Reviews > Storage > Review: OCZ Vector 256 Gigabyte

Review: OCZ Vector 256 Gigabyte

Published by Marc Büchel on 27.11.12 (19230 reads)
« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 ... 12 »

How do we test?


We recommend that readers who aren't interested in test procedures jump over this page and head directly to the test results.

Models tested
  • ADATA S511 60 GByte MLC
  • ADATA S511 SSD 120 GByte MLC
  • ADATA XPG mSATA SSD SX 300 128 GByte
  • Corsair F100 100 GByte MLC
  • Corsair Force 3 120 GByte MLC
  • Corsair Force GS 240 Gigabyte
  • Corsair Force GT 120 GByte MLC
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 240 Gigabyte
  • Corsair P128 128 GByte MLC
  • Corsair X128 128 GByte MLC
  • Extrememory XLR8 Express 120 GByte MLC
  • Intel SSD 520 Series 180 GByte
  • Intel SSD 520 Series 240 GByte
  • Intel X25-E 32 GByte SLC
  • Intel X25-M 80 GByte MLC
  • Intel X25-M Gen2 160 GByte MLC
  • Intel X25-M Gen2 160 GByte MLC Raid0
  • Kingmax SMP35 Client 240 Gigabyte
  • Kingston HyperX 120 GByte MLC
  • Kingston HyperX 3K SSD 120 GByte
  • Kingston HyperX 240 GByte SSD MLC
  • Kingston SSDNow V+ 64 GByte MLC
  • Kingston SSDNow V+ 200 90 GByte
  • Kingston SSDNow VSeries 40 GByte MLC
  • OCZ Agility 128 GByte MLC
  • OCZ Agility 3 240 GByte MLC
  • OCZ Agility 4 256 Gigabyte
  • OCZ Apex 120 GByte MLC
  • OCZ IBIS 240 GByte MLC
  • OCZ Octane 512 GByte
  • OCZ Octane 1000 GByte
  • OCZ RevoDrive 3 240 GByte
  • OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2 480 GByte PCIe-SSD MLC
  • OCZ Revo Drive X2 480 GByte MLC
  • OCZ RevoDrive Hybrid 120GB SSD, 1TB HDD
  • OCZ Synapse 64 GByte
  • OCZ Vector 256 GByte MLC
  • OCZ Vertex 120 GByte MLC
  • OCZ Vertex 3 240 GByte MLC
  • OCZ Vertex 4 256 Gigabyte FW 1.5
  • OCZ Vertex 4 256 GByte Firmware 1.4RC
  • OCZ Vertex 4 512 GByte Firmware 1.4RC
  • OCZ Vertex 4 512 GByte
  • OCZ Vertex 4 256 GByte
  • Photofast G-Monster 120 GByte V2 MLC
  • Samsung SSD PM800 64 GByte MLC
  • Samsung SSD PM800 256 GByte MLC
  • Samsung PM830 128 GByte
  • Samsungs PM 830 SSD 256 GByte MLC
  • Samsung PM840Pro 256 Gigabyte
  • SanDisk Extreme SSD 240 GByte
  • SanDisk Extreme SSD 120 GByte


    Motherboard ASUS P8P67 Deluxe B3  
    Chipset Intel P67 1'333 MHz
    CPU Intel Core i7 2600k 3.4 GHz
    Memory Kingston HyperX 2133 4 GByte
    Graphics card Gigabyte GeForce GTX 285  
    Storage (system) Seagate Barracuda 640 GByte
    Operating systems Ubuntu - most recent Kernel version Windows 7 64 Bit with caching drives
    Filesystem XFS  

    We think everybody reading this article can imagine the following scenario: You just bought a hard drive which according the specs sheet should transfer 120 MByte/s reading and writing. In the reviews you read about astonishing 110 MByte/s but after you put the drive into you system it feels much slower. The whole story gets even worse when you start a benchmark which does randomread/write of 4 KByte blocks. There you only get two to three MBytes/s.

    Because of this we don't want to publish screenshots of standard programs like HD-Tach, HD-Tune, ... we want our tests to be

    • reproducible,
    • accurate
    • meaningful and
    • varied ...

    ... sind.

    We test with activated caches and NCQ (Native Command Queueing) because they're also activated under daily use. But the data size tested is always at least twice the amount of the memory. In this there will be no intereference.

    We noticed that the measuring error is constantly within ±2%. Therefore we mention it only here.

    Additionally we evaluate the S.M.A.R.T. data to assess if there are already errors.

    The following table give you a brief overview to which points we turn our centre of attention.

    Test Observations
    Sequential Read/Write Tests
    • Are the values within the specifications?
    • Which influence has the block size?
    • Which influence has the filesystems block size?
    Random Read/Write Tests
    • How severe is the influence on the theoretically possible (sequential) datarate?
    • Which influence has the block size?
    • Which influence has the block size on the filesystem?


    iozone3 is a benchmark suit for storage solutions which natively runs under Linux.

