Archive Home arrow Reviews: arrow Storage arrow OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSD
OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSD E-mail
Reviews - Featured Reviews: Storage
Written by Olin Coles   
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Table of Contents: Page Index
OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSD
Closer Look: OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS
SandForce SF-2281 SSD Controller
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
HDD vs Hybrid Drive vs SSD
OCZ Vertex 3 MI SSD Conclusion

HDD vs Hybrid Drive vs SSD

It's been the same argument for over two years now: SSDs offer the best performance, but HDDs still offer the best capacity and price. Now that Solid State Hybrid drives are available, that argument changes. While the optimal blend of bandwidth speed, operational performance, storage capacity, and price value has yet to be delivered, products like the Seagate Momentus-XT offer an ultra-affordable start in the right direction Installed as a primary drive for notebook and value-conscious enthusiasts, the Solid State Hybrid Drive delivers up high-capacity storage space while starting Windows and opening programs like a SSD.

The last days of old technology are always better than the first days of new technology. Never has this saying been more true than with the topic of storage technology, specifically in regard to the introduction of Solid State Drive technology a few years ago. The only things standing in the way of widespread Solid State Drive (SSD) adoption are high storage capacity and affordable price of Hard Disk Drive (HDD) devices. Because NAND flash-based SSD technology costs more per gigabyte of capacity than traditional magnetic hard drives, the benefits of immediate response time, transfer speeds, and operational input/output performance often get overlooked. Like most consumer products, it wasn't a question of how much improvement was evident in the new technology, it was price. I'll discuss product costs more in just a moment, but for now consider how each new series of SSD product employs greater performance than the one before it, convincing would-be consumers into waiting for the right time to buy.

OCZ-Vertex3-Max-IOPS-SSD-Angle.jpg

There's also a gray area surrounding SSD performance benchmarks that has me concerned. You might not know this, but SSDs can be very temperamental towards the condition of their flash NAND. My experience testing dozens of Solid State Drives is that a freshly cleaned device (using an alignment tool) will always outperform the same device once it's been formatted and used. A perfect example are Indilinx Barefoot-based SSDs, which suffers severely degraded performance when writing to 'dirty' flash NAND. The reason that all of this will matter is simple: the performance results reported to consumers in product reviews (such as this one) often report the very best performance scores, and the process used to obtain these results is not applicable to real-world usage. This is where garbage collection techniques such as TRIM become important, so that end-users will experience the same performance levels as we do in our tests.

Garbage Collection (GC) is the current solution for keeping flash NAND in 'clean' condition, while maintaining optimal performance. Windows 7 offers native TRIM support, and most retail SSDs also include this special GC function or at least offer a firmware update that brings the drive up-to-date. For anyone using an Operating System or SSD that does not offer Garbage Collection functionality, you'll be using 'dirty' flash NAND modules and suffering sub-optimal performance for each write-to request. A few SSD manufacturers offers free tools to help restore peak-level performance by scheduling GC to 'clean' used NAND sectors, but these tools add excessive wear to the NAND the same way disk defragmenting tools would. SLC flash modules may resist wear much better than MLC counterparts, but come at the expense of increased production cost. The best solution is a more durable NAND module that offers long-lasting SLC benefits at the cost of MLC construction. Adoption is further stalled because keen consumers aware of this dilemma further continue their delay into the SSD market.

Getting back to price, the changes in cost per gigabyte have come as often as changes to the technology itself. At their inception, high-performance models such the 32GB MemoRight GT cost $33 per gigabyte while the entry-level 32GB Mtron MOBI 3000 sold for $14 per gigabyte. While an enjoyable decline in NAND component costs forced consumer SSD prices down low in 2009, the price of SSD products was on the rise during 2010 and continued into 2011. Nevertheless, solid state drives continue to fill store shelves despite price or capacity, and there are a few SSD products now priced dangerously close to the high-performance storage solutions. Despite being less expensive, the cost of SSDs may still price some budget buyers out of the market. Sales prices notwithstanding, the future is in SSD technology - or possibly a high-capacity SSD hybrid - and the day when HDDs are obsolete is nearing close.



