 |
Review: OCZ Octane 512GB SSD |
Back in March 2011, OCZ Technology acquired Indilinx.
Indilinx should be no stranger to MyCE members, as most will fondly remember
the Indilinx Barefoot SSD controller. Barefoot was the first SSD controller to
truly challenge the Intel G1/G2 SSD, and in many cases it actually performed
better then the Intel G2 SSD.
The Barefoot controller found its way into many SSDs of the
time, including the original OCZ Vertex and Agility series of SSDs. They became
instant hits, and there are many people still using these early SSDs, myself
included.
Everything was looking rosy for Indilinx; they were
developing an SATA 6Gbps SSD controller codenamed JetStream, but for whatever
reason, Indilinx couldn’t bring this new controller to market. SandForce burst
on to the scene with their mighty SF-1200 controller and later the even more
powerful SATA 6Gbps solution (SF-2281) was launched, and Indilinx became almost
forgotten, that was until OCZ announced they were to acquire Indilinx.
When you think about it, owning a company that designs and
manufactures an SSD controller platform puts you in a very strong position. You
no longer have to rely on a third party to supply you with an SSD controller,
and you can optimise this platform in any way you wish. Bringing all this in
house should ultimately reduce costs as well.
OCZ certainly haven’t rushed things, and now nine months
down the line, OCZ have launched their first SSD controller since acquiring
Indilinx, the Indilinx Everest SSD platform.
OCZ were kind enough to send me a review sample of their
first series of SSDs to use the Indilinx Everest platform, the OCZ Octane
series. The Octane is available in capacities from 128GB all the way up to 1TB,
with the slowest being the 128GB version and the fastest one being the 1TB
version. The review sample I was sent was the 512GB version and you can see the
specifications of the full range a little later on in this article.
Stop press
Just as I was about to publish the review, a new firmware
was introduced by OCZ. The new firmware is said to boost 4K random write
performance by up to 65% on the OCZ Octane 512GB SSD. The firmware is available
from the OCZ support website, so if you have an Octane already you can also
update to this new firmware.
Please be advised. To update to the new firmware, the
flash process is destructive, meaning all the data on the SSD will be erased
when you flash the new firmware. Please make a backup of all data before
flashing to the new 1.13 firmware.
I have re-run the tests with the new 1.13 firmware, and this
review is based on the performance of firmware 1.13. Where possible I have also
included results from the original 1412 firmware that was on the review sample
when it arrived.
So, let’s find out how this new SSD performs in our range of
tests.
OCZ Technology company information
OCZ should need no introduction, but for those of you who
would like to find out more about OCZ Technology, you can do so at their website.
The OCZ Octane 512GB SSD
Now it’s time to take a look at the drive itself and what it
came shipped with.
Package front
The packaging is a very simple affair of a snap open and
close clear plastic covering.
Internal packaging
card, back and front
OCZ Octane SSD
The casing of the OCZ Octane SSD is made from strong metal;
in fact the Octane series of SSD uses the strongest and thickest grade of
casing I have ever witnessed on any SSD I have reviewed.
Drive rear
On the rear of the drive I found a couple of labels. The
labels state the drive model and serial numbers, and also that the drive was
manufactured in Taiwan. We can also see the drives SATA power and data
connectors.
Instruction booklet
Bragging sticker
Inside the package is the Octane SSD itself, an instruction
booklet in multiple languages, and the familiar “My SSD is faster than your
HDD” sticker.
Now let's head to the next page, where we look in more
detail at the OCZ Octane series SSD.
OCZ Octane hardware.
Now let’s take a closer look at the hardware.
Drive internals
OCZ Octane series 512GB
SSD (PCB top-side)
On the top side of the PCB, we can see the Indilinx Everest
SSD processor, eight 25nm MLC NAND chips manufactured by Intel, and the first
of two 256MB cache chips. The eight small chips which can be seen in various
places around the PCB are believed to be channel muxing chips, which are there
to provide maximum throughput from each of the 16 NAND packages found on the
Octane 512GB SSD.
OCZ Octane series 512GB
SSD (PCB underside)
On the underside of the PCB we can see another eight NAND
chips, and the other 256MB of cache.
Indilinx Everest SSD controller
Above we can see the new Indilinx Everest SSD controller,
designated IDX300X01-BC. The Everest is a dual core processor clocked at
275MHz, most likely an ARM.
512MB DDR3 SDRAM cache
Coupled to the Everest controller is 512MB of DDR3 SDRAM cache
made by Micron, which consists of two 256MB cache chip packages, which provides
a stable read and write buffer for the SSD controller.
Intel 25nm MLC NAND
The OCZ Octane 512GB SSD has 512GB of Intel ONFI 2
synchronous MLC NAND onboard, with a life expectancy of 5000 P/E cycles, and a
user capacity of 477GB.
Indilinx Everest block diagram
There isn’t a lot known about the Everest controller at this
time. We can see the Everest controller can support up to 8 NAND channels with
16 way interleaving. We can also see at least one proprietary technology which
Indilinx call nDurance. At a guess I would say nDurance will be managing
garbage collection, dynamic and static wear levelling and how TRIM is acted
upon.
Specifications
I found the following specifications at the OCZ Technology
website.
Drive maintenance features
For Windows 7 users and some distributions of Linux, the OCZ
Octane series supports ATA TRIM to keep the NAND clean. The OCZ Octane series
also has, as I touched on above, advanced garbage collection to clean the NAND
during drive idle periods.
OCZ SSD Toolbox
From the toolbox the user is able to monitor the SSD health
status via SMART, securely erase the drive, and also update the drive's
firmware.
