Vertex 3 120 results...

zod96 said:
I'll post my C300 128GB benches tomorrow. But I know they are pretty darn close to the vertex 3..
Click to expand...

Here's my two 256GB C300s in RAID0 on an ICH10....

asssdbenchvolume0422011.png
 
Old Hippie said:
Here's my two 256GB C300s in RAID0 on an ICH10....
Click to expand...

Do you have any single drive ICH10R numbers? What stripe size and cluster size?

I used 128K for both. Updated with new version of AS-SSD:

V3Raid0128KBICH10RnotOSdrive.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm hopin' to have my 2nd V3 120 midweek with any luck - I'll post R0 numbers on the 2 6G intel P67 ports.
 
Old Hippie said:
Nope.


Same, same.


Same version I've been using.

If I could get this LSI SATA6Gb/s card to work correctly I could get a little more Seq. read speed.
Click to expand...


Your numbers look right, mine look a bit slow for some reason. Especially the 4k-64Thrd lines. 4k seems good. I know the C300 is a good drive, but I wonder if the speed difference has to do with 256GB drives versus 120GB ones? Even my sequential writes seem to be too slow. V3s are suppose to be sequential monsters.

Heres my last run Raid 0 ICH10R:

V3Raid0128KBICH10RnotOSdrive.jpg


Versus single V3 on Guru3d:

imageview.php



My raid setup barely has faster seq writes versus the single drive and Sata II limits should not be reached yet as seen in your C300 posting. Not to mention slower 4k-64Thrd writes than a single drive?

Wonder if there is something wrong with my Raid setup.
 
Last edited:
Speed is great and all but when are these damn things going to come down in price?
 
The one thing I do not understand is the 4k results. The Vertex 3 gets about 20 read and 70 write. My C300 gets about 35 read and about 90 write. So although the Vertex 3 really shines in Seq reads and writes it sure doesn't break any records with 4K. And it seems to me that 4K is probably the most important or am I wrong?
 
Vega, the 120's are way down on seq. writes from the 240's. This has been well-known for weeks.

zod, it's not so much the Vertex 3 that isn't very strong on 4K, it's ALL of the new SATA3 SSDs - C400, 510, V3 etc.
 
I was actually going to sell my C300 and get the Vertex 3. But after seeing the benchmarks from users its not that much faster. I'll stick with the C300 for now..
 
There's many threads on this already, but some peoples thoughts are that once a certain amount of 4K performance has been reached, there is little to no "felt" benefit to further increases. Strictly talking 4K here, most all newer SSDs are there. The only area left to increase the "felt" performance is in sequential speeds, which the new drives do well.
In all of the "real world" benchtests created (not AS SSD), the V3s and C400s are on top.
My guess is for what 90% of normal usage is, increasing 4K performance doesn't equate to a better experience.
Also, keep in mind Vega's screenshots are from a non 6G controller. He's limiting some of those V3's performance potential.
 
Brahmzy said:
There's many threads on this already, but some peoples thoughts are that once a certain amount of 4K performance has been reached, there is little to no "felt" benefit to further increases. Strictly talking 4K here, most all newer SSDs are there. The only area left to increase the "felt" performance is in sequential speeds, which the new drives do well.
In all of the "real world" benchtests created (not AS SSD), the V3s and C400s are on top.
My guess is for what 90% of normal usage is, increasing 4K performance doesn't equate to a better experience.
Also, keep in mind Vega's screenshots are from a non 6G controller. He's limiting some of those V3's performance potential.
Click to expand...

To me randoms still remain as the most valueble stat, but there are some people that need big sequentials, The SSD Manufacturers Bluff. Overall i think most ssd manufactures went for big sequentails sacrificing randoms out of having a better marketing tool.
 
While I usually buy into the marketing-is-the-devil-mentality, I'm not convinced this time. Every manufacturer went that route - even intel. I'd like to hear from the engineers themselves on this... Otherwise we're all makin' guesses...

I do find it humorous though that the Sandforce drives managed to hit that magic 500mb/s seq. read, by a very narrow margin... I can almost hear the marketing team yelling at the engineers "Get the damn thing over 500mb/s!! Do whatever it takes!!!" :p
 
Vega said:
My raid setup barely has faster seq writes versus the single drive and Sata II limits should not be reached yet as seen in your C300 posting. Not to mention slower 4k-64Thrd writes than a single drive?
.
Click to expand...

I think the main problem is because Vertex 3 is designed to operate with SATA3 interface and you are running them with SATA2 interface.


Another factor of the problem is probably because SATA3 is so new that it will take awhile before all the firmware,drivers ect. optimize SATA3 speeds.

Hopefully by the time Intel X79 chip set comes out SATA3 will work better.


Also since everyone is posting benchmarks here is my RAID 0 Vertex 2 screen shots.


AlignedRAID02x50GBVertex2.jpg


ATTO2x60GBRAID0.jpg



The above benchmarks were done shortly after proper configuration of RAID 0 with available firmware and drivers at time. (About 3 months ago) :( My benchmarks are done using SATA2 technology.

My RAID 0 with Vertex 2 is currently broken as of 3 days ago. Waiting for either RMA or support from OCZ.
 
Old Hippie said:
Thanks!

