 |
Review: OCZ Vertex 4 – 512GB SSD |
It was only last month that I reviewed the
OCZ Vertex 4. A lot can happen in a month and this was certainly the case
with OCZ's new flagship consumer grade SSD, the Vertex 4.
Every single reviewer on the Internet assumed that the words
"Indilinx Infused" meant that the Everest 2 controller was a
completely in house design from Indilinx. OCZ never claimed this, but it turns
out the silicon is in fact a proprietary Marvell controller, and the firmware
is Indilinx. In actual fact it doesn't matter, as to me what is important is
how the drive performs, and how stable the drive is in everyday use.
So here we are, one month down the line, and OCZ is about to
release a new firmware for the Vertex 4. The review sample I have is the 512GB
version which is already an awesome performer, in fact the fastest SSD I have
tested here at MyCE.com. When I tested the Vertex 4 last month I couldn't find
any real performance issues. Partly this was due to how I test SSDs. I tend to
test in a manner that I think is important to the majority of MyCE members, and
there is a great many of us who edit video, graphics, and audio.
In any case, in my original Vertex review I failed to highlight
that low queue depth (QD1) sequential reading performance with the original
Vertex 4 shipping firmware wasn't very good, in fact it was decidedly subpar. I
had noted that overall sequential reading performance could be better, but that
should not excuse me from failing to find a weak point in an SSD. However, it's
a lesson learned.
With firmware version 1.4, OCZ have raised the bar again.
The 128GB and 256GB models will see the largest performance increase, but even
the already blazingly fast 512GB model will also see some performance gains.
Adding to the impressive figures below, low queue depth (QD1) sequential
reading performance will also receive a boost with the new firmware.
Okay, let's get on with the testing. For this article there
simply wasn't time to run a full set of tests, but I also thought it was
important to run enough tests with the new firmware to make sure the results
were representative of the performance the end user can expect to get when
updating to firmware 1.4
Note: The 1.4 firmware update is a destructive flash.
Make sure you backup all important data before flashing.
Let's head to the next page for a recap of the OCZ Vertex
4 hardware......
OCZ Vertex 4 SSD hardware.
Let's take a closer look at the hardware.
Drive internals
OCZ Vertex 4 512GB SSD (PCB top-side)
On the top side of the PCB, we can see eight MLC NAND chip
packages, and the first of two 512MB of SDRAM cache packages. We can also see
what are thought to be channel muxing chips to provide optimum throughput to
the NAND array.
OCZ Vertex 4 512GB SSD (PCB underside)
On the underside of the PCB we can see another eight NAND
chips, the Indilinx Everest 2 controller, and the second 512MB of cache. Note
the strange orientation of the Everest 2 controller. OCZ didn’t place it that
way just to be different, and there are sound engineering principles why the
controller is orientated in this fashion.
Placing the controller in the centre of the PCB and placing
it at an offset angle allows the distance to each of the NAND chips to be
minimised. The shorter the distance a signal has to travel, then the faster it
will be and will be less prone to picking up noise which then degrades the
signal, as a degraded signal will then require greater error correction. So orientating
the controller in this fashion has technical advantages.
Indilinx Everest 2 SSD platform controller.
Above we can see the brand new 400 series Indilinx Everest 2
SSD processor, designated IDX400M00-BC on the OCZ Vertex 4 series of SSDs.
Intel 25nm MLC NAND
The OCZ Vertex 4 series 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 476GB.
Micron DDR3 SDRAM cache
Above we can see the cache chips that are fitted to the OCZ
Vertex 4. They consist of two 800MHz DDR3 SDRAM chip packages manufactured by
Micron, each chip has a capacity of 512MB giving a total of 1GB of cache. The
cache provides a stable read and write buffer for the Everest 2 controller, and
also provides space for things such as deferred writes, and other housekeeping
tasks.