Note: To update the drive's firmware, the drive needs to be
connected as a spare, since Windows cannot flash a drive that is running the
operating system. The same applies to secure erasing the SSD.
If the OCZ Octane is the only drive in the system, then OCZ
provides a “Live” Linux based SSD Toolbox which runs from a CD-R or USB pen
drive, and will allow the SSD to be secure erased or the drives firmware to be
updated.
The OCZ Octane review sample arrived with firmware version
1412, but a firmware update became available just before I published this article.
The firmware was updated to version 1.13, and all the tests were re-run to
include the results from the new firmware. Where possible, I have also included
the results from the older 1412 firmware, so you can compare performance.
Let’s head to the next page where we take a look at our
testing methods and the review PC.
Test machine
For this review I will be using a computer with the
following configuration:
Hardware:
- Motherboard: AsRock Z68 Extreme 4 (Intel Z68 chipset)
- Processor: Intel 2nd generation Core i7 2600K
- RAM: 8GB G.Skill RipjawX DDR3 1600MHz (dual channel)
- GFX: Onboard Intel HD 3000
- Sound: Onboard Realtek ALC889 HD audio controller
- Hard disk OS: OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD
- Hard disk storage: 1X 500GB Samsung Spinpoint F3, and 1X 1TB
Samsung Spinpoint F1. - Case: Antec 900
- PSU: Enermax Liberty 620W
- Display: Dell UltraSharp U2412M 24” widescreen IPS LCD (HDCP
compliant) - Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit with Service Pack 1
The OCZ Octane series SSD was connected to the Intel native SATA
6Gbps (port 0) on the Z68 motherboard of our review PC and all tests on the drive
were carried out with the drive connected to this port.
AHCI mode was also selected for all drives in the UEFI of
our test PC, and all tests were carried out in this mode.
The SATA 6Gbps drivers used on our review PC were the Intel
Rapid Storage Technology (RST) Version 10.6.0.1002.
Test applications
To test the performance of the OCZ Octane series 240GB SSD,
I will be using the following test applications in this review.
- HD Tune Pro
- ATTO
- Iometer
- AS SSD
Benchmark - CrystalDiskMark
- MyCE Reality Suite
- Anvil’s
Storage Utilities
Test procedures
I will start off our testing procedures explanation by
stating that I did not run many synthetic benchmarks on the OCZ Octane series
SSD. You may ask why I have run so few synthetic benchmarks?
SSD technology has moved so fast in the last couple of years,
that basic synthetic benchmarks alone are now of very limited use, as they don't
really tell us much about performance and how the drive will behave in the real
world. I have therefore decided to show some basic benchmarks of the OCZ Octane
series SSD, and will complement this with advanced benchmarks using IOMeter and
AS SSD benchmark. I will also show how the OCZ Octane SSD performs in the real
world with our MyCE Reality Suite test.
The reality of SSD performance
While I can easily show you which SSD is technically the
faster, when you use one of these modern SSDs as an operating system drive it
becomes very difficult to tell them apart as far as performance is concerned.
A typical use of a small capacity SSD at the moment is to
have your operating system and applications installed onto the SSD. The
performance difference compared to a traditional HDD is enormous, however when
you start to compare SSD to SSD the difference becomes almost impossible to
detect.
Let’s look at why this is the case.
Drive A can boot to the desktop in 8.11 seconds, and drive B
can boot to the desktop in 8.12 seconds, the difference in time is
milliseconds, and can one really tell the difference?
The fact is, all modern SSDs are only ticking over when they
are only running the OS and launching applications, it’s only when you get to
some of the larger capacity SSDs, with enough free space to be able to hold the
actual data that you’re going to be working with, be that video, audio or
pictures, for example, that you actually get a tangible difference in
performance. This is where the SSDs with the better sequential performance start
to pull well ahead of the SSDs which have lower sequential read/write
performance.
Small file random IOPS vs sequential performance
IOPS
This is a fairly complex subject, but I will do my best to
explain things in a manner that is easy to understand.
The term IOPS is the amount of input or output transactions
that can take place in a one second interval, so for example, if an SSD is
quoted as being able to cope with 20,000 4K random write IOPS, then the SSD
should be able to cope with 20,000 input transactions in a period of one
second. If the same SSD is said to be able to produce 20,000 4K random read
IOPS, then the same SSD should be able to produce 20,000 4K random read output
transactions in a one second interval.
Ok, now we have some figures to work with, the next question
is how many IOPS are actually required?
This will depend on your usage pattern. If you are a typical
desktop user who browses the internet, does some word processing or perhaps
some audio or video editing, and perhaps plays a few games, then in actual
fact, you don’t need to have massive 4K random read/write performance. The
actual amount of 4K random performance that is required for a fast and smooth
running system for a desktop user with a usage pattern similar to the above
will be well under 1,000 4K IOPS.
On the other hand, if the SSD is being used for running a
large and complex database server, then 4K random performance is the absolute
measurement of how fast that server will run, as this type of application does
most of its input and output transactions in the 4K domain.
So why would I need an SSD with 60,000 4K IOPS for a
desktop?
In fact you don’t need this type of performance for a
desktop, but an SSD which is capable of coping with 60,000 4K IOPS will be
faster than an SSD which can only cope with 20,000 4K IOPS.
OK, I just said if under 1,000 4K IOPS are actually required
for typical desktop usage, why is an SSD with 60,000 4K IOPS faster than an SSD
with only 20,000 4K IOPS, confused?
You may ask, if I only require 1,000 4K IOPS surely the rest
is wasted?