I bought an LSI SATA6Gb/s card to hopefully open them up but it's not working out well yet.

Have you seen my thread about the LSI card?
Click to expand...




So your bench screen shots you posted in this thread were done with SATA3 speeds?
 
zod96 said:
The one thing I do not understand is the 4k results. The Vertex 3 gets about 20 read and 70 write. My C300 gets about 35 read and about 90 write. So although the Vertex 3 really shines in Seq reads and writes it sure doesn't break any records with 4K. And it seems to me that 4K is probably the most important or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Um no your C300 does not get 35 MB in AS SSD 4K reads. That is impossible. Old Hippie posted his 4k reads on Raid 0 C300 and only got 24 MB. I received 26 MB/sec in 4k reads on the Raid 0 Vertex 3 which is quite high, so I do not think the drives are lacking there.
 
Someone on another forum with Crucial C300 128 GB without RAID and with MSAHCI driver and 0002 firmware on Sata 2 port has 30.76 MB/s for 4K reads and 74.69 MB/s for 4K writes.

He wrote that now he getting slightly better results comparing to when his C300 was new and less occupied.
 
Let's get back on point, people... Is the Vertex 3 120gb version worth buying??? Everyone knows the 240gb version is king of the hill, but what about the 120gb? How does it compare to other 120gb SSDs? I need to know whether I should buy the 120gb version or not, pretty quick! (I'm sure there are many people in my position too)
 
Vega said:
Um no your C300 does not get 35 MB in AS SSD 4K reads. That is impossible. Old Hippie posted his 4k reads on Raid 0 C300 and only got 24 MB. I received 26 MB/sec in 4k reads on the Raid 0 Vertex 3 which is quite high, so I do not think the drives are lacking there.
Click to expand...
The 4K speeds are CPU limited; one thread one core; singlethreaded CPU performance bottlenecks would appear here.

When testing 4K read performance (single queue) you will only use one channel (out of 8/10 available channels). So if you have one SSD or a million in RAID0 will not matter here; the performance will:
1) depend 100% on random read latency, assuming fast enough CPU
2) in real-life often bottlenecked by the CPU; quadcore with hyperthreading would be 100% bottlenecked when it says 12,5% cpu usage (=100% load on one core with hyperthreading).

30MB/s 4K read is possible on fast systems.
 
Vega said:
Um no your C300 does not get 35 MB in AS SSD 4K reads. That is impossible. Old Hippie posted his 4k reads on Raid 0 C300 and only got 24 MB. I received 26 MB/sec in 4k reads on the Raid 0 Vertex 3 which is quite high, so I do not think the drives are lacking there.
Click to expand...

A guy on overclockers hit 31.5MB/s 4k reads on a single 64gb c300 on SATA 2


http://www.overclock.net/ssd/943183-my-c300-speeds-up-par.html#post12417020

196040d1297930853-my-c300-speeds-up-par-ssd-bench-c300-ctfddac064m-10.08.2010-15


Another guy in the same thread hit 33.13MB/s 4k reads on his 2 c300's in RAID 0.
http://www.overclock.net/ssd/943183-my-c300-speeds-up-par.html#post12416999
 
KENNYB said:
If it's like the Vertex 2, then not long. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

+1

There are SO many Vertex 2 problem threads here alone...

I'm really hoping the Vertex 3 is an improvement, though it won't help OCZ's reputation much. ;)
 
DisrupTer911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I saw a significant performance drop in less than 3 months. I followed their so-called "guides" to a freaking T. I hope the early adopters the best of luck, but some of us got burned with Vertex 2s. I ain't getting fooled again. :mad:
 
Alt-PrtScrn will just copy the currently focused window to the clipboard (as opposed to printscreen, which, as you can see, copies the entire desktop)
 
Here's an interesting run from PCMark Vantage on my single 120. Something fishy?
 
Brahmzy said:
There's many threads on this already, but some peoples thoughts are that once a certain amount of 4K performance has been reached, there is little to no "felt" benefit to further increases. Strictly talking 4K here, most all newer SSDs are there. The only area left to increase the "felt" performance is in sequential speeds, which the new drives do well.
In all of the "real world" benchtests created (not AS SSD), the V3s and C400s are on top.
My guess is for what 90% of normal usage is, increasing 4K performance doesn't equate to a better experience.
Also, keep in mind Vega's screenshots are from a non 6G controller. He's limiting some of those V3's performance potential.
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well. I mean, even with my Intel G2, I don't feel any bottleneck when it comes to OS usage (aka 4K reads). With multitasking, queue depth goes up as well, making those read speeds get even higher on these newer drives. The only bottleneck now is sequential loading...this should be felt mainly with game loading and any other application working with large amounts of sequential data.

Benchmarks are good and all, but I'd like to see some real world scenario data to see how this influences Windows loading, games loading, parallel application loading, installation times, etc...
 
Brahmzy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry I don't know too much about SSDs and from what I've gathered it seems like a single v3 240 gb is better than a single v3 120 gb but somehow R0 v3 2x120 gb is better than a single 240 gb and more expensive? Am I wrong? If not why is this? I wasn't able to find any old threads on this.
 
Well ya, 2x 120GB Raid 0 V3's will be like 70% faster than a single V3 240GB and only ~$50 more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top