Advanced feature set
- Broadest NAND flash support,
including 1xnm and TLC - Up to 8 NAND flash channels with up
to 16-way interleaving per channel - Up to 550 MB/s transfer rates when
using synchronous NAND - HyperQueueing™ and Native Command
Queuing (NCQ), with a queue depth up to 32 commands, and algorithms to
optimize the order in which read and write operations are executed - Up to 8Gb (1GB) of 800MHz DDR2/DDR3
DRAM cache support - Multi-Level ECC with 128-bit
correction capability per 1KB of data - RNA Redundant NAND Array to protect against
catastrophic NAND flash failure - True end-to-end data path protection
performs data integrity checks at every juncture where data is
transmitted, received, processed and stored to ensure that corrupted data
will be detected and not propagated - Power fail protection and optional
Supercap support prevents data loss in the event of a power failure - Auto encryption and AES-256
encryption to protect and secure data - Additional flash management
techniques such as TRIM, background garbage collection, dynamic and static
wear-leveling and advanced flash defect management
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: Asus P8Z77 V Deluxe (Intel Z77 chipset)
- Processor: Intel 3nd generation Core i7 3770K
- RAM: 16GB Samsung Green DDR3 1600MHz (dual channel)
- GFX: Onboard Intel HD 4000
- Sound: Onboard Realtek ALC898 HD audio controller
- Hard disk OS: OCZ Octane 512GB SSD
- Hard disk storage: 1X 500GB Samsung Spinpoint F3, and 1X 1TB
Samsung Spinpoint F1. - Case: Antec Performance One P280
- PSU: Antec True Power modular 550W
- Display: Dell UltraSharp U2412M 24” widescreen IPS LCD (HDCP
compliant) - Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit with Service Pack 1
The OCZ Vertex 4 SSD was connected to the Intel native SATA 6Gbps
(port 0) on the Z77 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 11.1.0.1006
Test applications
To test the performance of the OCZ Vertex 4 512GB 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 Vertex 4 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 Vertex
4 SSD, and will complement this with advanced benchmarks using IOMeter and AS
SSD benchmark. I will also show how the OCZ Vertex 4 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 80,000 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 80,000 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 80,000 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 80,000 4K IOPS, IOPS is all about
latency. The reason that an SSD can cope with as much as 80,000 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 80,000 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
- 500GB Samsung SpinPoint F3 (HD502HJ) HDD
- 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
- OCZ Vertex 4 512GB SSD
- Plextor PX-256M3 256GB 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.
- The spinning HDD drive was 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 Vertex 4 512GB SSD
(firmware 1.4)
OCZ Vertex 4 512GB SSD
(original shipping firmware)
Comparison SSD
Comparison HDD
Now let's head to the next page, where I look at some
basic benchmarks...
Synthetic Benchmarks
HD Tune Pro
The average sequential read speed is 483.4 MB/s. Let's
compare this with some recently tested SSDs in the table below.
With the original shipping firmware, I was not able to run
the HD Tune sequential reading test. This has been fixed with firmware 1.4, and
while the OCZ Vertex 4 is not the fastest reading drive, it is still an
excellent performer.
ATTO disk benchmark
ATTO has become a standard tool for measuring the data
throughput of HDDs and SSDs. It measures the performance of reading and
writing, using different file sizes and block sizes.
The reading speed results on the OCZ Vertex 4 are extremely
impressive, topping out at just over 541MB/s, and the writing speed is also
very impressive topping out at over 465MB/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 Vertex 4 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, including 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 Vertex 4 in the
form of a screenshot. All our other comparison drives’ results are presented in
the form of a graph.
The OCZ Vertex 4 is showing quite astonishing performance in
the AS SSD test run, and it's miles ahead of the competition.
Summary:
The Vertex 4 has shown that its performance is excellent, with
the new 1.4 firmware performing even better than the original shipping
firmware.
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 OCZ Vertex 4
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 Vertex 4 SSD – 4K random write (QD1)
At 139.47 MB/s the OCZ Vertex 4 is showing astonishing performance
at this queue depth, but this was achieved with the original shipping firmware.
Firmware 1.4 is far more sedate with 76.64 MB/s. So why has it dropped from the
original shipping firmware?
In this world you get nothing for free. If you're going to
improve performance drastically in one area where it was weak before, then you
must pay with a hit in performance elsewhere. However, reducing the QD1 4K
random write performance 139MB/s to 76MB/s will go unnoticed in a desktop PC,
where it is very unlikely that you would need even 76MB/s at queue depth 1.