While you may never need 60,000 4K IOPS, IOPS is all about
latency. The reason that an SSD can cope with as much as 60,000 4K IOPS is
because latency in this domain is very low. With 4K files, even if you require
to process 500 of them at the same time, you are not talking about a huge
amount of data, it has far more to do with how long it takes the SSD to process
a single file, and the amount of time required to process a single 4K is all
about how long it takes for the SSD to access or store that data before it can
move on to the next transaction.
In other words an SSD with 60,000 4K IOPS performance will
handle those 500 files faster than the SSD with 20,000 IOPS.
So how will a desktop user even notice this faster speed if
so little 4K random IOPS and data are actually used?
Multitasking is a good example. The more tasks you run at
the same time, you more you will notice the speed difference.
Sequential performance
I have always maintained that sequential performance was
every bit as important as small random file performance for a desktop SSD. Some
highly regarded people on other sites found this statement quite funny a couple
of years ago when I made it, but my, how times have changed in the world of SSD
reviewing.
To me this was always so obvious for a desktop user. For
example, let’s say you want to launch an application or game. Both have some
fairly large files to load, and also a great many small files, but the point
is, even the smaller files are sequential in nature. Now let’s say you’re into
audio or video editing. Video files tend to be huge, and the files are written
or read sequentially. Isn’t this how many users are using their PCs these days?
Summary
So how does this shape up in the real world? Which is
better, massive 4K IOPS or massive sequential performance?
In an ideal world you want both, as an SSD with massive
random 4K IOPS and sequential performance will always be faster than an SSD
that has high sequential performance and moderate 4K random IOPS performance,
and the same applies to an SSD that has massive 4K random performance and
moderate sequential performance. The SSD which has high performance in both
patterns will always be the faster SSD.
However, you can still have an SSD that is very fast for
desktop use that has moderate random 4K performance and massive sequential
performance, the same can be said about a drive having massive random 4K performance
and moderate sequential performance, as it is about getting the balance right
if you have to compromise on one or the other.
Test drives
- 120GB OCZ Vertex SSD (firmware 1.5) SSD
- 500GB Samsung SpinPoint F3 (HD502HJ) HDD
- Seagate Momentus XT 500GB (Hybrid drive)
- OCZ Agility 120GB (firmware 1.5) SSD
- Intel X25-M 80GB (series G1) SSD
- OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD
- Plextor PX-256M2S SSD
- Crucial RealSSD C300 128GB SSD
- OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD
- Intel 510 series 120GB SSD
- Crucial M4 256GB SSD
- OCZ Octane 512GB SSD
Drive preparation for running the tests
All the SSDs used in this article were in a clean and fresh
state when the testing period started. From then on, each drive had to rely on
its own NAND cleaning effectiveness for the remainder of the tests.
- Both our spinning HDD drives were defragged before the
start of each test.
- All SSD and HDD used in this article had their partitions
aligned to the Windows 7 x64 defaults.
Where I use graphs in this article to display results, I
will use the following colours to make it easier, for our readers to see which drive
we are reviewing.
OCZ Octane 512GB SSD (firmware
1.13)
OCZ Octane 512GB SSD (firmware
1412)
Comparison SSD
Comparison HDD
Now let's head to the next page, where I look at some
basic benchmarks...
Reading Benchmarks
HD Tune
HD Tune – Sequential
reading test
I present the graph below for comparison with other recently
tested drives.
The OCZ Octane performance was extremely impressive with an
average reading speed of 513.2 MB/s, but what is even more impressive is the
incredible average access time of only 0.039ms.
ATTO disk benchmark
ATTO has become a standard tool for measuring the data
throughput of HDD and SSD. It measures the performance of reading and writing,
using different file sizes and block sizes.
The reading speed results on the OCZ Octane series are
extremely impressive, topping out at over 475 MB/s, writing speeds are not quite
so impressive as the reading speeds, but still top out at over 316 MB/s.
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
Crystal Disk Mark is quite a handy benchmarking application,
as it focuses on the file sizes that can cause a problem on a system drive.
As we can see in the above screenshots, the OCZ Octane is
performing extremely well.
AS SSD Benchmark
AS SSD benchmark is a benchmarking tool specifically
designed to test SSDs. The application tests sequential reading and writing
performance, 4K random reading and writing performance.
AS SSD benchmark also tests 4K threaded performance. This is
very exciting, as this test is the first available test that I am aware of,
that simulates how a PC operating system actually works. A modern PC and OS,
such as Windows Vista/7 does not just run a single thread at a time, it runs
many threads. The AS SSD benchmark "4K 64Thrd" tests run 64 threads
simultaneously throughout the test. If this result is good, then you can be
pretty sure the drive will perform extremely well as a system drive.
After the tests complete, AS SSD benchmark derives a total
score for the drive being tested. This is based on all aspects of the test
results, and gives an indication of how the drive is performing overall.
Now let’s look at the result from the OCZ Octane series in
the form of a screenshot. All our other comparison drives’ results are
presented in the form of a graph.
The OCZ Octane 512GB SSD finishes in fourth place overall,
and is well behind the OCZ Vertex 3 and the Crucial C300 and M4. However, just
look at the read/write access times, which are excellent and will prove to be
the key factor (amongst others) that allows the OCZ Octane to outperform the
big guns from SandForce and Crucial in many of the real world tests, which will
appear a little later in this article.
Summary:
It’s a mixed bag. The OCZ Octane series SSD is fast, but
can’t compete with the OCZ Vertex 3, Crucial M4, and C300 with small file
random write performance. However, sequential performance is excellent, and
those incredible read/write access times should provide for some very
interesting reading later in this article.
Synthetic benchmarks don’t lie, but they only show what an
SSD can do technically when it’s pushed very hard, and this has very little relevance
in a normal user's desktop PC, as we will see later in this review.
