Vertex 3 120 results...

B

Brahmzy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
5,023
Just got my first in, waiting for my 2nd.

For those who care here's some AS SSD * ATTO action. I'll have some IOMeter up shortly.




 
Last edited:
CDM seems to give anomalous results for 4K read on some SSDs. I'm not sure why.
 
Its nice to see that it still gets 500mb/s seq read with the 120GB version.
 
I'll be going with the M4 eventually myself, not convinced the new Sandforce's will hold even close to those numbers over time.
 
is the sequential write score supposed to be that low?
 
EnderW said:
is the sequential write score supposed to be that low?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is expected. A 128GB Crucial m4 is slightly faster on sequential write. A 120GB Intel 320 is a bit slower. Most of the recent SSDs in the 120GB range are in the same ballpark for incompressible data sequential write, 130 - 175 MB/s. The Intel 510 would be a bit faster, but it sacrifices 4KB high QD performance to achieve that.

The Sandforce will probably slow down for a while, to 130MB/s or below on sequential write, after it has been heavily used.
 
EnderW said:
is the sequential write score supposed to be that low?
Click to expand...

Isn't that part of the trade-off for the higher 4k scores which according to the new way of thinking, will improve the desktop experience?
 
EnderW said:
is the sequential write score supposed to be that low?
Click to expand...

Precisely why you R0 2 120's instead of buying a single 240.
The 120's take a hit somewhere from the 240's with almost every manufacturer.
 
The 120's take a hit somewhere from the 240's with almost every manufacturer.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing it here but it seems that all the newer drives are lowering the seq. read rates in order to raise the 4k reads.

It doesn't matter what size the drive is.

I'm not gonna bother with someone elses homework but for all I know this V3 drive has lower seq. read speeds tha a V2 drive of the same size.
 
Sequential reads are the same - the 240 and the 120 are both around 500-525.
The V3 120's take the hit on on 4K random IOPS from the 240' (almost half).
The V3 120's take a hit on access times from the 240's.
The V3 120's take a hit on sequential writes from the 120's.

No V2 comes close to a 6G V3 on sequential reads to my knowledge.

As soon as my other 120 comes in, I'll be posting benches from the array and comparing to the 240 - the whole intent was to be at the same cost while outperforming the 240, in addition to the large headroom inherent to R0 arrays.
 
the whole intent was to be at the same cost while outperforming the 240, in addition to the large headroom inherent to R0 arrays.
Click to expand...
That's the reason why I've always used RAID0 on two smaller drives.

No V2 comes close to a 6G V3 on sequential reads to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
If the drives' interfaces on the V2s are SATA3Gb/s and the V3s are SATA6Gb/s it's not a valid comparison.

AAR, I hope the drives do well.

My second Crucial 256GB C300 is coming today so maybe we'll have a better comparision when you get your second drive.
 
Old Hippie said:
Isn't that part of the trade-off for the higher 4k scores which according to the new way of thinking, will improve the desktop experience?
Click to expand...
well the 4k write scores are high, but the 4k read scores are lower than my Intel G2

anyone seen any real world comparison tests between SSDs? I'd like to see if there is any difference in things like game load times, reboots, program launching, etc
 
DisrupTer911 said:
Just as long as any other SSD i suspect...
Click to expand...
I've never had an SSD that didn't lose some performance until I got a Crucial 256GB C300.

As a matter of fact, some speeds actually improved after a little use.

I've had GSkill, Intel, OCZ, and Crucial drives so it's not like I haven't had any experience...;)
 
Old Hippie said:
I've never had an SSD that didn't lose some performance until I got a Crucial 256GB C300.

As a matter of fact, some speeds actually improved after a little use.

I've had GSkill, Intel, OCZ, and Crucial drives so it's not like I haven't had any experience...;)
Click to expand...

yep, my Vertex 2 120GB takes the same amout of time to resume from standby as my C300 64GB taks to boot to desktop :( Similar setups, except the C300 is bogged down further from having to store Softimage/Mental ray on it, too. I've already decided on not going Sandforce until some more long term effect useability reviews are posted, not just the same old canned benchmarks over and over again.
 
jeremyshaw said:
I've already decided on not going Sandforce until some more long term effect useability reviews are posted, not just the same old canned benchmarks over and over again.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I read Crucial will be using a SF controller in the future.

I remember being suprised but hopeful that the new SF controllers wouldn't have the same problems as the old.
 