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 Vertex 4 (Queue depth 4)
At a queue depth of 4, the OCZ Vertex 4 performance is very
strong indeed, and is once more well ahead of the other SSDs in this test, however
again firmware 1.4 is slightly slower than the original shipping firmware.
Queue depth 32
OCZ Vertex 4 (Queue depth 32)
The SandForce SF-2281 SSD processor is known to scale very
well with increasing queue depths, so it’s no surprise to see the two SF-2281
based SSDs doing very well in this test; however they still can’t keep pace
with the OCZ Vertex 4, which is once again the fastest SSD.
IOMeter 4K random write test with fully random data.
This test is exactly the same as the test above except that
the test data is fully random and is therefore much more difficult to compress.
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 much more realistic scenario.
Queue depth 4
OCZ Vertex 4 SSD – 4K random write (QD4 with fully random data)
The OCZ Vertex 4 doesn’t compress data on the fly like the
SandForce based SSDs, so performance is not affected when it has to deal with
data that is not so easy to compress, and it is still miles ahead of the other
SSDs in this test.
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.
If there was ever a test that graphically leaves you in no
doubt as to which SSD is the fastest, then this is it. While the two SandForce
SF-2281 based SSDs offer huge performance at high queue depths, they are still
not as fast as the Everest 2 based OCZ Vertex 4, and what is even more
impressive is that the OCZ Vertex 4 reaches this level of performance at much
lower queue depths. Even at a queue depth of only 3, it is outgunning the
SF-2281 based SSDs at queue depth 32, and for a desktop user this is very important,
as typical desktop user patterns are pretty much all at lower queue depths.
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 Vertex 4 SSD (Queue depth 1)
Firmware 1.4 is again a bit slower than the original
shipping firmware, but even then is still ahead of the rest.
Queue depth 4
OCZ Vertex 4 SSD (Queue depth 4)
The Crucial C300 has been King of 4K random read for a long
time, but just a few weeks ago the Plextor PX-256M3 ran it very close. There is
now a new King of 4K random read, the OCZ Vertex 4 which lifts the performance
bar considerably.
Queue depth 32
OCZ Vertex 4 SSD (Queue depth 32)
There are no surprises here, and once again the OCZ Vertex 4
is out in front by a large margin.
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 Vertex 4 is once again exceptional. It’s faster at
low queue depths than any of the other SSDs in this test, but it doesn’t stop
there, and as queue depths rise it pulls further and further ahead of the other
SSDs.
IOMeter 512KB write test with repeating data.
Sequential writing performance is also very important; in
this test sequential writing performance is measured.
OCZ Vertex 4 SSD – 512K sequential write
The OCZ Vertex 4 has very good sequential writing
performance, but was never going to catch the two SandForce SF-2281 based SSDs
when writing data that is easily compressible.
IOMeter 512KB write test with fully random data.
This test is exactly the same as the test above except that
the test data is fully random in nature. 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 more realistic light.
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 Vertex 4 SSD – 512K sequential write with fully random data
With data that is not so easy to compress, the SandForce SF-2281
based SSDs take a big hit in performance. Not so for the OCZ Vertex 4 with its
Indilinx Everest 2 controller, and the Vertex 4 is comfortably the fastest
drive.
IOMeter 512KB read test.
This test measures 512k sequential reading performance.
Queue depth 1
As we can see, low queue depth sequential reading
performance is significantly better with firmware 1.4.
Queue depth 2
OCZ Vertex 4 512K Sequential write with repeating data
Although the OCZ Vertex 4 has excellent sequential reading
performance, it is outgunned by quite a few other SSDs in this test. The margin
isn’t huge, but some firmware tweaking to improve “sustained” sequential
reading performance would be welcome.
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 Vertex 4 SSD – Workstation simulation
The workstation simulation is interesting as the test
pattern is more in tune with the real world. Firmware 1.4 is a huge improvement
over the original shipping firmware in the OCZ Vertex 4, and in fact puts the
Vertex 4 miles ahead of the other SSDs in this test.