Let's head to the next page for our IOMeter test
results.....
I/O Performance
There is little point of having an SSD drive that has
blazing sustained reading and writing speeds, if the drive can't handle reading
and writing of small random files. If you intend to use your new SSD drive to
store and run your operating system, then the drive must be able to cope with
the many small random files that Windows will write to the drive continually.
So I feel it is very important to test how many of these random files that a
drive can handle in one second. I believe that anything over 1,000 I/O’s per
second would be enough for most users running a consumer grade mainstream PC,
and should provide a smooth running system. But obviously, the more I/O's that
a drive can handle, the faster the drive will feel and leave more headroom for
those huge multitasking sessions that users sometimes engage in.
The things that I will look at are the total I/O per second and
total MB/s.
Partition alignment and sector boundaries
Windows 7 and Vista will automatically align a partition to
4k boundaries during partition creation, Windows XP won’t. It is imperative
that an SSD’s partition is aligned. Windows XP is also restricted to sector
boundaries, while Windows 7 will use 4k boundaries if it can. The Intel 510 is
4k boundary aware, and will use these boundaries if possible. Of course it will
also remap LBAs for compatibility with the sector boundaries so that the drive
can be used with Windows XP.
IOMeter allows us to set the sector boundaries for
conducting the tests, and I have therefore set the sector boundaries at 4K,
which means the IOMeter tests are valid for Windows 7 and Windows Vista users.
XP users will not be able to obtain such results.
I will provide a screenshot of the tests on the review drive
for those of you who like to see the actual test result. All the comparison
drive results are represented in the form of graphs.
If any of you would like to see a screenshot from any
IOMeter test on a particular drive, please feel free to request one, and I’ll
post the screenshot in the forum thread.
All the IOMeter tests create a 10GB data set on the target
drive, and each test is run for a duration of 3 minutes.
IOMeter 4K random write test with repeating data.
The first test involves creating continual 4KB random files
on the target drive with IOMeter. I use a 4KB file size, as it is believed that
Windows will create and modify many of this size of file constantly in the
background during a typical Windows session. It is said that most 4K random
writes take place at a queue depth of only one, and I have been requested to
include this test in my reviews.
Queue depth 1
OCZ Octane 512GB SSD
– 4K random write (QD1)
At 57.4 MB/s the OCZ Octane is performing very well indeed,
although it can’t quite compete with the might of the OCZ Vertex 3 and the
Crucial RealSSD C300 in this department.
Our next test involves creating continual 4KB random files
on the target drive with IOMeter. I use a 4KB file size, as it is believed that
Windows will create and modify many of this size of file constantly in the
background during a typical Windows session. I will use queue depths of 4 and
32 for these tests.
Queue depth 4
OCZ Octane (Queue depth 4)
At a queue depth of 4, the OCZ Octane is performing very
well.
Queue depth 32
OCZ Octane (Queue depth 32)
The OCZ Octane series isn’t the fastest when faced with
creating 4K random files, and is a long way behind the SandForce based Vertex 2,
Vertex 3, and also the Crucial M4. Queue depths above 8 yield no more
performance, unlike the SandForce based SSDs which scale all the way up to a
queue depth of 32.
IOMeter 4K random write test with incompressible data.
This test is exactly the same as the test above except that
the test data is incompressible. This test was requested as SandForce based SSDs
gain a lot of performance by being able to compress data on the fly. While the
above test shows the SandForce based SSDs in a best case scenario, the
following test will show the SandForce based SSDs in a worst case scenario. In
the real world, the data is neither 100% incompressible nor 100% compressible,
it is somewhere in between. So please keep this in mind.
Queue depth 4
OCZ Octane 512GB SSD
– 4K random write (QD4 100% incompressible data)
While incompressible data has slowed down the OCZ Vertex 3
by nearly 100 MB/s, it is still miles ahead of the OCZ Octane.
4K random write queue depth profile
For this test I used various queue depths from 1 – 32 to
give you an idea how this SSD performs at different queue depths. For a normal
desktop user for lightweight multitasking, the queue depth will rarely rise
above 2. For heavy multitasking, the queue depth is unlikely to rise above a
value of 8.
The result is below.
As we can see, the OCZ Octane is quite a bit behind the OCZ
Vertex 3 and Crucial C300 in this test, but nonetheless, the OCZ Octane is
performing very well with firmware 1.13.
Below I present a table of the results in more detail.
IOMeter 4K random read test.
If there are many 4k files created, then that must also mean
that many 4k files need to be read. This test measures 4k reading performance.
It is said that most 4K random reads take place at a queue
depth of only one, and readers have requested that I include this test in my
reviews.
Queue depth 1
OCZ Octane 512GB SSD
(Queue depth 1)
The Crucial RealSSD C300 is the fastest but the OCZ Octane
is close behind, and the OCZ Octane series SSD is faster than the OCZ Vertex 3.
Queue depth 4
OCZ Octane 512GB SSD
(Queue depth 4)
The OCZ Octane is showing strong performance here. It isn’t
quite as fast as the Crucial SSDs, but it does come close to the performance of
the Crucial M4 in this test.
Queue depth 32
OCZ Octane 512GB SSD (Queue depth 32)
The OCZ Octane series has performed well, but is still quite
a long way behind the Crucial RealSSD C300, Crucial M4, and the SandForce based
Vertex 3.
4K random read queue depth profile.
This test shows how the review drive scales with increasing
queue depths.
Below I present a table of the results in more detail.
The OCZ Octane series performs extremely well here, and is
ahead of the SandForce based SSDs at lower queue depths, although it starts to
fall behind at queue depths 16 and above. It can’t however compete with the
Crucial RealSSD C300.
