless when describing this.
Paying twice just for a bump in speed is what's completely stupid.
If you lose one drive then you lose the info on both drives in RAID-0.
RAID-0 is just fine for hdd's to get a worthwhile gain in speed.
For SSD's the speed increase is not worth the expense. Just a complete waste of money.
I use 500 GB Samsung SSD's and don't RAID them. They're more than fast enough as is and running a pair in RAID-0 would just be ludicrous.
I own 5 of these, so far, that cost $319.99 each. I am more than happy with their speed as is.
If it were possible, all I would do is run them as JBOD. Same speed but double capacity.
Report Comment
 
 
# RAID-0Mugsy 2013-05-28 08:45
Raid-0 is not redundant. It is simple "striping", so you will have all 240GB available. (only Raid levels above 0 that allocate one drive just for recovery "wastes" a drive.)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. But then again, neither do you.

The pitfalls of using Raid-0 (lose one drive and lose everything) is the same whether you use SSDs or HDDs. I ran Raid-0 with two HDDs for years with no problem. SSDs are (no longer) more susceptible to failure than most HDDs.

You claim Raiding SSDs is "not worth the expense", but with two 120GB going for $240 and a single 240GB going for $220, the "expense" is only $20 whereas the performance gains might more than justify the extra money (but we don't know b/c they never tested it.)

Whether YOU are satisfied with the speed of your single SSDs is a matter of usage and personal preference. *I* however edit LARGE A/V files frequently that would greatly benefit from the faster Read/Write speeds of Raid-0.
Report Comment
 

Comments have been disabled by the administrator.

Search Benchmark Reviews
QNAP Network Storage Servers

Follow Benchmark Reviews on FacebookReceive Tweets from Benchmark Reviews on Twitter