 

Comments 

 
# RE: OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSDSteven Iglesias-Hearst 2011-05-25 00:15
Damn another good show from the OCZ labs. OCZ and SSD's are like Intel and CPU's....
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSDOlin Coles 2011-05-25 07:47
I would agree. OCZ has transformed themselves into an enthusiast storage brand, and I would consider them an industry leader in performance storage products above all others.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSDHsew 2011-05-25 17:30
Personally I'm just waiting for the Corsair Force 3 SSDs to become available (85k write IOPS advertised) and tested before a decision can be made.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSDRobert17 2011-05-25 18:59
Another tip of the hat to OCZ is in order. Good review Olin.

The only "con" to your review, one of few I've ever had, is the slight hit you issued in your conclusion regarding "expensive enthusiast" product. OK, it is contrary to the masses and their hard earned dollars, no question. The 240 Gb version at $2.58/Gb is a goodly sum. But looking at it from a performance standpoint, and thinking of the terminology "enthusiast" makes me think of it not as a "con" but pretty mainstream, if not reasonable as far as bang-for-buck goes.

There's my two cents worth, raising the price to $2.60/Gb. But no one will pay, right?
Report Comment
 
 
# Leading brand does not always equal bestAndrew Rose 2012-02-24 07:53
I just bought a new Sandforce 2281 based Sata III SSD from one of the lesser known brands Comay, cost me 135 ($211) for a 120GB venus 3e model. I put it on ATTO and it lives up to manufacturers claims, mind blowing performance:
80,103 IOPS Random Write (4k)
36,120 IOPS Random Read (4k)
556MB Sequential Write
515MB Sequential Read

Really solid build aswell, which perhaps isn't suprising since these guys apparently are better known in the military/rugged world. Shaping up to be one of best purchases I ever made!
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Leading brand does not always equal bestSteve watts 2012-02-28 16:47
Andrew can you tell us where? I only see them for sale on ebay, and they are more expensive on there. Are you running linux? I'm looking for an SSD with specs something like that with max 4k iops to give a performance hike to an Oracle database.
Report Comment
 
 
# Performance varies greatly with capacity.Homer 2011-05-25 23:44
Theres not enough explanation in this review(and others) about performance with different capacities.

The 240GB drive is much faster than the 120Gb drive. It gets even worse with 60/64 Gb(like vertex 2 series) drives which can be 70% slower than the 240Gb drive with incompressible write speed.

This review gives people the impression that a 120GB drive will perform like a 240GB drive but they do not.

I know its part of the marketing to send only the big fastest drives to reviewers but the performance difference between capacities should be more clearly explained
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Performance varies greatly with capacity.Olin Coles 2011-05-25 23:53
You must not have read the review. I mention (in three places) that the 240GB version performs better than the 120GB version. This is also evident to anyone who can read the specifications.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSDSteve White *The Stav* 2011-05-27 10:56
Re : OCZ Vertex 3
comment just sent - unclear as to why the above 2 fields have bounced back yet contents of message was sent?
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSDOlin Coles 2011-05-27 11:16
Please explain. I'm not really sure what you're saying.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSDThe Stav 2011-05-27 19:53
# OCZ Vertex 3 - The Stav
Olin, my response was not directed at your valid comment.
I simply sent a lengthy comment to Benchmark Reviews about the relevance
of the performance of the slowest component in a system - the hard drive.
It was not published.
I run 2 older Sata2 SSD's (A-RAM 32Gb) in Raid 0 to kick start the system and run a few apps. When I was using a single SSD and Ubuntu 9.04 the read/write speed was 270/253 Mb. In terms of the 'IOPS' I had no idea and didn't appreciate the importance as an equal indicator of overall system performance.
All of my other mid range bits that make up the system are more than adequate for what I do....6 core AMD,a GTX460, a Raptor storage drive, a SATA3 & USB3 motherboard, blue-ray burner,2 LED 22" screens etc.
My point and I'm sure many of you have read that the money spent on the hard drive replacement 'SSD' should be the priority.
When I get the bucks OCZ will be my next upgrade.
Question : when in Raid 0, is the read/write & IOPS doubled also?
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS Edition SSDOlin Coles 2011-05-27 20:21
It's impossible to say if RAID-0 doubles IOPS without testing. Some components will come close, while others will not. The host controller also comes into play, and can determine how much headroom is available for bandwidth.
Report Comment
 