IOMeter 512KB write test with repeating data.
Sequential writing performance is also very important; in
this test sequential writing performance is measured.
OCZ Octane 512K Sequential write with repeating data
The OCZ Octane had excellent sequential writing performance
with firmware 1412, but firmware 1.13 having been optimised for small random
performance has meant that sequential writing performance has suffered. It’s
still very good with firmware 1.13, but it’s a pity that it has dropped by over
50MB/s.
IOMeter 512KB write test with incompressible data.
This test is exactly the same as the test above except that
the test data is incompressible. This test was requested as SandForce based SSDs
gain a lot of performance by being able to compress data on the fly. While the
above test shows the SandForce based SSDs in a best case scenario, the
following test will show the SandForce based SSDs in a worst case scenario. In
the real world, the data is neither 100% incompressible nor 100% compressible,
it is somewhere in between. So please keep this in mind.
OCZ Octane 512GB SSD – 512K sequential write with incompressible data
When the OCZ Vertex 3 was faced with small file random data
in a form that wasn’t compressible, it didn’t really have much of an impact on
the performance. With sequential non compressible data, things are different
for the Vertex 3, and it couldn’t keep pace with the Octane with firmware 1412,
which manages to pull ahead of the Vertex 3. Things are turned around with
firmware 1.13, and the Vertex 3 is faster.
IOMeter 512KB read test.
This test measures 512k sequential reading performance.
OCZ Octane 512GB SSD – 512K sequential reading test
Sequential reading performance is still very impressive with
firmware 1.13, but it has lost 30MB/s when compared to the older 1412 firmware.
IOMeter Workstation simulation (outstanding I/Os = 64).
When running applications you will find that there is a
mixture of small random files, and larger sequential files, being created and
read. Not only that, it isn’t just one file at a time. In this test I measure a
simulated workstation pattern, with a queue depth of 64 (threaded).
OCZ Octane 512GB SSD – Workstation simulation
The OCZ Octane didn’t perform that well with the older 1412
in this test, but we can see that with firmware 1.13 things are very much
improved, and the OCZ Octane is doing very well in this test.
Summary
Overall, the OCZ Octane 512GB SSD has performed well in the
IOMeter tests. It has excellent sequential performance, and very good small
file random performance when queue depths are low. This probably means the
Octane will not be a great choice for enterprise use, but then again, this is
not the market segment that the Octane is aimed at. For mainstream desktop use
and gaming, the Octane should perform extremely well
Now let’s head to the next page where we will look at how
the OCZ Octane SSD performs using a brand new benchmarking application....
Anvil’s Storage Utilities
As well as performing SSD endurance tests. Anvil’s Storage
Utilities has a very nice SSD benchmarking application. The SSD benchmark tests
many different aspects of SSD performance, including 4K random at different
queue depths, and also sequential performance, but more importantly than this,
all using real test data.
Another very nice feature of Anvil’s SSD benchmark is the
fact that you can change the compression levels of the test data. The
compression levels of the data sets used for the tests can be varied from 0%
compression right up to 100% compressed data, and there are even a few data
profiles already included, such as database (8%) compression, and also an
application profile (46%) compression, which is designed to simulate real application
data being read and written to the SSD.
Anvil’s Storage Utilities is still in beta at the moment,
but the application is currently solid enough to use in this article, and I have
already verified the results obtained using an SATA analyser.
I will include a screenshot of the review drive, and all
comparison results will be presented in the form of graphs.
I will also be testing three different compression profiles,
which are as follows.
- 0 fill (100% compressible data)
- Application simulation profile (46% compressed)
- 100% (non compressible data)
So let’s begin the tests.
0 fill
OCZ Octane series 512GB
(0 fill)
Total score
Writing score
Reading score
With data that is 100% compressible it is no surprise that
the OCZ Vertex 3 is much faster than any of the other SSDs.
Application profile
OCZ Octane series 512GB
SSD (application profile)
Total score
Writing score
Reading score
Once again the OCZ Octane is in third place overall.
100% incompressible
OCZ Octane series 512GB
SSD (100% incompressible)
Total score
Writing score
Even with data that is 100% incompressible, the high queue
depths in some of these tests, and the sheer grunt of the SF-2281 controller
has made sure that the OCZ Vertex 3 is by some margin the fastest SSD. The
Octane has once again done very well, but ultimately its inability to scale
well at higher queue depths has meant that the Octane is in third place
overall.
Summary
One should keep in mind that although Anvil’s Storage
Utilities SSD benchmark is a very good benchmark, and tests many aspects of SSD
performance, ultimately it is showing which SSD is technically the fastest, and
this may not be showing (for example) which drive will be fastest in the real
world with a home user's work pattern.
The OCZ Octane has performed very well in these tests and while
it has only managed third place overall; it is still an excellent performer.
Now let's head to the next page for some real world tests....
It has become clear that simply conducting endless
benchmarks on SSD drives is pointless. Real users may run a few benchmarks when
they first fit their SSD drive, but most users just want a drive that performs
well in the real world. They want their drive to work "out of the
box" and work fast and smoothly.
Most of the latest SSD drives can deliver very fast
sustained reading and writing speeds, but these alone tell you very little
about how the drive will perform in the real world.
If you intend to use your SSD as your primary system drive,
with an operating system and applications installed and running from the drive,
real world performance becomes much more important than just fast sequential
read and write speeds.
Real world copy
tests
I will now conduct a few real world copy tests. These tests
simulate what real people do with their drives. I will be conducting writing
tests, using a large single file and a multiple file copy of various file
sizes. Then I will round off the tests by copying a folder of MP3 audio files,
and also a folder of JPG pictures.