Summary
As a desktop SSD, the OCZ Vertex 4 has raised the
performance bar by a large margin. At lower queue depths the Vertex 4 is
untouchable. It pays no performance penalty with data that is non-compressible,
and at higher queue depths it is still a good deal faster with small file
random data than any of the other SSDs in this article. Sequential writing
performance is excellent especially with non-compressible data, sequential
reading speed although excellent, is not quite as fast as some of the other
SSDs in this article.
All in all, the OCZ Vertex 4 is one very fast SSD.
Now let’s head to the next page where we will look at how
the OCZ Vertex 4 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. If you would like
to see screenshots of the test results obtained on the other SSDs in this
article, you can do so by following the link here.
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 Vertex 4 512GB (0 fill)
Total score
Firmware 1.4 is a bit behind the original shipping firmware,
but is still showing strong performance.
Application profile
OCZ Vertex 4 512GB SSD (application profile)
Total score
With data that isn’t so easily compressible, the OCZ Vertex
4 pulls out a larger lead over the two SandForce SF-2281 based SSDs, and once
again the original shipping firmware is the fastest.
100% incompressible
OCZ Vertex 4 512GB SSD (100% incompressible)
Total score
Once again the Vertex 4 is well out in front, and the
original shipping firmware is faster than firmware 1.4.
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 demonstrating 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 Vertex 4 has performed extremely well in these tests
and is by a large margin the fastest SSD.
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, and USB3.
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 Vertex 4 is the first SSD to break the 400 MB/s
barrier, being the fastest SSD in this test, and quite a bit faster than the
OCZ Vertex 3.
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.
With data that isn’t compressible you would have expected
the OCZ Vertex 4 to have done very well in this test, and it hasn’t
disappointed as it is the fastest SSD.
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.
Once again, the OCZ Vertex 4 is way out in front. Its
excellent low queue depth performance and ultra low access times paying a
handsome dividend.
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 9.
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 9 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 is another very clear demonstration of how fast the OCZ
Vertex 4 is, with its ultra low access times, and exceptional performance at
low queue depths clearly demonstrating its superiority.
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 Vertex 4 512GB SSD has raised the performance bar substantially, with
firmware 1.4 raising the bar even further.
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 4 basic requirements for a really 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.
- Fast access times.
The OCZ Vertex 4 512GB SSD has all of the above attributes
in abundance. The Indilinx Everest 2 is quite simply the most powerful SSD
processor available at the moment, and there is nothing else that can really
compete, not even the mighty SandForce SF-2281, which had been top dog for
nearly a whole year.
Stability
Having used the OCZ Vertex 4 continually over the past few
weeks, I can state that the Vertex 4 has been 100% stable with absolutely no
problems to report. Firmware 1.4 is of course new, and the version I have
tested here is a release candidate. I'm assured by OCZ that the final version
will be available very soon, and perhaps available right now. OCZ also assures
me that the final version will have the exact same performance as the version I
have tested in this article. Regarding stability, all is well, over the testing
period.
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.
- Outstanding 4K random I/O performance at low and high queue
depths. - SATA 6Gbps support.
- TRIM support under Windows 7.
- Ultra fast access times.
- Completely silent operation.
- Fast operating system start-up and shutdown times.
- 5 years warranty.
Negative:
- Nothing to mention
To sum up, this is what I
would say:
Throughout this review, the OCZ Vertex 4 has gone head to head
with the best of the rest, and that includes SSDs such as the Intel 520, the
Crucial M4, Plextor PX-256M3, and OCZ’s own Vertex 3. In all but a couple of
instances the Vertex 4 has been by far the best performer, and in some cases
has been an absolute country mile ahead of the rest. Its ability to produce
breathtaking performance at very low queue depths, and those ultra fast access
times mean that the OCZ Vertex 4 is by far the fastest SATA SSD we have ever
tested here at MyCE.com.
Firmware version 1.4 has made some significant improvements
to an already excellent SSD, such as very much improved queue depth 1
sequential reading performance, which in the real world makes this SSD even
better than the original firmware that shipped with the OCZ Vertex 4.
The parting sentence is
“With firmware 1.4 for the OCZ Vertex 4, the best got
even better”.
You may comment on this review below.
Thanks to:
|
|
EFD Software for |
|
|
Alex |
|
|