 
# Does RAID 0 double read/write & IOPsPaul A. Mitchell 2011-06-09 07:23
As a general rule, RAID 0 arrays do NOT scale in a linear fashion.

And, as Olin wisely adds, a LOT depends on the controller.

The closest we've come to near-linear scaling was the combination of a Highpoint RocketRAID 2720 and 4 x Hitachi 15,000 rpm 2.5" SAS HDDs each with 64MB of cache:

3 x HDDs in RAID 0 topped out at 441 MB/second
4 x HDDs in RAID 0 topped out at 618 MB/second

We would not have ever tried 3 x HDDs, except that one was
defective from the factory, so we configured a RAID 0 with 3
of these Hitachis, while we waited for the replacement to arrive.

But, this near linear scaling has been the exception, NOT the rule, in our experience with RAID 0 arrays (which we use often, primarily for speed).


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul A. Mitchell, Instructor,
Inventor and Systems Development Consultant

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Report Comment
 
 
# 2 x SSDs in OS "software RAID"?Paul A. Mitchell 2011-06-09 07:15
Hi Olin,

Thanks again for another good review.

A question keeps coming up, as I read these various reviews:
if TRIM does not work with multiple SSDs configured in a RAID array,
do you happen to know if TRIM will work if each SSD is configured
in AHCI mode, and then joined to an OS "software RAID"?

Do you have enough instrumentation at your lab to answer this question?

I'm aware that an OS "software RAID" cannot host the OS,
but I have an XP software RAID running well with 2 x 6G WD HDDs,
hosting a dedicated data partition, and it appears to work just fine.

RSVP if/when you have the time.

Thanks again! Keep up the good work.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul A. Mitchell, Instructor,
Inventor and Systems Development Consultant

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: 2 x SSDs in OS "software RAID"?Olin Coles 2011-06-09 08:05
Hello Paul:

So long as the drives are in AHCI/IDE mode with an OS that supports TRIM (Microsoft Windows 7), then the commands will receive the SSD. Hardware RAID does not use AHCI/IDE mode, and will not pass along TRIM commands. So if you're using Windows 7 (not XP) and configure mirrored sets in the Disk Management console using AHCI/IDE SSDs, then it's not truly RAID and you'll have the benefit of TRIM support... with the penalty of a CPU/RAM hit for software mirroring.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: 2 x SSDs in OS "software RAID"?Paul A. Mitchell 2011-06-09 08:45
> configure mirrored sets in the Disk Management console using AHCI/IDE SSDs


Thanks again, Olin!

By "mirrored sets" do you mean RAID 1, for example, and not RAID 0?

Also, just to clarify, do you predict the same for RAID 0 / striped arrays using OS software RAID?

This could be the topic for another Review, perhaps.


p.s. With so many quad-core CPUs proliferating, now with hyper-threading too, the CPU-RAM hit does not seem to be a huge penalty to pay, particularly for desktop and workstation users.

Also, users who have shrunk their C: system partitions have probably also created dedicated data partitions e.g. D:+ Those dedicated data partitions would be good candidates for a software RAID, particularly if TRIM will work reliably, as described above.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul A. Mitchell, Instructor,
Inventor and Systems Development Consultant

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: 2 x SSDs in OS "software RAID"?Olin Coles 2011-06-09 08:47
I don't mean RAID of any kind. Window Disk Management doesn't offer RAID, it offers Mirrored Disks. This is the most ideal software-based redundancy you can get.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: RE: 2 x SSDs in OS "software RAID"?Paul A. Mitchell 2011-06-09 08:53
> Window Disk Management doesn't offer RAID, it offers Mirrored Disks.