I should point out that this is not a scientific way of
measuring performance. These timings were taken with a stop watch; I have
however ensured that the reading drive is well able to supply a data stream to
our writing drive, which is high enough not to be slowing down the performance
of the writing drive.
I will once again be comparing the obtained results with our
comparison drives, and will present the results in the form of graphs.
Multiple file copy writing test
For this test I copied the Nero Burning Rom install folder
from our review PC to the OCZ RevoDrive X2 240GB SSD, and then copied the
contents from the OCZ Vertex 3 to the OCZ Octane series SSD and our other
comparison drives.
Our test copy contained 1,772 files of various sizes with a
combined capacity of 307MB.
The OCZ Octane is only just beaten by the Vertex 3, but is
showing an excellent turn of speed, even with small files containing real data.
Single large file writing test (7.95GB)
For this test I used a single DVD9 ISO file which had been
copied to the OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD. The file was then copied to the OCZ
Octane series 512GB SSD and our comparison drives.
The large ISO file contains quite a lot of incompressible
data which is quite a handicap to the Vertex 3, so much so that the OCZ Octane
steams ahead, and is by quite some margin the fastest SSD in this test.
Write a folder of JPG picture files.
For this test I copied a folder of JPG picture files from
our OCZ Vertex 3 SSD to the OCZ Octane series SSD, and our other comparison
drives. The folder contained 3,714 JPG pictures, with a total capacity of
5.16GB.
The queue depths are quite high in this test, so the Octane
doesn’t have quite so much of an advantage, but it is still the fastest SSD in
this test.
Write a folder of MP3 audio files.
For this test I copied a folder of MP3 audio files from our
OCZ Vertex 3 SSD to the OCZ Octane series SSD and our other comparison drives.
The folder contained 851 MP3 audio files, with a total capacity of 3.85GB.
Once again the OCZ Octane has claimed first place in our
table, and is performing excellently.
Summary
Despite the fact that the OCZ Octane has modest small file
random performance, when it comes to the real world scenario of moving around
some pictures and audio files on the PC, the OCZ Octane is a very fast drive,
in fact the fastest drive in these copy tests.
Single drive copy tests
These tests are to simulate a single drive in a PC or
laptop. In other words, I will copy a series of files from one folder on the
tested drive to another folder on the same drive. This means the drive is simultaneously
reading and writing during the tests. I also want to make this a realistic test,
so I have used a folder of MP3 music files, and then repeated the test with a
folder of JPG picture files.
Single drive copy tests – 851 MP3 song files (3.85GB total)
The OCZ Octane’s very good reading and writing performance, with
data that is largely non-compressible, has made sure that it is the fastest SSD
in this test.
Single drive copy tests – 3,714 JPEG picture files (5.16GB total)
With higher queue depths in this test, the OCZ Vertex 3 should
have an advantage, but offset this with data that isn’t so easily compressed,
and the OCZ Octane pulls comfortably ahead of the Vertex 3.
Windows start-up and closedown
For these tests, I simply used a stop watch and tested the
amount of time taken for a full installation of Windows 7 to boot to the
desktop, and then timed how long it took for Windows 7 to close down by the normal
start menu method.
The timing was started once the BIOS had initialised and
reached the “loading OS message”.
Windows 7 boot time
Windows 7 closedown
The OCZ Octane is the fastest SSD to boot Windows 7 to the desktop;
however the difference in speed from our other tested SSDs is marginal. The Octane
was also the fastest SSD when closing down our review PC.
Installing applications
Installing applications is possibly something you don't do
that often. But should you replace your system disk, then you will most likely
have to re-install your applications. Most of the SSD drives I have tested up
until now are quite slow at installing applications, most likely because their
I/O performance was quite limited.
For these tests, we picked some popular applications and
copied the entire contents of the CD or DVD media to an OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD.
We did this to make sure that the reading speed of our CD/DVD reader would not
hamper the performance of the target drive.
We then installed these applications onto our comparison HDD
drives, which were all running mirror image installations of our Windows 7 Home
Premium 64-bit installation, and timed the amount of time taken to install the
application with a stopwatch on each of the drives.
MS Office 2007 Professional (full install)
MS Office is another of those applications that make you
cringe at the thought of re-installing it.
Let's find out how our drives coped with the MS Office 2007
full install.
The OCZ Octane was second fastest when installing this large
office suite.
Adobe Fireworks CS3
Adobe Fireworks CS3 is another popular package. Let's find
out how our drives coped with installing this application.
There isn’t a huge margin in the amount of time taken to
install this application with our modern SSDs. However, the OCZ Octane series
is in second place in our table.
Summary
Our real world tests, though not scientific in nature, I
feel are more realistic than simply running benchmarks. What is clear from these
tests is that the OCZ Octane 512GB SSD has excellent performance in the real
world. It is also worth noting that the new firmware (1.13) really does boost
real world performance when compared to the older 1412 firmware.
Let’s check out application and game loading performance
on the next page of this article.....
These tests are very simple tests, but very important to
some users of SSD drives.
We simply started an application or game, and measured the
time taken for the application or game to fully load and start.
Application loading times
Adobe Fireworks CS3
These types of tests are becoming pretty pointless, as there
is so little difference in tangible performance between the modern SSDs.
Corel PaintShop Pro 12
Again, I doubt anyone could tell difference from the fastest
to the slowest modern SSD, as they are all very close.
Games loading times
FAR CRY 2
Once again, the results are all so very close. Too close to
make any tangible difference between the fastest and slowest modern SSD.
F.E.A.R. 2
It’s the same story again; the modern SSDs are all so very
close in terms of loading performance.
Now let’s round off this article with the MyCE Reality
Suite tests on the next page.....