    Therefore we are testing the throughput with different block sizes using the following commands:


    • iozone -Rb test4k.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 4k -s4g -t32
    • iozone -Rb test16k.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 16k -s4g -t32
    • iozone -Rb test32k.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 32k -s4g -t32
    • iozone -Rb test64k.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 64k -s4g -t32
    • iozone -Rb test128k.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 128k -s4g -t32
    • iozone -Rb test256k.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 256k -s4g -t32


    • iozone -Rb test4ko.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 4k -s4g -t32 -O
    • iozone -Rb test16ko.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 16k -s4g -t32 -O
    • iozone -Rb test32ko.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 32k -s4g -t32 -O
    • iozone -Rb test64ko.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 64k -s4g -t32 -O
    • iozone -Rb test96ko.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 96k -s4g -t32 -O
    • iozone -Rb test128ko.xls -i0 -i1 -i2 -+n -r 128k -s4g -t32 -O


    Why do we test different block sizes?

    It is important to reproduce scenarios of daily usage. Certain parameters need to be variable during the test to make a statement about the product. In our test the parameters are the different block sizes. It defines the size in KBytes which is written/read on the drive during a transaction.

    With this method one can test the reading and writing of either small and big files. In a normal personal computer environment you usually don't find many files smaller than 16 KByte. The relative amount of small files is much bigger on a mail or database server. Therefore tests with small block sizes are of interest for database-based applications.

    In bigger RAID arrays the hard disk cache is usually disabled and the RAID-Controller takes over the job of caching. Exactly in such setups hard drives need to be very fast when reading or writing small amounts of data. Sequential throughput isn't interesting in this case.

    Page 1 - Introduction / Specs Page 7 - Random read KByte/s
    Page 2 - Impressions Page 8 - Sequential write ops
    Page 3 - How do we test? Page 9 - Sequential read ops
    Page 4 - Sequential write KByte/s Page 10 - Random write ops
    Page 5 - Sequential read KByte/s Page 11 - Random read ops
    Page 6 - Random write KByte/s Page 12 - Conclusion

    Discuss this article in the forum

    Navigate through the articles
    Previous article Review: Corsair Neutron GTX 240 GB OCZ PCI-Express SSD Special Next article
    Rating 3.10/5
    Rating: 3.1/5 (52 votes)
    comments powered by Disqus

    The comments are owned by the author. We aren't responsible for their content.
    Author Thread
    Published: 2012/12/5 20:27  Updated: 2012/12/5 21:08
     Re: OCZ Vector 256 Gigabyte
    Nicht ganz richtig, mit 5 Jahren Garantie als Alleinstellungsmerkmal.

    Samsungs SSD 840 Pro hat ebenfalls 5 Jahre Garantie und spielt leistungstechnisch in gleicher Liga.
    Published: 2012/12/15 1:28  Updated: 2012/12/16 18:20
     Re: OCZ Vector 256 Gigabyte
    Ein Langzeittest wäre bei dem Teil mal wichtig.
    Ich bin mir sicher das man nicht erst 5 Jahre warten muss bevor man die Garantie bei OCZ in Anspruch nehmen muss.
    Published: 2012/12/17 16:53  Updated: 2012/12/17 16:53
    Joined: 07/05/2004
    From: Zürich CH
    Comments: 3174
     Re: OCZ Vector 256 Gigabyte
    Ich werde mal schauen, dass ich mit OCZ was gescheites in dieser Hinsicht anreisen kann. Sprich, dass ich eine Vector im Handel bei irgendeinem online Shop kaufe und das Ding dann so lange teste, bis es stirbt.
    Published: 2013/1/17 18:45  Updated: 2013/1/17 18:45
     OCZ und neuer Controller? Die Erfahrung sagt: nix gut...
    Ich kann mir ehrlich gesagt nicht vorstellen, dass die Vector eine vernünftige Firmware hat. Meine Firma hat Ende letztes Jahr einige Vertex 4 angeschafft und die Bilanz ist: fast 50% Prozent Ausfall (auch meine war dabei). So schnell gibt es wohl keine OCZ SSD mehr bei uns. Zumal auch keine Datenrettung möglich ist. Wenn sich die SSD tot stellt war es das.

    Schnelligkeit und Lebensdauer der Flash-Bausteine sind generell gut bei aktuellen SSDs, das grösste Problem ist die Qualität der Firmware/Controller. Da haben auch andere Hersteller Probleme. Und warum nun ausgerechnet die Vector mit der OCZ Tradition der schlechten Qualität von Firmware/Controller brechen sollte, erschliesst mich trotz des Artikels nicht so ganz.

    Von daher ist ein Langzeittest sehr interessant, insbesondere wenn auch mal die Hardware gewechselt wird!
    Select Language


    Who is Online
    35 user(s) are online (18 user(s) are browsing Reviews)

    Members: 0
    Guests: 35