XP/Pro supports software RAID 0 also:
we have it running on a P45 chipset
with 2 x 6G Western Digital 1TB HDDs.

I'm not currently a Windows 7 user,
but I would expect that the same is true
for Windows 7.

The partitions need to be changed to "Dynamic" first;
but after that, it's a piece o' cake to configure software RAID 0
as long as the drive letter is NOT C: .

One needs to use the OS to effect this configuration,
so structural changes to C: are not possible at this point.


Do you have some spare hardware laying around,
with which to try it? Maybe 2 x 6G SSDs (my preference)?

OCZ might be particularly interested in this experiment,
with your usual battery of benchmark tests.


You be the "Benchmark Man" -- to be sure!!


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul A. Mitchell, Instructor,
Inventor and Systems Development Consultant

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 2 x SSDs in OS "software RAID"?Paul A. Mitchell 2011-06-09 09:00
See e.g.:

##softwaresecretweap ons.com/jspwiki/windows-7-software-raid-disk-partition-and-volume-context-menus

"New Striped Volume" is an option.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul A. Mitchell, Instructor,
Inventor and Systems Development Consultant

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 2 x SSDs in OS "software RAID"?Paul A. Mitchell 2011-06-09 09:03
Note:
somehow "softwaresecretweapon s.com"
became "softwaresecretweap ons.com" above:

just eliminate that extra space after "weap"


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul A. Mitchell, Instructor,
Inventor and Systems Development Consultant

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 2 x SSDs in OS "software RAID"?Olin Coles 2011-06-09 09:15
Windows XP does not support TRIM.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 2 x SSDs in OS "software RAID"?Paul A. Mitchell 2011-06-09 09:54
Yes, I realize that:

The experiment I'm suggesting would need Windows 7
to configure a software RAID 0 with 2 x 6G SSDs
initialized in AHCI mode.

The question at hand: will Windows 7 pass TRIM commands
to 2 x SSDs configured in an OS software RAID 0?


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul A. Mitchell, Instructor,
Inventor and Systems Development Consultant

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 2 x SSDs in OS "software RAID"?Olin Coles 2011-06-09 17:07
AFIK, Windows 7 doesn't support software RAID-0 with Disk Manager.
Report Comment
 
 
# reportedly: 3 editions of Windows 7 support RAID 0Paul A. Mitchell 2011-06-09 17:41
#superuser.com/questions/7683/which-software-raid-modes-does-each-version-of-windows-7-support

[begin quote]

The Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate editions of Windows 7 officially support the following dynamic disk modes:

* Simple
* Spanned
* Striped (RAID-0)
* Mirrored (RAID-1)

These are the officially supported modes. It has been possible in previous Windows releases to enable unsupported modes through DLL modifications and/or registry changes, and this will probably be the case in Windows 7 as well. At your own risk, of course.

RAID-5 dynamic disks are only available in Windows Server editions.

Note that dynamic disks are not available in the Standard/Home editions of Windows 7.

[end quote]


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul A. Mitchell, Instructor,
Inventor and Systems Development Consultant

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Report Comment
 
 
# crucial vs oczAleksander1337 2011-06-15 00:13
OCz used max performance but 4k its still to low. ... so its not top vs crucial c300 and we can say c300 is top still u know why ? When OCZ made max performance vs seq they loss vs crucial in 4k mode and why we need ocz just wait when comes new disk cruciall. .. u will see u will neeed more money to spend :D
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: crucial vs oczOlin Coles 2011-06-15 07:16
Your message doesn't make any sense. The OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS edition SSD outperforms all of the Crucial SSDs in every IOPS test... especially 4K read/write tests. Did you even read this review, or do you just simply like Crucial product more?
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