MyCE Reality Suite (storage).
So what is the MyCE Reality storage test?
The MyCE Reality Suite of tests is made from real everyday
applications and real data, there are no simulated tests, and everything is in
the real world. The only thing that's synthetic is that everything is automated
to make the tests fair, no matter which drive the tests are run on.
Recorded user sessions, by means of a script, are used to
launch the applications, load data, edit data, and then finally write that data
back to the target drive. The scripts do load the system much more than a human
could with these tests, as the scripts do not make mistakes, or pause to think
about what has to be done next.
Measurement system (revision 2)
The measuring system is part hardware and part software. The
hardware is proprietary and under an NDA, but what I can tell you is: The
measuring system can now accommodate SATA2, SATA3, USB3, PCIe, and DMI.
Testing method.
Once all the test data files were complete, they were then
copied to a single folder. I then fitted an old 80GB HDD into the PC and did a
clean install of Windows 7 Home Premium x64. The latest hardware drivers were
installed and Windows update was run to install any new updates that were
available up to 08/01/2012. At this point the applications that were to be used
in the tests were installed and updated with the latest patches.
The folder containing the application test data files was
then copied over to our fresh Windows 7 HDD. The drive was cleaned up and then
the four test scenarios were recorded, with the scenario playback data file
which will run each test scenario saved to the desktop. A drive snapshot was
then taken of the complete HDD and the drive snapshot image copied to a second
HDD for safe keeping.
The image is then simply restored to each of the drives on
test. In the case of SSDs the partition is then realigned “on the fly” and for
SSDs that support TRIM, the free space is filled and then deleted to force
TRIM. All other HDDs and SSDs in the system are then disconnected to make sure
the complete test can only run on the drive I am testing.
A 20 minute settling time is allowed before the tests are run,
then each of the 4 tests is run and the results gathered. This process is
repeated for each of the drives I am testing.
The test scenarios are as follows.
- Graphics content
- Video editing
- Audio import and compression
- Application multitasking
Let’s begin the tests.
MyCE Reality Suite – Graphics content.
Using ACDSee Pro 3, 100 JPG pictures with an average size of
10MB are imported into the ACDSee library, and then 12 of these JPG files are
then selected for a batch process, of resize, compress the quality to 80%, and
finally write the edited pictures back to the drive. The test is approximately
78% read and 22% write.
The OCZ Octane has excellent reading performance and writing
performance with largely incompressible data, so it’s no real surprise to find
the OCZ Octane is out in front. What was a bit of a surprise was how far it was
out in front.
MyCE Reality Suite – Video editing.
Using Vegas Pro, a 14GB HD MPEG2 video stream is loaded into
the editor, from which 2 segments are then cut and pasted into new segments. There
is a lot of disc caching going on in this test, and the test is approximately
55% read and 45% write.
Once again the OCZ Octane is out in front, but this time the
margin isn’t quite as high as it was in the graphics content test.
MyCE Reality Suite – Audio import and compression.
Using Sony Sound Forge 10, a batch process is run consisting
of 30 24bit (192000 Hz sample rate) .wav files, and 100 16bit (44100 Hz sample
rate) .wav files are imported and then converted to MP3 audio files with a bit rate
of 128kbps, and the converted files are written back to the drive. The test is
approximately 72% read and 28% write.
This OCZ Octane is once again the fastest, but the SandForce
SF-2281 based Vertex 3 is close behind.
MyCE Reality Suite – Application multitasking.
For this test I used several popular applications, Microsoft
Word 2007, Microsoft Access 2007, Microsoft Excel 2007, Microsoft Outlook 2007,
Adobe reader, Adobe Photoshop CS3, uTorrent, Windows media player, and Internet
Explorer 8.
This session runs for approximately 12 minutes. The test is
started by downloading a Linux distribution via uTorrent, Windows media player
is then opened and a 1080p video file is opened and played for the duration of
the test. Microsoft Outlook is opened and any new emails are received, read,
then replied too, a document in Adobe reader is opened and scrolled from start
to finish, 3 Microsoft Word documents with graphics content are opened, browsed
and some sections of the documents are copied and pasted into a forth document
and then saved back to the drive. The same applies to Microsoft Access and
Excel. 100 MP3 files are imported into Windows media library. Six JPG images
are loaded into Adobe Photoshop and some minor editing is done and the files
saved back to the drive.
Finally, Internet Explorer 8 is opened with 10 tabs, and the
contents of the 10 tabs refreshed, and browsed while the other applications are
busy in the background.
I would describe the multitasking pattern as moderate to
heavy.
During this test there is approximately 85% reading and 15%
writing.
This time the OCZ Octane is beaten into second place, which
is no real surprise when the queue depths start to get a bit higher, and the
Octane can’t quite keep pace with the Vertex 3, although it does come quite
close with the new 1.13 firmware.
Summary
I firmly believe that the MyCE Reality Suite gives a very
good overall picture of how a drive can perform in the real world, and in this
case, the OCZ Octane 512GB SSD is performing extremely well.
Now let’s head to the next page, and see how well the
drive performs after heavy use....
Speed degradation after heavy testing
On this page I will test how the SSD performs after heavy
testing and usage.
I now have a new policy as to how I go about testing an SSD.
In the past I would deliberately try and get an SSD into a “used state”, by
filling the drive several times before starting the tests. This seemed to work
quite well up until the SandForce based SSDs appeared, but because of the way
the SandForce controller works, it was near impossible to tell if deliberately
trying to get a SandForce based SSD into a “used state” had actually worked on
not.
A new strategy was required. So now I begin the tests with
the SSD in a clean state and allow it to look after itself during the testing
period. I start off the tests by running AS SSD benchmark. This gives me the
“as new” reading and writing performance of the SSD.