36371.png


36372.png


how important are these results?

the new intel ssd's are not looking good in those benchmarks.
 
NewEgg is having a ridiculous sale on the 120GB C300's too right now.
Tempted to pick two of 'em up, build an array, compare to the V3's, get some real-world usage of my own and sell whatever's slower - if I could even tell, haha.
 
My suspicion is that the extra write latency is a tradeoff for the more agressive garbage collection. It's probably going to be inversely proportional to the speed dropoffs use see under heavy usage.

Basically the crucial doesn't stall writing down lots of little information, but then as it runs out of free blocks it has a harder time finding efficient places to put data (or ends up with a big amount of GC work that has been deferred).

Intel, on the other hand, amortizes that cost with each write - so each write takes longer, but as you get closer to full the drive is still in a more optimal conditions.

All IMHO of course, and I'm definitely not a SSD firmware engineer, and don't have an inside source, this is just supposition.
 
Brahmzy said:
NewEgg is having a ridiculous sale on the 120GB C300's too right now.
Tempted to pick two of 'em up, build an array, compare to the V3's, get some real-world usage of my own and sell whatever's slower - if I could even tell, haha.
Click to expand...
link?
 
Win 7 installed in like 4 minutes with Raid 0 Vertex 3's.

Not bad for being stuck on ICH10R:

Vertex3Raid0ICH10R128KBStripe.jpg
 
Spoke to OCZ technicians today about problem with my Vertex 2 RAID 0 set up. After 3 months of use my storage space is full and I'm unable to get it back. I asked about doing a raid 0 with the new Vertex 3 and I was told that OCZ does not recommend RAID 0 with Vertex 2 or Vertex 3 because a single SSD is already running in RAID and setting up 2 or more RAID 0 SSD's will only cause problems.

I would be happy with the results you have and settle for a stable operating SSD. You don't want to have a problem like me.
 
Either that OCZ tech doesn't have a clue what he is talking about or you misunderstood what he said. ;)
 
Vega said:
Either that OCZ tech doesn't have a clue what he is talking about or you misunderstood what he said. ;)
Click to expand...


I understood him but I'm not pleased with having to do a secure erase and reinstall my OS. :mad:

I've never had to do this much maintenance on a OS storage drive. Looking at the forums over at OCZ looks like these drives are recommended to have a secure erase every 3 months with a new OS install. Crazy IMO.

Love SSD speed but not happy with maintenance.
 
Vertex 3 is suppose to have pretty good garbage collection. Although, doing a secure erase isn't hard at all once you get the process down.
 
No need to do a reinstall just to do a secure erase - image the drive before the secure erase, then put it all right back on.

Complete reinstalls every 3 months, how quaint. I usually do at least 3 a month, and I don't even have an SSD... yet. ;)
 
I'll post my C300 128GB benches tomorrow. But I know they are pretty darn close to the vertex 3..
 
Joe Average said:
No need to do a reinstall just to do a secure erase - image the drive before the secure erase, then put it all right back on.

Complete reinstalls every 3 months, how quaint. I usually do at least 3 a month, and I don't even have an SSD... yet. ;)
Click to expand...

Umm, why?
 
I'm not in a raid configuration, 1 V2 120gb on a Sata 6Gb/s port.

Been running this way for close to 6 months now and haven't felt the need to reinstall or noticed dramatic speed decreases...

System is used daily for web browser, gaming, and photo editing...
 
DisrupTer911 said:
I'm not in a raid configuration, 1 V2 120gb on a Sata 6Gb/s port.

Been running this way for close to 6 months now and haven't felt the need to reinstall or noticed dramatic speed decreases...

System is used daily for web browser, gaming, and photo editing...
Click to expand...


You may need to do secure erase soon. Based on the OCZ support forums secure erase every 3-6 months is a must to keep the performance up and to avoid problems like I'm having. I have had my RAID 0 partition up and running for close to 4 months. Time to do secure erase. Not that hard I guess just a huge inconvenience. I will take the opportunity to update the firmware at least and start fresh again.
 
meh...
I'm definitely not doing a wipe/reimage every 3-5 months.

That's just ludicrous IMO. I'll do my next fresh install when I replace the Vertex2 with a Sata3 6Gb/s drive.
until then, unless something happens it will remain how it is and I'll continue to do tests periodically to see how performance is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top