Once all the tests have been completed, the drive is then
tested as a system drive, and just used normally for many days which will also
includes idle time (which is something I have always done with a review sample).
At the end of the period, the drive is filled to capacity and then all files
are deleted from the drive and then a “quick format” is performed.
The last test is a rerun of AS SSD benchmark, and the result
from the final test is compared with the first run when the SSD was in an “as
new” state.
With the new 1.13 firmware arriving as I was just about to
publish the review, this kind of threw a spanner in the works. As the new
firmware reset the Octane to factory default (clean state), so I have included both
sets of results.
It should be noted that testing with firmware 1.13 was
compressed down to four days rather than the eleven days taken to test the
older firmware (1412). This meant that the SSD was not given as much idle time
with firmware 1.13 than it was with the older 1412 firmware, and this could
have an effect on the result.
The results are below.
Firmware 1412
New state 9/1/2012
Used state 20/1/2012
Firmware 1.13
New state 24/01/2012
Used state 28/01/2012
With 3.2 Terabytes of data already written to the drive
during the testing period, there is no real evidence of speed degradation after
some very heavy testing. Sequential reading and writing speeds have decreased
with firmware 1.13, but as I mentioned above, the OCZ Octane wasn’t given much
idle time with firmware 1.13. So this is more than likely the reason for the
decrease in sequential performance.
Overall, performance is still excellent though, especially given
the punishment the OCZ Octane has received during the last four days.
This concludes our review. To read the final thoughts and
conclusion, click the link below....
Final thoughts and the conclusion
User experience
A modern operating system such as Windows 7 rarely does one
thing at time; it processes hundreds of threads at once. Just take a look at
the processes and services that are running in task manager for an idea of how
much is going on, even with the PC idling at the desktop. When you start
running applications on top of this, the workload increases in line with the number
and type of applications you are running. It’s also fair to say that many of
these processes are already loaded into system RAM, but many are also loaded into
and unloaded from RAM from the system drive as and when they are required.
The fact of the matter is this. If you are running a mainstream
or high end modern PC with a powerful CPU and graphics card, and are still
running a traditional HDD as a system drive, regardless of how fast that HDD
is, it is still bogging the system down substantially. It has long since passed
the stage where one can meaningfully debate if an SSD is really faster than a
traditional HDD. The fact is they are, and not just by a little bit: they are
much faster.
If we look at the 3 basic requirements for a fast SSD, they
are as follows.
- Small file threaded performance needs to be high
- Small random file performance needs to be high
- Sequential read and write speeds needs to be high
The OCZ Octane 512GB has all of the above attributes. Couple
this to the Octane’s very low read and write latency, and you have an SSD that
performs much better in the real world than its specifications would suggest.
Stability
Last year (2011) was a good year for SSD innovation, with
SSDs based on the SandForce SF-2281 showing unheard of performance from a single
SATA SSD solution. The Crucial M4 was also another big star of 2011, offering
excellent performance.
Unfortunately 2011 was a bad year for SSD reliability. Every
single SATA 6Gbps SSD platform had problems with the new Intel Sandy Bridge
motherboards, including BSOD problems from SF-2281, Crucial M4, and the Samsung
830, and also the Intel 320 series having problems with the so called 8MB bug.
Generally all these problems have been sorted out with firmware updates.
The OCZ Octane has a new controller, the Indilinx Everest, which
only appeared a few weeks ago. OCZ assure me that they have done extensive
validation on this new controller, and so far I have no reason to doubt them on
this.
The OCZ Octane is as “plug n play” as it gets. There are no
special tweaks needed other than simply making sure that AHCI SATA mode is
enabled in the system UEFI (BIOS) if you want to get the best performance and
compatibility out of this SSD.
I have only had the OCZ Octane SSD for three weeks, so it’s
not possible to comment on the drive's long term reliability. But what I can
tell you now is that during the testing period, the OCZ Octane has been 100%
solid, with not a single issue to report.
Long term testing on the OCZ Octane begins now, and I will
report back if I should encounter any reliability issues with the SSD.
Conclusion:
Let us summarise the most important positive and negative
points below:
Positive:
- Silky smooth operation as a system drive.
- Excellent sequential reading and writing performance.
- Very good 4K random I/O performance at low queue depths.
- SATA 6Gbps support.
- TRIM support under Windows 7.
- Lightning fast access times.
- Completely silent operation.
- Fast operating system start-up and shutdown times.
- 3 years warranty.
Negative:
- Writing speeds do not scale very well when queue depths
rise.
To sum up, this is what I
would say:
OCZ can be very proud of what they have achieved with their
first SSD based on their own controller. In the real world the Octane is very
fast, and depending on your PC usage pattern, the Octane could be the fastest
SSD currently available.
Read and write access times are excellent, sequential
reading and writing performance is excellent, and the OCZ Octane has more than
enough random small file performance for any desktop PC scenario that I can
foresee.
On paper, the Octane may not look as fast as many SF-2281
based SSDs or the Crucial M4, but in the real world the Octane can hold its own
with the very best of them.
Price
As I write this article, I found the OCZ Octane 512GB SSD at
e-buyer for £655 Inc VAT, which translates to €784.24 at the current
exchange rate.
|
Model |
User capacity |
Price |
Cost per GB |
|
OCZ Octane 512GB |
477GB |
£655 |
£1.28 |
The parting sentence is
“The OCZ Octane is a well rounded SSD with excellent reading
and writing performance, and outstanding access times”.
You may comment on this review below.
Thanks to:
|
|
EFD Software for |
|
|
Alex |
|
|
